The Effect of a Brief Physician-Delivered Neurobiologically Oriented, Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (Brief-CBT) Intervention on Chronic Pain Acceptance in Youth with Chronic Pain-A Randomized Controlled Trial.

At the Stollery Children's Chronic Pain Clinic, new referrals are assessed by an interdisciplinary team. The final part of the intake assessment typically involves an explanation and compassionate validation of the etiology of chronic pain and an invitation to the youth to attend the group outpatient Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) program, called Pain 101, or to individual outpatient CBT. It was hypothesized that a brief physician-delivered CBT (brief-CBT) intervention at first point of contact improves subsequent pain acceptance. Using a randomized double blinded methodology, 26 participants received a standard intake assessment and 26 the standard assessment plus the brief-CBT intervention. Measures were taken at three points: pre and post-intake assessment and after Pain 101 or individual CBT (or day 30 post-assessment for those attending neither). The primary outcome measure was the Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire­Adolescent version (CPAQ-A). Comparing pre and post-intake measures, there was a significant (p = 0.002) increase in the CPAQ-A scores­four-fold more in the brief-CBT intervention group (p = 0.045). Anxiety (RCADS-T Score) was significantly reduced post-intake and significantly more reduced in the intervention group compared to the control group (p = 0.024). CPAQ-A scores were significantly increased (p < 0.001) (N = 28) and anxiety (RCADs-T) was significantly reduced by the end of Pain 101 (p < 0.003) (N = 29) as was fear of pain as measured by the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (p = 0.021). A physician-delivered brief-CBT intervention significantly and meaningfully increased CPAQ-A scores and reduced anxiety in youth with chronic pain. Furthermore, CBT through Pain 101 is effective at increasing acceptance, as well as reducing anxiety and fear of movement.

Pacing: a concept analysis of the chronic pain intervention.

BACKGROUND: The intervention of pacing is regularly recommended for chronic pain patients. However, pacing is poorly defined and appears to be interpreted in varying, potentially contradictory manners within the field of chronic pain. This conceptual lack of clarity has implications for effective service delivery and for researchers' ability to conduct rigorous study. An examination of the background literature demonstrates that while pacing is often one part of a multidisciplinary pain management program, outcome research is hindered by a lack of a clear and shared definition of this currently ill-defined construct. OBJECTIVES: To conduct a formal concept analysis of the term 'pacing'. METHODS: A standardized concept analysis process (including literature scoping to identify all uses of the concept, analysis to determine defining attributes of the concept and identification of model, borderline and contrary cases) was used to determine what the concept of pacing does and does not represent within the current evidence base. RESULTS: A conceptual model including the core attributes of action, time, balance, learning and self-management emerged. From these attributes, an evidence-based definition for pacing was composed and distributed to stakeholders for review. After consideration of stakeholder feedback, the emergent definition of pacing was finalized as follows: "Pacing is an active self-management strategy whereby individuals learn to balance time spent on activity and rest for the purpose of achieving increased function and participation in meaningful activities". CONCLUSION: The findings of the present concept analysis will help to standardize the use and definition of the term pacing across disciplines for the purposes of both pain management and research.

Allogeneic blood transfusion reduction by risk-based protocol in total joint arthroplasty.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of a preoperative protocol that triages patients awaiting total joint arthroplasty to one of four strategies designed to mitigate the risk of allogeneic blood transfusion (ABT) based on a priori transfusion risk on perioperative exposure to allogeneic blood. METHODS: We compared the transfusion experiences of a historical control series of 160 subjects with a study group of 160 subjects treated by protocol. Protocol subjects with hemoglobin (Hb) 100-129 g.L(-1) were given erythropoietin, dosed by weight. Subjects with Hb 130-139 g.L(-1) underwent preoperative autologous blood harvest and perioperative re-infusion as deemed clinically necessary. Subjects with Hb >139 g.L(-1) received no special intervention, unless they were aged >70 yr and weighed < 70 kg, in which case they received oral iron and folate supplementation. RESULTS: The relative risk of ABT in the Study group was 0.68 (95% confidence interval 0.54-0.85). The Control group received 104 units of allogeneic blood and the Study group received 35 units (P = 0.0007). These differences cannot be explained by differences in transfusion risk or autologous units transfused. There was no worsening of anemia or its consequences in the Study group. CONCLUSION: A simple protocol based on easily obtained preoperative clinical indices effectively targets interventions that mitigate the risk of ABT.

The effect of single-dose propofol injection on pain and quality of life in chronic daily headache: a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: On the basis of a small number of case studies, IV propofol has been advocated for the treatment of chronic daily headache (CDH). There has been no randomized controlled trial of this therapy. Our objective in this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was to determine whether a single IV dose of propofol 2.4 mg/kg results in clinically significant reduction in disability or pain in CDH for the next 30 days. METHODS: Eligible adults with CDH received either active treatment with IV propofol infusion (n = 20) or active placebo of IV midazolam (n = 20). The main outcome measures were (a) Headache Disability Inventory (HDI) at 30 days posttreatment, (b) Headache Index, a summary measure of headache intensity over the 30-day period, and (c) analgesic consumption measured as the Medication Quantification Scale version III. RESULTS: Propofol reduced the HDI by 9.47 points (sd 14.1) at 30 days after injection (P = 0.009), but this is a smaller reduction in headache-related disability than that which the developers of the HDI regard as clinically significant. There was no statistically significant change in HDI for the control group. There were no significant within- or between-group reductions in mean pain intensity as measured by the Headache Index or medication use as measured by the Medication Quantification Scale version III in either group. CONCLUSIONS: A single IV infusion of propofol 2.4 mg/kg produces a statistically significant, but not clinically meaningful, reduction in disability from CDH 30 days after infusion and does not reduce pain intensity or analgesic use. This study does not support this regimen of IV propofol for clinical management of CDH.