Pain control in thoracic oncology.

This review of pain management in lung cancer is based on the presentation of four cases of thoracic oncology patients with pain at various stages of their disease. The approach will be multidisciplinary, involving a thoracic oncologist, radiologist, thoracic and orthopaedic spine surgeon, radiation therapist, pain medicine specialist, and palliative care specialist. This multispecialty approach to the management of different painful presentations in thoracic oncology will demonstrate the complexity of each case and the improved patient outcomes which result from the involvement of different disciplines working in concert.In the USA, Europe and other countries, palliative care specialists often become rapidly involved in the management of these patients, coordinating social care and providing psychological support.Thoracic and orthopaedic spine subspecialists provide surgical methods to control tumour invasion, and improve quality of life and preservation of function in settings of even diffuse metastatic disease. Similarly, thoracic oncology and radiation therapists utilise both therapeutic and palliative chemotherapeutic and radiation therapy regimens to prolong and improve quality of life.The pain medicine specialist can, in addition to medication management, offer a variety of interventional approaches including unique drug delivery systems such as epidural analgesia, regional anaesthesia techniques, and intrathecal pumps, as well as neuromodulation techniques and neurolytic or neuroablative procedures.In the USA, these specialists complete an additional fellowship year in pain medicine following the completion of an anaesthesiology, physical medicine and rehabilitation, neurology or psychiatry residency. These programmes are accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, or ACGME (www.acgme.org).

Thromboembolic stroke: a rare complication associated with peri-procedural management of an epidural steroid injection.

BACKGROUND: Little attention has been afforded to the potential adverse sequelae of withholding anticoagulation therapy in a patient after neuraxial interventions. OBJECTIVE: Presenting a case of thromboembolic stroke in a patient after holding warfarin for a lumbar epidural steroid injection, previously unreported in published literature. The discussion that follows reviews the guidelines available to reduce the risk of thromboembolic events in anticoagulated patients in the periprocedural period. CASE REPORT: An 81-year-old female with radicular pain secondary to spinal stenosis had been seen on 5 previous occasions for lumbar epidural steroid injections. Prior to each procedure warfarin was held for 5-7 days with demonstrable reversal of anticoagulation to within the safe limits set for neuraxial techniques by the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine. On the morning following the sixth injection the patient was admitted to the hospital for new onset slurred speech and left-sided hemiparesis. A computed tomography scan established an acute, localized infarct in the distribution of the right middle cerebral artery. Her symptoms were non-reversible and permanent. CONCLUSIONS: Thromboembolism is a potentially devastating complication associated with atrial fibrillation. Twenty percent of thromboembolic events in patients with atrial fibrillation are fatal, and greater than 50% result in permanent disability. While thromboembolic events following a brief period of normalization of coagulation for interventions appear rare, so is the incidence of epidural hematomas. Considering the high mortality and permanent rate of disability with thromboembolic events associated with atrial fibrillation, perhaps it is time to balance our focus on the complications of withholding anticoagulation with those of bleeding.

Risk assessment of hemorrhagic complications associated with nonsteroidal antiinflammatory medications in ambulatory pain clinic patients undergoing epidural steroid injection.

UNLABELLED: We prospectively studied 1035 individuals undergoing 1214 epidural steroid injections to determine the risk of hemorrhagic complications. A history of bruising or bleeding was present in 176 (15%) patients. A platelet count was assessed in 77 patients before the epidural steroid injection; none was less than 100 x 10(9)/L. Nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) were reported by 383 (32%) patients, including 34 patients on multiple medications. Aspirin was the most common NSAID and was noted by 158 patients, including 104 patients on 325 mg or less per day. There were no spinal hematomas (major hemorrhagic complications). Blood was noted during needle or catheter placement in 63 (5.2%) patients (minor hemorrhagic complications). NSAIDs did not increase the frequency of minor hemorrhagic complications. However, increased age, needle gauge, needle approach, needle insertion at multiple interspaces, number of needle passes, volume of injectant, and accidental dural puncture were all significant risk factors for minor hemorrhagic complications. There were 42 patients with new neurologic symptoms or worsening of preexisting complaints that persisted more than 24 h after injection; median duration of the symptoms was 3 days (range, 1-20 days). Our results confirm those of previous studies performed in obstetric and surgical populations that document the safety of neuraxial techniques in patients receiving NSAIDs. We conclude that epidural steroid injection is safe in patients receiving aspirin-like antiplatelet medications. Minor worsening of neurologic function may occur after epidural steroid injection and must be differentiated from etiologies requiring intervention. IMPLICATIONS: Previous studies performed in obstetric and surgical populations have demonstrated that antiplatelet therapy does not increase the risk of spinal hematoma associated with spinal or epidural anesthesia and analgesia. We confirm the safety of epidural steroid injection in patients receiving aspirin-like medications.

Use of meperidine in patient-controlled analgesia and the development of a normeperidine toxic reaction.

HYPOTHESIS: Intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV PCA) meperidine hydrochloride can be used with a reasonable margin of safety. DESIGN: A retrospective review was performed of 355 medical records of patients receiving IV PCA meperidine treatment. Four groups of patients were defined, based on daily meperidine dose and the presence or absence of central nervous system excitation adverse effects. Use of more than 600 mg/d of meperidine hydrochloride was considered a high dose. SETTING: University tertiary care hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Postoperative patients from general, orthopedic, neurosurgical, gynecological, and urologic procedures receiving IV PCA. INTERVENTIONS: If patients were judged to have consumed significant amounts of meperidine, the analgesic regimen was modified to (1) discontinue meperidine therapy, (2) substitute hydromorphone hydrochloride, or (3) decrease the use of meperidine by adding oral methadone hydrochloride or transdermal fentanyl citrate to the regimen. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patients who received less than 10 mg/kg per day of IV PCA meperidine hydrochloride therapy were unlikely to experience central nervous system excitatory adverse effects and maintain adequate analgesia. RESULTS: The mean meperidine hydrochloride consumption for those patients classified as high dose, asymptomatic was 13.3 mg/kg per day (95% confidence interval, 12.1-14.4 mg/kg per day). This differed statistically significantly (P<.05) from the mean meperidine hydrochloride dose in patients classified as high dose, symptomatic, which was 16.9 mg/kg per day (95% confidence interval, 14.7-19.2 mg/kg per day). The duration of meperidine use did not differ among the 4 patient groups. The incidence of a central nervous system toxic reaction associated with IV PCA meperidine therapy was 2%. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend 10 mg/kg per day as a maximum safe meperidine hydrochloride dose by an IV PCA device for no longer than 3 days. Daily patient evaluation is mandatory. Care must also be taken when using this dose to ensure the absence of renal dysfunction or enhanced hepatic metabolism of meperidine.

Development and initial validation of a scale to measure self-efficacy beliefs in patients with chronic pain.

The present study describes the development of the Chronic Pain Self-Efficacy Scale (CPSS), a 22-item questionnaire designed to measure chronic pain patients' perceived self-efficacy to cope with the consequences of chronic pain. The CPSS and other measures of psychosocial functioning were administered to 141 consecutive patients who were referred to an outpatient multidisciplinary pain treatment program. An exploratory factor analysis of the CPSS responses identified 3 factors: self-efficacy for pain management (PSE), self-efficacy for coping with symptoms (CSE), and self-efficacy for physical function (FSE). The CPSS then was administered to a replication sample of 136 chronic pain patients. Factor analysis confirmed the 3-factor structure of the CPSS. The subscale scores derived from the factor analysis were significantly correlated with measures of depression, hopelessness, somatic preoccupation, and adaptation to the chronic pain experience. Multiple regression analyses provided further support for the concurrent and construct validity of the CPSS. The scale may aid in the evaluation of the self-efficacy beliefs of chronic pain patients.