Best practices for interventional pain procedures in the setting of an iodinated contrast media shortage: A multisociety practice advisory

The environmental sustainability implications of contrast media supply chain disruptions during the COVID-19 pandemic: A document analysis of international practice guidelines

INTRODUCTION

Travel restrictions implemented during the acute phases of the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted supply chain for critical radiology consumables including contrast media (CM) leading to shortages. Consequently, some departments had to restructure their clinical workflows in accordance to recommended guidelines to ensure safe continuity of patient care. This study aimed to summarise the temporary crisis-driven recommendations with implicit environmental sustainability essence and to analyse how these measures might inform the development of a more sustainable, long-term clinical guideline for safer and cost-effective CM usage without compromising diagnostic quality.

METHODS

Documents were obtained through an electronic database search together with a relevant manual search in Google Scholar and relevant reference lists. The selected documents were subjected to a pre-defined eligibility criteria for inclusion. The READ approach was employed for document analysis and a thematic analysis of the obtained data was conducted.

RESULTS

Of the 17 documents included, 70% (n = 12) emanate from the United States of America. The summary of the findings relate to minimising CM usage through strategic clinical approaches including optimisation of CM volumes, prioritisation of non-contrast imaging and/or alternative imaging depending on patient need without compromising diagnostic quality.

CONCLUSION

Critical lessons of sustainability essence are implicitly embedded in the policy guidelines issued during the periods of acute CM shortage in the COVID-19 pandemic. These lessons were themed around CM conservation based on: type and priority of medical imaging investigation, kind of imaging modality and use of smaller vials over multi-dose vials packaging.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

The temporary crisis-driven strategies may offer critical lessons for post-pandemic service delivery to enhance patient safety while saving cost and promoting greener practice via strategic clinical and operational monitoring of CM through policy renewal, education and training and collaboration with industry partners.

1. Lumbosacral radicular pain

INTRODUCTION

Patients suffering lumbosacral radicular pain report radiating pain in one or more lumbar or sacral dermatomes. In the general population, low back pain with leg pain extending below the knee has an annual prevalence that varies from 9.9% to 25%.

METHODS

The literature on the diagnosis and treatment of lumbosacral radicular pain was reviewed and summarized.

RESULTS

Although a patient's history, the pain distribution pattern, and clinical examination may yield a presumptive diagnosis of lumbosacral radicular pain, additional clinical tests may be required. Medical imaging studies can demonstrate or exclude specific underlying pathologies and identify nerve root irritation, while selective diagnostic nerve root blocks can be used to confirm the affected level(s). In subacute lumbosacral radicular pain, transforaminal corticosteroid administration provides short-term pain relief and improves mobility. In chronic lumbosacral radicular pain, pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) treatment adjacent to the spinal ganglion (DRG) can provide pain relief for a longer period in well-selected patients. In cases of refractory pain, epidural adhesiolysis and spinal cord stimulation can be considered in experienced centers.

CONCLUSIONS

The diagnosis of lumbosacral radicular pain is based on a combination of history, clinical examination, and additional investigations. Epidural steroids can be considered for subacute lumbosacral radicular pain. In chronic lumbosacral radicular pain, PRF adjacent to the DRG is recommended. SCS and epidural adhesiolysis can be considered for cases of refractory pain in specialized centers.

An update on technical and safety practice patterns of interlaminar epidural steroid injections

Introduction

Interlaminar epidural steroid injections (ILESIs) are mainstay in the management of low back, neck and radicular pain and are a commonly performed pain management procedure in the United States. Our survey aims to provide an update in practice patterns of ILESIs among interventional pain physicians.

Methods

We distributed a 91-item survey nationwide to private and academic interventional pain physicians who perform epidural steroid injections (ESIs). The survey was distributed via REDCap with a series of questions inquiring about current practices in epidural steroid injections from March 2021 to March 2022. Cross sectional data from survey responses specific to ILESI-related practices were captured and synthesized.

Results

Of 103 complete survey responses, 96 physicians perform ILESIs (cervical, 87.5 %; thoracic, 82.3 %; lumbar 99 %). Nearly all surveyed physicians utilize fluoroscopy (98.1 %) over other modalities like MRI and ultrasound. For CIESIs, dexamethasone was the preferred steroid (52.4 %) over methylprednisolone (23.7 %); the converse was true for LIESIs in which methylprednisolone (44.2 %) was preferred over dexamethasone (32.6 %). The majority of providers performing ILESI's (91.7 %) preferred a Tuohy/Weiss needle while only a small fraction preferred the Quincke needle (7.2 %). Sedation practices were more varied with only about half of providers (47.6 %) offering medications. Furthermore, a great fraction of providers continue to use contrast for LIESIs (97.9 %) and CIESIs (89.6 %).

Discussion

Our survey suggests that despite updated consensus recommendations, variability continues to exist in procedural practice patterns. Highlighting areas of variable adherence to current safety guidelines can assist with what is emphasized in the generation of future evidence-based guidelines. Though our survey was conducted in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic with resultant supply chain shortages, more research is needed to elucidate what variables may factor into why proceduralists may stray from guideline concordant care.

An update on technical and safety practice patterns in transforaminal epidural steroid injections

Introduction

Previous studies have suggested variability in practice patterns for transforaminal epidural steroid injections (TFESIs) despite published safety guidance. The purpose of this study was to understand recent trends in periprocedural safety practices in TFESIs and how some aspects of interventional pain practice may have been influenced by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and related supply chain shortages.

Methods

A 91-item survey was distributed to 111 program directors of Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education accredited Pain Management fellowships, 42 North American Spine Society and Interventional Spine and Musculoskeletal Medicine recognized fellowship directors, and 100 private practice interventional pain physicians to capture current practices in epidural steroid injections from March 2021 to March 2022. Additional responses were obtained through advertising on social media platforms consisting of interventional pain physicians. Cross sectional data from survey responses specific to TFESI-related practices were gathered and analyzed.

Results

Of 103 complete survey responses, 102 physicians perform TFESIs (cervical, 33.3%; thoracic, 40.2%; lumbar, 100%; sacral, 89.2%). There was variability in preprocedural imaging review, sedation practices, contrast and fluoroscopy techniques, and type and dose of steroid preferred. Many physicians saw a decrease in number of procedures performed weekly as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Conclusions

There remains practice variability in various periprocedural aspects of TFESIs despite existing safety recommendations. Further research is needed to identify ongoing barriers to adherence to established guidelines. Recent practice trends may have been affected by unique challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, and these trends should be considered in the event of future supply chain limitations and/or need for disaster response.

Shortage of iodinated contrast media: Status and possible chances - A systematic review

PURPOSE

Covid-19 related lockdowns have resulted in a shortage of iodinated contrast media (ICM) in 2022. Health care providers have reacted with implementing conservation strategies to stay operational without compromising patient care. Although articles describing the implemented Interventions have been published, possible chances of the shortage have not yet been mentioned in the literature.

METHODS

We conducted a literature search in PubMed and Google Scholar, and analysed the background, interventions, and possible benefits of low-dose ICM regimens.

RESULTS

We included 22 articles dealing with "ICM shortage" for the analysis. The delivery bottlenecks in the USA and Australia led to two different countermeasures, 1. reduction of the number of contrast-enhanced image-guided examinations and 2. reduction of the (single) ICM dose. Interventions from both groups have resulted in significant reduction of ICM usage; however, group 1 has contributed more to overall ICM reduction. As benefit of the ICM reduction, we revealed an increased safety for patients at risk (e.g. hypersensitivity reactions, contrast-induced acute kidney injury, thyroid toxic effects).

CONCLUSION

The ICM shortage of 2022 has forced health care providers to implement conservation strategies to stay operational. Although there were already proposals for dose reduction before the corona pandemic and the associated supply bottlenecks, this situation led to the use of a reduced amount of contrast agent on a large scale. This presents a good opportunity to reconsider protocols and the use of contrast-enhanced imaging in general for future practice as it offers chances and advantages regarding costs, environmental impact, and patient safety.

Best practices for interventional pain procedures in the setting of a local anesthetic shortage: A practice advisory from the Spine Intervention Society

Representatives from the Spine Intervention Society (SIS) Standards Division and Evidence Analysis Committee have developed the following best practice recommendations for the performance of interventional pain procedures in the setting of a local anesthetic shortage. The practice advisory has been endorsed by SIS, the American Academy of Pain Medicine, the American College of Radiology, the American Society of Neuroradiology, the American Society of Spine Radiology, the North American Neuromodulation Society, the North American Spine Society, and the Society of Interventional Radiology, who support the following best practice recommendations and statements for the performance of intra-articular, extra-articular, paraspinal, and epidural injections in the setting of a local anesthetic shortage. 1.Use of preservative-containing local anesthetics is discouraged in the performance of neuraxial procedures where the injectate may enter the epidural (or intrathecal) spaces.2.When performing procedures with risk of arterial injection, ropivacaine should not be mixed with dexamethasone and injected due to the risk of crystallization and embolization.3.Physicians should not withdraw directly from vials of local anesthetic for multiple patients due to infection risk as per Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Joint Commission guidelines [1].4.Only pharmacists may repackage local anesthetic vials for multiple patients. This must be performed under strict, sterile conditions and only in times of critical need. In such situations, physicians must adhere to the beyond-use-date and storage conditions on the repackaged label [2,3].5.Joint, tendon, bursa, and/or ligament injections may be performed with local anesthetic with or without preservative.6.Interventional pain physicians should weigh the relative chondrotoxicity risks associated with each anesthetic when performing joint injections.7.Topical anesthetics, infiltration with diphenhydramine, and nonpharmacologic therapies (i.e., cognitive behavioral therapy, guided imagery, virtual reality, mechanodesensitization) may be used as alternatives to skin infiltration of local anesthetic for reducing procedural pain.8.Use of small-gauge needles (25 gauge or thinner) mitigates the need for local anesthetic prior to needle insertion.9.For local anesthetic infiltration prior to insertion of large bore needles or incision, 0.5% lidocaine may be as effective as 1%, and for that reason current supplies of lidocaine can be stretched by dilution with normal saline.10.If using an ester local anesthetic due to an amide local anesthetic shortage, interventional pain physicians should be aware (as always) of the potential for an allergic reaction and should be able to respond accordingly.11.Local anesthetic systemic toxicity (LAST) differs between the varying local anesthetics, and interventional pain physicians should be well acquainted with these differences when switching between local anesthetics. Physicians should carefully weigh the risks and benefits of performing procedures without local anesthetic or using an alternative agent in the context of each unique patient's situation and should involve patients in shared decision making before proceeding. Procedures should be performed following Spine Intervention Society Guidelines [4]. The physician should confirm placement of the needle in at least two imaging planes. Please refer to the SIS Practice Guidelines for the full details and standards related to each unique procedure [4].