The state of implantable pain therapies in the United States: a nationwide survey of academic teaching programs

Pain Education and Knowledge (PEAK) Consensus Guidelines for Neuromodulation: A Proposal for Standardization in Fellowship and Training Programs

The need to be competent in neuromodulation is and should be a prerequisite prior to completing a fellowship in interventional pain medicine. Unfortunately, many programs lack acceptable candidates for these advanced therapies, and fellows may not receive adequate exposure to neuromodulation procedures. The American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) desires to create a consensus of experts to set a minimum standard of competence for neurostimulation procedures, including spinal cord stimulation (SCS), dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRG-S), and peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS). The executive board of ASPN accepted nominations for colleagues with excellence in the subject matter of neuromodulation and physician education. This diverse group used peer-reviewed literature and, based on grading of evidence and expert opinion, developed critical consensus guides for training that all accredited fellowship programs should adopt. For each consensus point, transparency and recusal were used to eliminate bias, and an author was nominated for evidence grading oversight and bias control. Pain Education and Knowledge (PEAK) Consensus Guidelines for Neuromodulation sets a standard for neuromodulation training in pain fellowship training programs. The consensus panel has determined several recommendations to improve care in the United States for patients undergoing neuromodulation. As neuromodulation training in the United States has evolved dramatically, these therapies have become ubiquitous in pain medicine. Unfortunately, fellowship programs and the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) pain program requirements have not progressed training to match the demands of modern advancements. PEAK sets a new standard for fellowship training and presents thirteen practice areas vital for physician competence in neuromodulation.

Demographic Trends in Paddle Lead Spinal Cord Stimulator Placement: Private Insurance and Medicare Beneficiaries

Objective

Although spinal cord stimulators (SCS) continue to gain acceptance as a viable nonpharmacologic option for the treatment of chronic back pain, recent trends are not well established. The aim of this study was to evaluate recent overall demographic and regional trends in paddle lead SCS placement and to determine if differences in trends exist between private-payer and Medicare beneficiaries.

Methods

A retrospective review of Medicare and private-payer insurance records from 2007–2014 was performed to identify patients who underwent a primary paddle lead SCS placement via a laminectomy (CPT-63655). Each study cohort was queried to determine the annual rate of SCS placements and demographic characteristics. Yearly SCS implantation rates within the study cohorts were adjusted per 100,000 beneficiaries. A chi-square analysis was used to compare changes in annual rates.

Results

A total of 31,352 Medicare and 2,935 private-payer patients were identified from 2007 to 2014. Paddle lead SCS placements ranged from 5.9 to 17.5 (p < 0.001), 1.9 to 5.9 (p < 0.001), and 5.2 to 14.5 (p < 0.001) placements per 100,000 Medicare, private-payer, and overall beneficiaries respectively from 2007 to 2014. SCS placements peaked in 2013 with 19.6, 7.1, and 16.8 placements per 100,000 Medicare, private-payer, and overall patients.

Conclusion

There was an overall increase in the annual rate of SCS placements from 2007 to 2014. Paddle lead SCS placements peaked in 2013 for Medicare, private-payer, and overall beneficiaries. The highest incidence of implantation was in the Southern region of the United States and among females. Yearly adjusted rates of SCSs were higher among Medicare patients at all time points.

Survey of the practice of spinal cord stimulators and intrathecal analgesic delivery implants for management of pain in Canada

BACKGROUND

In 2006, the Canadian Neuromodulation Society was formed. The present survey characterizes the practice of spinal cord stimulator (SCS) and intrathecal analgesic delivery pump (IADP) implantation for pain management in different centres across Canada.

METHOD

A structured questionnaire was designed to examine the funding source, infrastructure and patient screening process in different centres implanting SCSs and IADPs. Centres that performed more than 10 implants per year were surveyed. The survey was centre-based, ie, each centre received one questionnaire regardless of the number of staff involved in neuromodulation practice.

RESULTS

Fourteen centres were identified and 13 responded. Implantation of SCS and IADP was performed in 12 and 10 centres, respectively. In most centres, failed back surgery syndrome was the most frequent indication for SCS and IADP implantation. For SCS, all centres always performed a trial; the majority used percutaneous electrode (83%) before the SCS implantation. Routine psychological screening was performed in 25% of centres before any SCS trial procedure. For IADP, all centres performed a trial injection or infusion before implantation. Five centres (50%) performed psychological screening in almost all patients. Continuous infusion techniques were the most popular (50%) used for the trial.

CONCLUSION

The present survey provides a 'snapshot' of the practice of SCS and IADP implantation in Canada. A review of SCS and IADP trials indicated that Canadian practices are mostly, but not always, consistent with those elsewhere.

Stability, compatibility, and safety of intrathecal bupivacaine administered chronically via an implantable delivery system

OBJECTIVE

The only agent approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for chronic intrathecal infusion for the treatment of chronic pain is morphine sulfate. In patients who do not experience adequate relief from intrathecal opioids, bupivacaine is frequently added to increase efficacy. The studies reported here were conducted to demonstrate the stability and compatibility of bupivacaine in a commonly used implantable infusion system and the long-term clinical safety of this therapy.

METHODS

A commercially available bupivacaine solution (7.5 mg/ml) was incubated at 37 degrees C for 12 weeks with intact delivery systems and with the individual materials that comprise the fluid pathway. Intermittent samples were collected and analyzed using liquid chromatography. Materials chronically exposed to bupivacaine were analyzed for mechanical integrity. One hundred eight patients treated with intrathecal bupivacaine (average dose: 10 mg/d, range: 2-25 mg/d) and opioids for an average duration of 86 weeks were monitored clinically (patient interviews and neurologic examinations) approximately every 4 weeks.

RESULTS

Bupivacaine concentrations remained greater than 96% of the starting material after chronic exposure to the delivery system materials or the intact pump-catheter systems. and the mechanical integrity of the delivery system and materials remained intact. When combined with intrathecal morphine or hydromorphone, no clinical evidence of drug-induced toxicity or complications was observed in any patient. Supplementing opioid therapy with bupivacaine allowed the pain patient to continue to be effectively managed using an implantable intrathecal delivery system.

CONCLUSIONS

Bupivacaine is stable and compatible with a commonly used implantable drug infusion system. In this study, chronic supplementation of intrathecal opioids with bupivacaine was a safe method for providing continued management of chronic pain of cancer or noncancer origin.