The control of severe cancer pain by continuous intrathecal infusion and patient controlled intrathecal analgesia with morphine, bupivacaine and clonidine

Pain ◽  
1998 ◽  
Vol 78 (3) ◽  
pp. 217-220 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul S. Tumber ◽  
Dermot R. Fitzgibbon
2008 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 249-256 ◽  
Author(s):  
Scott Newsome ◽  
Bridget K. Frawley ◽  
Charles E. Argoff

2009 ◽  
Vol 2;12 (2;3) ◽  
pp. 349-360
Author(s):  
Vikram B. Patel

Background: Disability, societal, and health impact of chronic intractable pain secondary to various failed therapies is a major issue. As advanced therapy, implantable therapies, which include intrathecal devices and spinal cord stimulation systems, are frequently used in managing chronic intractable pain. Thus, continuous infusion of intrathecal medication is one of the methods used for the control of chronic, refractory, cancer, and non-cancer pain. However, despite the high costs of chronic non-cancer pain, it has been claimed that there is a lack of evidence for intrathecal infusion systems and the cost effectiveness of these systems has been questioned in improving pain and function. Study Design: A systematic review of intrathecal infusion devices for chronic non-cancer pain. Objective: To determine the efficacy, utilization, safety, and complications associated with the use of intrathecal infusion devices for long-term management of chronic non-cancer pain. Methods: Literature search was performed through EMBASE, Medline, Cochrane databases, and systematic reviews identified from 1966 to December 2008. Studies were then reviewed and assessed using the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) criteria for observational studies and the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group criteria for randomized trials. The level of evidence was determined using 5 levels of evidence, ranging from Level I to III with 3 subcategories in Level II, based on the quality of evidence developed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Outcome Measures: The primary outcome measure was pain relief (short-term relief ≤ one-year and long-term > one-year). Secondary outcome measures of improvement in functional status, psychological status, return to work, and reduction in opioid intake were also utilized. Results: The level of evidence for intrathecal infusion systems indicated either Level II-3 or Level III (limited) based on U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria. Limitations: The limitations of this study include the paucity of literature, lack of quality evidence, and lack of randomized trials. Conclusion: This systematic review illustrates Level II-3 or Level III (limited) evidence for intrathecal infusion systems for long-term relief in chronic non-cancer pain. Key words: Intrathecal infusion, intraspinal infusion, programmable infusion systems, spinal infusion, intra-spinal infusion devices, baclofen infusion, intrathecal opiates


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Liang Zhou ◽  
Zhenggang Guo

Abstract Background and Objectives: Intrathecal analgesia (ITA) is a trusty treatment option for refractory and intractable cancer pain. However, there is still no general consensus on the analgesic effect of movement-evoked breakthrough pain (MEBTP) in the ITA setting. This study examined the effect of patient-controlled intrathecal analgesia (PCIA) on analgesic efficacy, emphasizing movement evoked breakthrough pain (MEBTP) in patients with refractory lower extremity cancer pain. Methods: A retrospective chart review included all patients with refractory lower extremity cancer pain who received Intrathecal morphine infusion therapy via percutaneous port (IMITPP) at our hospital between January 2017 and December 2020. Data on the numerical pain rating scales (NRS) scores, opioid doses, and complications were collected from medical records prior to IMITPP and at a one-month postimplant visit.Results: A total of 16 patients were included in the study group. Mean SRPI (spontaneous resting pain intensity) decreased from 8.75 pre- IMITPP to 3.75 post- IMITPP, (P < 0.001); mean MEPI (movement-evoked breakthrough pain intensity) fell from 8.83 pre- IMITPP to 4.25 post- IMITPP (P < 0.001); mean daily morphine equivalent dosing decreased from 360 mg/d to 48mg/d (P< 0.001); mean daily morphine equivalent dosing for MEBTP decreased from 87 mg/d to 6 mg/d (P< 0.001). Both total and breakthrough dosing of conventional opioid medications significantly decreased following the initiation of ITT with PCIA. The mean perceived time to onset with conventional movement evoked breakthrough medications was 38 minutes, and the mean perceived time to onset with PCIA was 8 minutes (P < 0.001). Conclusions: IMITPP was associated with improved pain control in patients with refractory lower extremity cancer pain. Compared with conventional MEBTP medication, appropriate PCIA provided superior analgesia and a much faster onset of action.


2009 ◽  
Vol 14 (5) ◽  
pp. 371-379 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philippa Hawley ◽  
Elizabeth Beddard-Huber ◽  
Cameron Grose ◽  
William McDonald ◽  
Daphne Lobb ◽  
...  

BACKGROUND: The need for intrathecal infusion in a palliative care setting is infrequent. Despite established efficacy, safety and cost effectiveness, this is considered an ‘extraordinary measure’ in Canada. Patients requiring this approach are not typical palliative care patients, having shorter and more uncertain life expectancies.OBJECTIVES: The present study is a qualitative exploration of the impact of intrathecal pump implantation on cancer patients, and also the impact of the intervention on the staff caring for those patients.METHODS: Palliative care unit patients who received an implanted intrathecal pump or dome catheter for intractable cancer pain participated in multiple semistructured interviews. Doctors and nurses caring for each patient were also interviewed. Interviews were recorded and analyzed for themes. The study terminated when saturation was reached.RESULTS: Six patients participated, with up to three interviews each. Twenty-four staff interviews took place. Patients’ hopes and expectations were not always fully met, but the infusions had a profound positive effect on quality of life. Patients expressed anxiety about dependence on the device, and also on a few highly skilled individuals. Staff interviews revealed a significant impact on the ‘culture’ of the palliative care unit. Clear communication of the rationale for infusion was very important, as was regular education about infusion management.CONCLUSIONS: Implanted intrathecal infusion devices are a necessary part of a tertiary level cancer pain management service for the unfortunate minority with intractable pain. Practical recommendations for care are made for palliative care programs contemplating offering intrathecal infusions.


2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. A20.1-A20
Author(s):  
Melanie Huddart ◽  
Nishi Patel ◽  
Helen Makins ◽  
Theresa Mitchell ◽  
Jane L Gibbins ◽  
...  

2007 ◽  
Vol 21 (6) ◽  
pp. 543-545 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Baker ◽  
Jennifer Balls ◽  
Claud Regnard ◽  
Angus Pridie

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document