scholarly journals A Prospective Evaluation of Bleeding Risk of Interventional Techniques in Chronic Pain

2011 ◽  
Vol 4;14 (4;7) ◽  
pp. 317-329
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Pain Management ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Antithrombotic Therapy ◽  
Cardiovascular Events ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Antiplatelet Drug ◽  
Prospective Evaluation ◽  
Interventional Techniques ◽  
Local Bleeding ◽  
Interventional Pain Management

Background: The role of antithrombotic therapy is well known for primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease to decrease the incidence of acute cerebral and cardiovascular events. Data shows that the risk of coronary thrombosis after antiplatelet drug withdrawal is much higher than that of surgical bleeding if the antiplatelet drug therapy were continued. However, it has been a common practice to discontinue antiplatelet therapy prior to performing interventional techniques, which may potentially increase the risk of acute cerebral and cardiovascular events. Study Design: A prospective study of 3,179 patients undergoing interventional techniques with 12,000 encounters and 18,472 procedures from May 2008 to December 2009. Study Setting: An interventional pain management practice, a specialty referral center, a private practice setting in the United States. Objective: To assess the rates of adverse events in patients undergoing interventional techniques on antithrombotic therapy with cessation or without cessation and compare them to a group of patients without antithrombotic therapy. Methods: Measurable outcomes employed were intravascular entry of the needle, bruising, local bleeding, profuse bleeding, local hematoma, oozing, and postoperative soreness. The prospective evaluation was performed utilizing the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement which was developed with recommendations to improve the quality of reporting observational studies. Results: The results of this study illustrated that in one-quarter (3,087) of patient encounters utilizing interventional pain management techniques, antithrombotic therapy was included. Among these, for approximately 55%, or 1,711 encounters, antithrombotic therapy was continued during the interventional techniques, whereas, for 45%, or 1376 encounters, antithrombotic therapy was discontinued. Overall, these results illustrate that while intravascular penetration and oozing were higher in patients with continued antithrombotic therapy, bruising and local bleeding were higher in patients with discontinued antithrombotic therapy without any difference either statistical or clinical in any of the other aspects, either intraoperative, post procedure in the recovery room, or postoperative period. Limitations: Limitations include the nonrandomized observational nature of the study and that antiplatelet therapy was limited to aspirin and clopidogrel (Plavix). Conclusion: No significant prevalence of adverse events was observed in those who continued with or ceased antithrombotic therapy. Key words: Interventional pain management, interventional techniques, bleeding disorders, hemorrhagic complications, aspirin, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents, clopidogrel (Plavix), warfarin (Coumadin), regional anesthesia, hemostasis, anticoagulants, antithrombotic agents

scholarly journals Development of an Interventional Pain Management Specific Instrument for Methodologic Quality Assessment of Nonrandomized Studies of Interventional Techniques

2014 ◽  
Vol 3;17 (3;5) ◽  
pp. E291-E317 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Pain Management ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Cochrane Review ◽  
Bias Assessment ◽  
Interventional Techniques ◽  
Specific Instrument ◽  
Methodologic Quality ◽  
Interventional Pain Management

Background: The major component of a systematic review is assessment of the methodologic quality and bias of randomized and nonrandomized trials. While there are multiple instruments available to assess the methodologic quality and bias for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), there is a lack of extensively utilized instruments for observational studies, specifically for interventional pain management (IPM) techniques. Even Cochrane review criteria for randomized trials is considered not to be a “gold standard,” but merely an indication of the current state of the art review methodology. Recently a specific instrument to assess the methodologic quality of randomized trials has been developed for interventional techniques. Objectives: Our objective was to develop an IPM specific instrument to assess the methodological quality of nonrandomized trials or observational studies of interventional techniques. Methods: The item generation for the instrument was based on a definition of quality, to the extent to which the design and conduct of the trial were congruent with the objectives of the study. Applicability was defined as the extent to which procedures produced by the study could be applied using contemporary IPM techniques. Multiple items based on Cochrane review criteria and Interventional Pain Management Techniques – Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment for Nonrandomized Studies (IPM-QRBNR) were utilized. Results: A total of 16 items were developed which formed the IPM-QRBNR tool. The assessment was performed in multiple stages. The final assessment was 4 nonrandomized studies. The inter-rater agreement was moderate to good for IPM-QRBNR criteria. Limitations: Limited validity or accuracy assessment of the instrument and the large number of items to be scored were limitations. Conclusion: We have developed a new comprehensive instrument to assess the methodological quality of nonrandomized studies of interventional techniques. This instrument provides extensive information specific to interventional techniques is useful in assessing the methodological quality and bias of observational studies of interventional techniques. Key words: Methodological quality assessment, evidence-based medicine, comparative effectiveness research, Cochrane Reviews, interventional techniques, risk of bias assessment, nonrandomized trials, observational studies

scholarly journals Reassessment of Evidence Synthesis of Occupational Medicine Practice Guidelines for Interventional Pain Management

2008 ◽  
Vol 4;11 (8;4) ◽  
pp. 393-482
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Pain ◽  
Pain Management ◽  
Strong Evidence ◽  
Guideline Development ◽  
Medial Branch ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Quality Of Evidence ◽  
Interventional Techniques ◽  
Interventional Pain Management

Background: Appropriately developed practice guidelines present statements of best practice based on a thorough evaluation of the evidence from published studies on the outcomes of treatments, which include the application of multiple methods for collecting and evaluating evidence for a wide range of clinical interventions and disciplines. However, the guidelines are neither infallible, nor a substitute for clinical judgment. While the guideline development process is a complex phenomenon, conflict of interest in guideline development and inappropriate methodologies must be avoided. It has been alleged that the guidelines by the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM) prevent injured workers from receiving the majority of medically necessary and appropriate interventional pain management services. An independent critical appraisal of both chapters of the ACOEM guidelines showed startling findings with a conclusion that these guidelines may not be applied in patient care as they scored below 30% in the majority of evaluations utilizing multiple standardized criteria. Objective: To reassess the evidence synthesis for the ACOEM guidelines for the low back pain and chronic pain chapters utilizing an expanded methodology, which includes the criteria included in the ACOEM guidelines with the addition of omitted literature and application of appropriate criteria. Methods: For reassessment, randomized trials were utilized as it was in the preparation of the guidelines. In this process, quality of evidence was assessed and recommendations were made based on grading recommendations of Guyatt et al. The level of evidence was determined utilizing the quality of evidence criteria developed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), as well as the outdated quality of evidence criteria utilized by ACOEM in the guideline preparation. Methodologic quality of each individual article was assessed utilizing the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) methodologic assessment criteria for diagnostic interventions and Cochrane methodologic quality assessment criteria for therapeutic interventions. Results: The results of reassessment are vastly different from the conclusions derived by the ACOEM guidelines. The differences in strength of rating for the diagnosis of discogenic pain by provocation discography and facet joint pain by diagnostic facet joint nerve blocks is established with strong evidence. Therapeutic cervical and lumbar medial branch blocks and radiofrequency neurolysis, therapeutic thoracic medial branch blocks, cervical interlaminar epidural steroid injections, caudal epidural steroid injections, lumbar transforaminal epidural injections, percutaneous and endoscopic adhesiolysis, and spinal cord stimulation qualified for moderate to strong evidence. Additional insight is also provided for evidence rating for intradiscal electrothermal therapy (IDET), automated percutaneous disc decompression, and intrathecal implantables. Conclusion: The reassessment and reevaluation of the low back and chronic pain chapters of the ACOEM guidelines present results that are vastly different from the published and proposed guidelines. Contrary to ACOEM’s conclusions of insufficient evidence for most interventional techniques, the results illustrate moderate to strong evidence for most diagnostic and therapeutic interventional techniques. Key words: Guidelines, evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, ACOEM, interventional pain management, interventional techniques, guideline development, workers’ compensation, chronic pain guidelines, low back pain guidelines

scholarly journals Triaging Interventional Pain Procedures During COVID-19 or Related Elective Surgery Restrictions: Evidence-Informed Guidance from the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP)

2020 ◽  
Vol 4S;23 (8;4S) ◽  
pp. E183-S204
Author(s):  
Christopher Gharibo
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Pain ◽  
Pain Management ◽  
Surgical Procedures ◽  
Task Force ◽  
Elective Surgery ◽  
Interventional Techniques ◽  
Elective Surgical Procedures ◽  
Chronic Pain Patients ◽  
Interventional Pain Management ◽  
Pain Patients

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has worsened the pain and suffering of chronic pain patients due to stoppage of “elective” interventional pain management and office visits across the United States. The reopening of America and restarting of interventional techniques and elective surgical procedures has started. Unfortunately, with resurgence in some states, restrictions are once again being imposed. In addition, even during the Phase II and III of reopening, chronic pain patients and interventional pain physicians have faced difficulties because of the priority selection of elective surgical procedures. Chronic pain patients require high intensity care, specifically during a pandemic such as COVID-19. Consequently, it has become necessary to provide guidance for triaging interventional pain procedures, or related elective surgery restrictions during a pandemic. Objectives: The aim of these guidelines is to provide education and guidance for physicians, healthcare administrators, the public and patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our goal is to restore the opportunity to receive appropriate care for our patients who may benefit from interventional techniques. Methods: The American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) has created the COVID-19 Task Force in order to provide guidance for triaging interventional pain procedures or related elective surgery restrictions to provide appropriate access to interventional pain management (IPM) procedures in par with other elective surgical procedures. In developing the guidance, trustworthy standards and appropriate disclosures of conflicts of interest were applied with a section of a panel of experts from various regions, specialties, types of practices (private practice, community hospital and academic institutes) and groups. The literature pertaining to all aspects of COVID-19, specifically related to epidemiology, risk factors, complications, morbidity and mortality, and literature related to risk mitigation and stratification was reviewed. The evidence -- informed with the incorporation of the best available research and practice knowledge was utilized, instead of a simplified evidence-based approach. Consequently, these guidelines are considered evidence-informed with the incorporation of the best available research and practice knowledge. Results: The Task Force defined the medical urgency of a case and developed an IPM acuity scale for elective IPM procedures with 3 tiers. These included emergent, urgent, and elective procedures. Examples of emergent and urgent procedures included new onset or exacerbation of complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS), acute trauma or acute exacerbation of degenerative or neurological disease resulting in impaired mobility and inability to perform activities of daily living. Examples include painful rib fractures affecting oxygenation and post-dural puncture headaches limiting the ability to sit upright, stand and walk. In addition, urgent procedures include procedures to treat any severe or debilitating disease that prevents the patient from carrying out activities of daily living. Elective procedures were considered as any condition that is stable and can be safely managed with alternatives. Limitations: COVID-19 continues to be an ongoing pandemic. When these recommendations were developed, different stages of reopening based on geographical regulations were in process. The pandemic continues to be dynamic creating every changing evidence-based guidance. Consequently, we provided evidence-informed guidance. Conclusion: The COVID-19 pandemic has created unprecedented challenges in IPM creating needless suffering for pain patients. Many IPM procedures cannot be indefinitely postponed without adverse consequences. Chronic pain exacerbations are associated with marked functional declines and risks with alternative treatment modalities. They must be treated with the concern that they deserve. Clinicians must assess patients, local healthcare resources, and weigh the risks and benefits of a procedure against the risks of suffering from disabling pain and exposure to the COVID-19 virus. Key words: Coronavirus, COVID-19, interventional pain management, COVID risk factors, elective surgeries, interventional techniques, chronic pain, immunosuppression

scholarly journals Ambulatory Surgery Centers and Interventional Techniques: A Look at Long-Term Survival

2011 ◽  
Vol 3;14 (2;3) ◽  
pp. E177-E212 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Pain Management ◽  
Ambulatory Surgery ◽  
Health Care Expenditures ◽  
The United States ◽  
Payment System ◽  
Ambulatory Surgery Centers ◽  
Interventional Techniques ◽  
Outpatient Procedures ◽  
Interventional Pain Management

With health care expenditures skyrocketing, coupled with pervasive quality deficits, pressures to provide better and more proficient care continue to shape the landscape of the U.S. health care system. Payers, both federal and private, have laid out several initiatives designed to curtail costs, including value-based reimbursement programs, cost-shifting expenses to the consumer, reducing reimbursements for physicians, steering health care to more efficient settings, and finally affordable health care reform. Consequently, one of the major aspects in the expansion of health care for improving quality and reducing costs is surgical services. Nearly 57 million outpatient procedures are performed annually in the United States, 14 million of which occur in elderly patients. Increasing use of these minor, yet common, procedures contributes to rising health care expenditures. Once exclusive within hospitals, more and more outpatient procedures are being performed in freestanding ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs), physician offices, visits to which have increased over 300% during the past decade. Concurrent with this growing demand, the number of ASCs has more than doubled since the 1990s, with more than 5,000 facilities currently in operation nationwide. Further, total surgical center ASC payments have increased from $1.2 billion in 1999 to $3.2 billion in 2009, a 167% increase. On the same lines, growth and expenditures for hospital outpatient department (HOPD) services and office procedures also have been evident at similar levels. Recent surveys have illustrated on overall annual growth per capita in Medicare allowed ASC services of pain management of 23%, with 27% growth seen in ASCs and 16% of the growth seen in HOPD. Further, the proportion of interventional pain management which was 4% of Medicare ASC spending in 2000 has increased to 10% in 2007. Thus, interventional pain management as an evolving specialty is one of the most commonly performed procedures in ASC settings apart from HOPDs and well-equipped offices. In June 1998, the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) proposed an ASC rule in which at least 60% of interventional procedures were eliminated from ASCs, and the remaining 40% faced substantial cuts in payments. Following the publication of this rule, based on public comments and demand, Congress intervened and delayed implementation of the rule for several years. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) published its proposed outpatient prospective system for ASCs in 2006, setting ASC payments at 62% of HOPD payments. Following multiple changes, the rule was incorporated with a 4-year transition formula which ended in 2010, with full effect occurring in 2011 with ASCs reimbursed at 57% of HOPD payments. Thus, the landscape of interventional pain management in ambulatory surgery centers has been constantly changing with declining reimbursements, issues of fraud and abuse, and ever-increasing regulations. Key words: Outpatient prospective payment system, ambulatory surgery center payment system, Government Accountability Office, Medicare Modernization and Improvement Act, interventional techniques

scholarly journals Analysis of Growth of Interventional Techniques in Managing Chronic Pain in the Medicare Population: A 10-Year Evaluation from 1997 to 2006

2009 ◽  
Vol 1;12 (1;1) ◽  
pp. 9-34 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Pain ◽  
Pain Management ◽  
Ambulatory Surgery ◽  
Facet Joint ◽  
Medicare Beneficiaries ◽  
Interventional Techniques ◽  
Ambulatory Surgery Center ◽  
Interventional Pain Management ◽  
Joint Injections ◽  
Surgery Center

Background: Recent reports of the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG) expressed significant concern with overall fiscal sustainability of Medicare and exponential increase in costs for interventional pain management techniques. Interventional pain management (IPM) is an evolving specialty amenable to multiple influences. Evaluation and isolation of appropriate factors for increasing growth patterns have not been performed. Study Design: Analysis of the growth of interventional techniques in managing chronic pain in Medicare beneficiaries from 1997 to 2006. Objective: To evaluate the use of all interventional techniques. Methods: The standard 5% national sample of the CMS carrier claim record data for 1997, 2002, and 2006 was utilized. This data set provides information on Medicare enrollees in the feefor-service Medicare program. Current procedural technology (CPT) codes for 1997, 2002, and 2006 were used to identify the number of procedures performed each year, and trends in expenditures. Results: Interventional techniques increased significantly in Medicare beneficiaries from 1997 to 2006. Overall, there was an increase of 137% in patients utilizing IPM services with an increase of 197% in IPM services, per 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries. The majority of the increases were attributed to exponential growth in the performance of facet joint interventions. There was a 13.9-fold difference in the increase between the state with the lowest rate and the state with the highest rate in utilization patterns of interventional techniques (California 37% vs. Connecticut 514%), with an 11.6-fold difference between Florida and California (431% vs. 37% increase). In 2006, Florida showed a 12.7-fold difference compared to Hawaii with the lowest utilization rate. Hospital outpatient department (HOPD) expenses constituted the highest increase with fewer patients treated either in an ambulatory surgery center (ASC) or in-office setting. Overall HOPD payments constituted 5% of total 2006 Medicare payments, in contrast to 57% of total IPM payments, an 11.4-fold difference. Limitations: The limitations of this study include a lack of inclusion of Medicare participants in Medicare Advantage plans and potential documentation, coding, and billing errors. Conclusion: This study shows an overall increase of IPM services of 197% compared to an increase of 137% in patients utilizing IPM services from 1997 to 2006. Key words: Interventional techniques, interventional pain management, facet joint injections, epidural steroid injections, sacroiliac joint injections, chronic pain, chronic spinal pain, ambulatory surgery center (ASC), hospital outpatient department (HOPD)

scholarly journals Accountable Interventional Pain Management: A Collaboration Among Practitioners, Patients, Payers, and Government

2013 ◽  
Vol 6;16 (6;11) ◽  
pp. E635-E670
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Pain Management ◽  
Sacroiliac Joint ◽  
Facet Joint ◽  
Significant Proportion ◽  
The United States ◽  
Fee For Service ◽  
Interventional Techniques ◽  
Epidural Injections ◽  
Interventional Pain Management ◽  
Facet Joint Interventions

The prevalence, costs, and disability associated with chronic pain continue to escalate. So too, the numerous modalities of treatments applied in managing these patients continue to increase as well. In the period from 2000 to 2011 interventional techniques increased 228%. In addition, analysis of utilization trends and expenditures for spinal interventional techniques alone from 2000 to 2008 illustrated an increase in Medicare fee-for-service expenditures of 240% in terms of dollars spent in the United States. The Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the Department of Health and Human Services showed an increase in facet joint and transforaminal epidural injections, with a significant proportion of these services did not meet the medical necessity criteria. The increasing utilization of interventional techniques is also associated with significant variations among specialty groups and regional variations among states. Overall procedures have increased by 173%, with rate of 130% per 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries for epidural injections; 383%, with a rate of 308% for facet joint interventions; and overall 410%, or a rate of 331% for sacroiliac joint interventions. Certain high volume interventions such as lumbar transforaminal epidural injections and lumbar facet joint neurolysis have actually increased a staggering 806% and 662%. Coverage policies across ambulatory settings and by multiple payers are highly variable. Apart from variability in the development of coverage policies, payments also substantially vary by site of service. In general, amongst the various ambulatory settings the highest payments are made to hospital outpatient departments (HOPDs) the lowest to in-office procedures, and payment to ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) falling somewhere in the middle. This manuscript describes the many differences that exist between the various settings, and includes suggestions for accountable interventional pain management with coverage for techniques with evidence, addressing excessive use of specific techniques, and equalizing payments across multiple ambulatory settings. Key words: Accountable interventional pain management, Medicare, Medicare Evidence Development & Coverage Advisory Committee, epidural injections, facet joint interventions, sacroiliac joint injections, payment policies

scholarly journals Utilization of Interventional Techniques in Managing Chronic Pain in the Medicare Population: Analysis of Growth Patterns from 2000 to 2011

2012 ◽  
Vol 6;15 (6;12) ◽  
pp. E969-E982 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Pain ◽  
Pain Management ◽  
Sacroiliac Joint ◽  
Facet Joint ◽  
Medicare Beneficiaries ◽  
Interventional Techniques ◽  
Geometric Average ◽  
Interventional Pain Management ◽  
Facet Joint Interventions ◽  
Joint Injections

Background: Reports from the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), the Institute of Medicine (IOM), the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG) continue to express significant concern with the overall fiscal sustainability of Medicare and the exponential increase in costs for chronic pain management. Study Design: The study is an analysis of the growth of interventional techniques in managing chronic pain in Medicare beneficiaries from 2000 to 2011. Objective: To evaluate the use of all interventional techniques in chronic pain management. Methods: The study was performed utilizing the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Physician Supplier Procedure Summary Master Data from 2000 to 2011. Results: Interventional techniques for chronic pain have increased dramatically from 2000 to 2011. Overall, the increase of interventional pain management (IPM) procedures from 2000 to 2011 went up 228%, with 177% per 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries. The increases were highest for facet joint interventions and sacroiliac joint blocks with a total increase of 386% and 310% per 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries, followed by 168% and 127% for epidural and adhesiolysis procedures, 150% and 111% for other types of nerve blocks and finally, 28% and 8% increases for percutaneous disc procedures. The geometric average of annual increases was 9.7% overall with 13.7% for facet joint interventions and sacroiliac joint blocks and 7.7% for epidural and adhesiolysis procedures. Limitations: The limitations of this study included a lack of inclusion of Medicare participants in Medicare Advantage plans, as well as potential documentation, coding, and billing errors. Conclusion: Interventional techniques increased significantly in Medicare beneficiaries from 2000 to 2011. Overall, there was an increase of 177% in the utilization of IPM services per 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries, with an annual geometric average increase of 9.7%. The study also showed an exponential increase in facet joint interventions and sacroiliac joint blocks. Key words: Interventional techniques, interventional pain management, facet joint injections, epidural steroid injections, sacroiliac joint injections, chronic pain, chronic spinal pain

scholarly journals A Perfect Storm in Interventional Pain Management: Regulated, but Unbalanced

2010 ◽  
Vol 2;13 (1;2) ◽  
pp. 109-116
Author(s):  
Ramsin M. Benyamin
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Pain Management ◽  
Evidence Based Medicine ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Interventional Techniques ◽  
Research Bias ◽  
Interventional Pain Management ◽  
Based Medicine ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Perfect Storm

Interventional pain management now stands at the crossroads at what is described as “the perfect storm.” The confluence of several factors has led to devastating results for interventional pain management. This article seeks to provide a perspective to various issues producing conditions conducive to creating a “perfect storm” such as use and abuse of interventional pain management techniques, and in the same context, use and abuse of various non-interventional techniques. The rapid increase in opioid drug prescribing, costs to health care, large increases in death rates, and random and rampant drug testing, can also lead to increases in health care utilization. Other important aspects that are seldom discussed include medico-legal and ethical perspectives of individual and professional societal opinions and the interpretation of diagnostic accuracy of controlled diagnostic blocks. The aim of this article is to discuss the impact of several factors on interventional pain management and overuse, abuse, waste, and fraud; inappropriate application without evidence-based literature support (sometimes leading to selective use or non-use of randomized or observational studies for proving biased viewpoints — post priori rather than a priori), and issues related to multiple professional societies having their own agendas to push rather than promulgating the science of interventional pain management. This perspective is based on a review of articles published in this issue of Pain Physician, information in the public domain, and other relevant articles. Based on the results of this review, various issues of relevance to modern interventional pain management are discussed and the viewpoints of several experts debated. In conclusion, supporters of interventional pain management disagree on multiple aspects for various reasons while detractors claim that interventional pain management should not exist as a speciality. Issues to be addressed include appropriate use of evidence-based medicine (EBM), overuse, overutilization, and abuse. Key words: Interventional pain management, interventional techniques, physician payment reform, fraud, abuse, evidence-based medicine, health care costs, comparative effectiveness research, bias

scholarly journals Preoperative Fasting Before Interventional Techniques: Is It Necessary or Evidence-Based?

2011 ◽  
Vol 5;14 (5;9) ◽  
pp. 459-467
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Pain Management ◽  
Respiratory Depression ◽  
Postoperative Nausea ◽  
Management Practice ◽  
The United States ◽  
Nausea And Vomiting ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Preoperative Fasting ◽  
Interventional Techniques ◽  
Interventional Pain Management

Background: Interventional pain management is an evolving specialty. Multiple issues including preoperative fasting, sedation, and infection control have not been well investigated and addressed. Based on the necessity for sedation and also the adverse events related to interventional techniques, preoperative fasting is considered practical to avoid postoperative nausea and vomiting. However, there are no guidelines for interventional techniques for sedation or fasting. Most interventional techniques are performed under intravenous or conscious sedation. Objective: To assess the need for preoperative fasting and risks without fasting in patients undergoing interventional techniques. Study Design: A prospective, non-randomized study of patients undergoing interventional techniques from May 2008 to December 2009. Study Setting: An interventional pain management practice, a specialty referral center, a private practice setting in the United States. Methods: All patients presenting for interventional techniques from May 2008 to December 2009 are included with documentation of various complications related to interventional techniques including nausea and vomiting. Results: From May 2008 to December 2009 a total of 3,179 patients underwent 12,000 encounters with 18,472 procedures, with patients receiving sedation during 11,856 encounters. Only 189, or 1.6% of the patients complained of nausea and 3 of them, or 0.02%, experienced vomiting. There were no aspirations. Of the 189 patients with nausea, 80 of them improved significantly prior to discharge without further complaints. Overall, 109 patients, or 0.9% were minimally nauseated prior to discharge. The postoperative complaints of continued nausea were reported in only 26 patients for 6 to 72 hours. There were only 2 events of respiratory depression, which were managed with brief oxygenation with mask without any adverse consequence of nausea, vomiting, aspiration, or other adverse effects. Limitations: Limitations include the nonrandomized observational nature of the study. Conclusion: This study illustrates that postoperative nausea, vomiting, and respiratory depression are extremely rare and aspiration is almost nonexistent, despite almost all of the patients receiving sedation and without preoperative fasting prior to provision of the interventional techniques. Key words: Interventional pain management, interventional techniques, complications, relative risk, evidence-based medicine, preoperative fasting, nausea, vomiting, aspiration

scholarly journals Facility Payments for Interventional Pain Management Procedures: Impact of Proposed Rules

2016 ◽  
Vol 7;19 (7;9) ◽  
pp. E957-E984
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Pain Management ◽  
Ambulatory Surgery ◽  
Health Care Expenditure ◽  
Regulatory Regime ◽  
Incentive Payment ◽  
Interventional Techniques ◽  
Hospital Outpatient ◽  
Management Procedures ◽  
Interventional Pain Management

In the face of the progressive implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), a significant regulatory regime, and the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS), the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) released its proposed 2017 hospital outpatient department (HOPD) and ambulatory surgery center (ASC) payment rules on July 14, 2016, and the physician payment schedule was released July 15, 2016. U.S. health care costs continue to increase, occupying 17.5% of the gross domestic product (GDP) in 2014 and surpassing $3 trillion in overall health care expenditure. Solo and independent practices face unique challenges and many are being acquired by hospitals or larger groups. This transfer of services to hospital settings is indisputably leading to an increase in the net cost to the system. Comparison of facility payments for interventional techniques in HOPD, ASC, and in-office settings shows wide variation for multiple interventional techniques. Major discrepancies in payment schedules are related to higher payments for hospitals than comparable treatments in in-office settings and ASCs. In-office procedures, which have been converted to ASC procedures, are reimbursed at as high as 1,366% higher than ASCs and 2,156% higher than in-office settings. The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) has made recommendations on avoiding the discrepancies and site-of-service differentials in in-office settings, hospital outpatient settings, and ASCs. These have not been implemented by CMS. In addition, there have been slow reductions in reimbursements over the recent years, which continue to accumulate, leading to significant reductions in payments In conclusion, equalization of site-of-service differentials will simultaneously improve reimbursement patterns for interventional pain management procedures, increase access and quality of care, and finally, reduce costs for CMS, extending Medicare solvency. Key words: Hospital outpatient departments, ambulatory surgery centers, physician inoffice services, interventional pain management, interventional techniques

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document