No abstract

Background and ObjectivesOsteoarthritis (OA) of the knee affects the aging population and has an associated influence on the health care system. Rigorous studies evaluating radiofrequency ablation for OA-related knee pain are lacking. This study compared long-term clinical safety and effectiveness of cooled radiofrequency ablation (CRFA) with intra-articular steroid (IAS) injection in managing OA-related knee pain.MethodsThis is a prospective, multicenter, randomized trial with 151 subjects with chronic (≥6 months) knee pain that was unresponsive to conservative modalities. Knee pain (Numeric Rating Scale [NRS]), Oxford Knee Score, overall treatment effect (Global Perceived Effect), analgesic drug use, and adverse events were compared between CRFA and IAS cohorts at 1, 3, and 6 months after intervention.ResultsThere were no differences in demographics between study groups. At 6 months, the CRFA group had more favorable outcomes in NRS: pain reduction 50% or greater: 74.1% versus 16.2%, P < 0.0001 (25.9% and 83.8% of these study cohorts, respectively, were nonresponders). Mean NRS score reduction was 4.9 ± 2.4 versus 1.3 ± 2.2, P < 0.0001; mean Oxford Knee Score was 35.7 ± 8.8 vs 22.4 ± 8.5, P < 0.0001; mean improved Global Perceived Effect was 91.4% vs 23.9%, P < 0.0001; and mean change in nonopioid medication use was CRFA > IAS (P = 0.02). There were no procedure-related serious adverse events.ConclusionsThis study demonstrates that CRFA is an effective long-term therapeutic option for managing pain and improving physical function and quality of life for patients with painful knee OA when compared with IAS injection.Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02343003).

We sought to assess the extent to which pain relief in chronic back and leg pain (CBLP) following spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is influenced by patient-related factors, including pain location, and technology factors. A number of electronic databases were searched with citation searching of included papers and recent systematic reviews. All study designs were included. The primary outcome was pain relief following SCS, we also sought pain score (pre- and post-SCS). Multiple predictive factors were examined: location of pain, history of back surgery, initial level of pain, litigation/worker's compensation, age, gender, duration of pain, duration of follow-up, publication year, continent of data collection, study design, quality score, method of SCS lead implant, and type of SCS lead. Between-study association in predictive factors and pain relief were assessed by meta-regression. Seventy-four studies (N = 3,025 patients with CBLP) met the inclusion criteria; 63 reported data to allow inclusion in a quantitative analysis. Evidence of substantial statistical heterogeneity (P < 0.0001) in level of pain relief following SCS was noted. The mean level of pain relief across studies was 58% (95% CI: 53% to 64%, random effects) at an average follow-up of 24 months. Multivariable meta-regression analysis showed no predictive patient or technology factors. SCS was effective in reducing pain irrespective of the location of CBLP. This review supports SCS as an effective pain relieving treatment for CBLP with predominant leg pain with or without a prior history of back surgery. Randomized controlled trials need to confirm the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of SCS in the CLBP population with predominant low back pain.

BACKGROUND: Optimal timing of mechanical ventilation in COVID-19 is uncertain. We sought to evaluate outcomes of delayed intubation and examine the ROX index (ie, [S pO 2 =F IO 2 ]/breathing frequency) to predict weaning from high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) in patients with COVID-19. METHODS: We performed a multicenter, retrospective, observational cohort study of subjects with respiratory failure due to COVID-19 and managed with HFNC. The ROX index was applied to predict HFNC success. Subjects that failed HFNC were divided into early HFNC failure (^48 h of HFNC therapy prior to mechanical ventilation) and late failure (> 48 h). Standard statistical comparisons and regression analyses were used to compare overall hospital mortality and secondary end points, including time-specific mortality, need for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and ICU length of stay between early and late failure groups. RESULTS: 272 subjects with COVID-19 were managed with HFNC. One hundred sixty-four (60.3%) were successfully weaned from HFNC, and 111 (67.7%) of those weaned were managed solely in non-ICU settings. ROX index >3.0 at 2, 6, and 12 hours after initiation of HFNC was 85.3% sensitive for identifying subsequent HFNC success. One hundred eight subjects were intubated for failure of HFNC (61 early failures and 47 late failures). Mortality after HFNC failure was high (45.4%). There was no statistical difference in hospital mortality (39.3% vs 53.2%, P 5 .18) or any of the secondary end points between early and late HFNC failure groups. This remained true even when adjusted for covariates. CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective review, HFNC was a viable strategy and mechanical ventilation was unecessary in the majority of subjects. In the minority that progressed to mechanical ventilation, duration of HFNC did not differentiate subjects with worse clinical outcomes. The ROX index was sensitive for the identification of subjects successfully weaned from HFNC. Prospective studies in COVID-19 are warranted to confirm these findings and to optimize patient selection for use of HFNC in this disease.