Objectives. In a companion article, we synthesized current clinical and preclinical data to formulate hypotheses about the etiology of drug administration catheter-tip inflammatory masses. In this article, we communicate our recommendations for the detection, treatment, mitigation, and prevention of such masses.Methods. We reviewed published and unpublished case reports and our own experiences to find methods to diagnose and treat catheter-tip inflammatory masses in a manner that minimized adverse neurological sequelae. We also formulated hypotheses about theoretical ways to mitigate, and possibly, prevent the formation of such masses.Results. Human cases have occurred only in patients with chronic pain who received intrathecal opioid drugs, alone or mixed with other drugs, or in patients who received agents that were not labeled for long-term intrathecal use. Most patients had noncancer pain owing to their large representation among the population with implanted pumps. Such patients also had a longer life expectancy and exposure to intrathecal drugs, and they received higher daily doses than patients with cancer pain. Clues to diagnosis included the loss of analgesic drug effects accompanied by new, gradually progressive neurological symptoms and signs. When a mass was diagnosed before it filled the spinal canal or before it caused severe neurological symptoms, open surgery to remove the mass often was not required. Anecdotal reports and the authors' experiences suggest that cessation of drug administration through the affected catheter was followed by shrinkage or disappearance of the mass over a period of 2-5 months.Conclusions. Attentive follow-up and maintenance of an index of suspicion should permit timely diagnosis, minimally invasive treatment, and avoidance of neurological injury from catheter-tip inflammatory masses. Whenever it is feasible, positioning the catheter in the lumbar thecal sac and/or keeping the daily intrathecal opioid dose as low as possible for as long possible may mitigate the seriousness, and perhaps, reduce the incidence of such inflammatory masses.

Evidence-based medicine depends on the existence of controlled clinical trials that establish the safety and efficacy of specific therapeutic techniques. Many interventions in clinical practice have achieved widespread acceptance despite little evidence to support them in the scientific literature; the critical appraisal of these interventions based on accumulating experience is a goal of medicine. To clarify the current state of knowledge concerning the use of various drugs for intraspinal infusion in pain management, an expert panel conducted a thorough review of the published literature. The exhaustive review included 5 different groups of compounds, with morphine and bupivacaine yielding the most citations in the literature. The need for additional large published controlled studies was highlighted by this review, especially for promising agents that have been shown to be safe and efficacious in recent clinical studies.

Consensus guidelines developed by an expert panel are helpful to clinicians when there is variation in practice and lack of a firm evidence base for an intervention, such as intraspinal therapy for pain. An internet-based survey of practitioners revealed remarkable variation in practice patterns surrounding intraspinal therapy. This prompted an interdisciplinary panel with extensive clinical experience in intraspinal infusion therapy to evaluate the results of the survey, the systematic reviews of the literature pertaining to this approach, and their own clinical experience with long-term spinal infusions. The panel proposed a scheme for the selection of drugs and doses for intraspinal therapy, and suggested guidelines for administration that would increase the likelihood of a successful outcome. These expert panel guidelines were designed to provide an initial structure for clinical decision making that is based on the best available evidence and the perspectives of experienced clinicians.

No abstract

Management of pain by intraspinal delivery of drugs enables physicians to target specific sites of action. While this novel approach is gaining increasing use, well-designed studies are needed. A major limitation is the lack of published information on existing drugs used for intrathecal delivery. (The strengths and weaknesses of this information are reviewed in the accompanying literature review article.) Promising agents such as bupivacaine, hydromorphone, and morphine/clonidine combinations warrant further research in large prospective (ideally randomized and double-blind) clinical safety and efficacy studies. These studies may provide data for pain management guidelines, such as those included in the preceding paper. Research must also address issues of formulation, chemical stability/compatibility, pharmacokinetics, and toxicology during clinical development and drug approval. Finally, more basic studies and early phase trials of other potential agents for intrathecal pain management (e.g., gabapentin) are needed.