ArticleInterventional pain medicine2023
Is routine intravenous access commonly established before interventional pain procedures? Results of a spine intervention society practice pattern survey.
Article in Interventional pain medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Summary of background data: Establishing routine intravenous (IV) access prior to interventional pain procedures performed without sedation is controversial. Anecdotally, practices very in terms of their use of routine IV access. Objectives: To determine the frequency with which routine IV access is obtained for various common interventional pain procedures among interventional pain providers. Methods: An anonymous survey was distributed to physician members of the Spine Intervention Society (SIS) on 08/13/2020, and remained open until 10/13/2020. Respondents provided information regarding demographics and current practice patterns. Results: 141 SIS members completed the survey. A bimodal distribution was noted for most procedures, with most providers obtaining routine IV access either 0% of the time or 81-100% of the time. Routine IV access was used more frequently when performing cervical spine procedures, splanchnic or hypogastric plexus blocks, lumbar sympathetic blocks, and spinal cord stimulator trials. Excluding cases where IV's were used for sedation, the only procedures which providers obtained routine IV access more often than not were spinal cord stimulator trials, splanchnic/celiac plexus blocks, and hypogastric plexus blocks. Over half (52.5%) of respondents reported using an IV for an emergent situation in their career. While most providers would not modify their IV usage based on practice location, those that would were significantly more likely to decrease IV use if working in clinic-based procedures suites ( Discussions/conclusions: There remains wide variation among practitioners in establishing routine intravenous access prior to interventional procedures. Most providers surveyed do not routinely establish IV access for the majority of interventional pain procedures. Routine IV access is more commonly obtained for cervical spine procedures than other spinal regions. Overall, complications precipitating the need for IV use are rare in interventional spine but likely to happen over the course of a career.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.