Efficacy of continuous epidural infusion with epidural electric stimulation compared to conventional continuous epidural infusion for acute herpes zoster management: A retrospective study
Background: A continuous epidural infusion is commonly used in clinical settings, and reduces the likelihood of transition to postherpetic neuralgia via pain control. The purpose of the present study was to compare the efficacy of conventional continuous epidural infusion to that of continuous epidural infusion where the catheter is specifically guided by electric stimulation to areas with neurological damage in the treatment of zoster-related pain and prevention of postherpetic neuralgia.
Methods: We analyzed the medical records of 114 patients in the present study. The patients were divided into two groups: contrast (conventional continuous epidural infusion), and stimulation (continuous epidural infusion with epidural electric stimulation). In the contrast group, the position of the epidural catheter was confirmed using contrast medium alone, whereas in the stimulation group, the site of herpes zoster infection was identified through electric stimulation using a guidewire in the catheter. Clinical efficacy was assessed using a numerical rating scale (pain score) up to 6 months after the procedures. We compared the percentage of patients who showed complete remission (pain score less than 2, and no further medication) in each group. We also investigated whether the patients required additional interventional treatment due to insufficient pain control during the 6-month follow-up period after each procedure.
Results: After adjusting for confounding variables, the pain score was significantly lower in the stimulation group than in the contrast group for 6 months after the procedure. The adjusted odds ratio of patients included in the complete remission category was 1.9 times higher in the stimulation group than in the contrast group (95% confidence interval: 0.81-4.44, P = 0.14). The adjusted odds ratio for other interventions within 6 months after the procedure was 3.62 times higher in the contrast group than in the stimulation group (95% confidence interval: 1.17-11.19, P = 0.03).
Conclusion: Epidural drug administration to specific spinal segments using electric stimulation catheters may be more helpful than conventional continuous epidural infusion for improving pain and preventing postherpetic neuralgia in acute phase of herpes zoster.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
On 28 Jan, 2020
On 16 Jan, 2020
Received 16 Jan, 2020
On 15 Jan, 2020
Invitations sent on 15 Jan, 2020
On 14 Jan, 2020
On 14 Jan, 2020
Posted 25 Oct, 2019
On 05 Jan, 2020
Received 05 Jan, 2020
On 05 Jan, 2020
Received 28 Nov, 2019
On 10 Nov, 2019
Received 05 Nov, 2019
On 21 Oct, 2019
Invitations sent on 21 Oct, 2019
On 21 Oct, 2019
On 20 Oct, 2019
On 20 Oct, 2019
On 30 Sep, 2019
On 17 Sep, 2019
Received 17 Sep, 2019
Received 17 Sep, 2019
On 17 Sep, 2019
Invitations sent on 16 Sep, 2019
On 13 Sep, 2019
On 03 Sep, 2019
On 02 Sep, 2019
On 30 Aug, 2019
Efficacy of continuous epidural infusion with epidural electric stimulation compared to conventional continuous epidural infusion for acute herpes zoster management: A retrospective study
On 28 Jan, 2020
On 16 Jan, 2020
Received 16 Jan, 2020
On 15 Jan, 2020
Invitations sent on 15 Jan, 2020
On 14 Jan, 2020
On 14 Jan, 2020
Posted 25 Oct, 2019
On 05 Jan, 2020
Received 05 Jan, 2020
On 05 Jan, 2020
Received 28 Nov, 2019
On 10 Nov, 2019
Received 05 Nov, 2019
On 21 Oct, 2019
Invitations sent on 21 Oct, 2019
On 21 Oct, 2019
On 20 Oct, 2019
On 20 Oct, 2019
On 30 Sep, 2019
On 17 Sep, 2019
Received 17 Sep, 2019
Received 17 Sep, 2019
On 17 Sep, 2019
Invitations sent on 16 Sep, 2019
On 13 Sep, 2019
On 03 Sep, 2019
On 02 Sep, 2019
On 30 Aug, 2019
Background: A continuous epidural infusion is commonly used in clinical settings, and reduces the likelihood of transition to postherpetic neuralgia via pain control. The purpose of the present study was to compare the efficacy of conventional continuous epidural infusion to that of continuous epidural infusion where the catheter is specifically guided by electric stimulation to areas with neurological damage in the treatment of zoster-related pain and prevention of postherpetic neuralgia.
Methods: We analyzed the medical records of 114 patients in the present study. The patients were divided into two groups: contrast (conventional continuous epidural infusion), and stimulation (continuous epidural infusion with epidural electric stimulation). In the contrast group, the position of the epidural catheter was confirmed using contrast medium alone, whereas in the stimulation group, the site of herpes zoster infection was identified through electric stimulation using a guidewire in the catheter. Clinical efficacy was assessed using a numerical rating scale (pain score) up to 6 months after the procedures. We compared the percentage of patients who showed complete remission (pain score less than 2, and no further medication) in each group. We also investigated whether the patients required additional interventional treatment due to insufficient pain control during the 6-month follow-up period after each procedure.
Results: After adjusting for confounding variables, the pain score was significantly lower in the stimulation group than in the contrast group for 6 months after the procedure. The adjusted odds ratio of patients included in the complete remission category was 1.9 times higher in the stimulation group than in the contrast group (95% confidence interval: 0.81-4.44, P = 0.14). The adjusted odds ratio for other interventions within 6 months after the procedure was 3.62 times higher in the contrast group than in the stimulation group (95% confidence interval: 1.17-11.19, P = 0.03).
Conclusion: Epidural drug administration to specific spinal segments using electric stimulation catheters may be more helpful than conventional continuous epidural infusion for improving pain and preventing postherpetic neuralgia in acute phase of herpes zoster.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3