Prevalence and Discordance of the “Startle Response” with True Discogenic Pain According to Spine Intervention Society Guidelines for Provocation Discography: A Cohort Study

Pain Medicine ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (11) ◽  
pp. 2738-2742
Author(s):  
Fred DeFrancesch ◽  
Beau P Sperry ◽  
Charles N Aprill ◽  
Douglas Choe ◽  
Zachary L McCormick

Abstract Summary of Background Data The literature on cervical provocation discography (C-PD) is sparse. A “Startle Response” during C-PD is a known phenomenon that might be mistaken as an indicator of discogenic pain at the provoked disc level, but this has not been quantitatively described. Objectives To determine the incidence of the Startle Response and its concordance/discordance with true-positive C-PD in patients referred for surgical planning or evaluation after ruling out other axial pain generators. Methods Retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients who received C-PD at an outpatient spine center. The primary outcome was the rate of discordance of the Startle Response with true-positive C-PD according to the operational criteria of the Spine Intervention Society (SIS) guidelines. Results One hundred five discs were provoked in 36 individuals (19 female, mean age [SD] = 45.7 [10.9] years). C-PD was performed at a median of three levels (range = 1–5) with C4/5 (N = 30), C5/6 (N = 30), and C6/7 (N = 31) the most commonly evaluated. Twenty-six of 36 patients reported responses consistent with true-positive C-PD. A Startle Response was observed in 14 patients (39%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 23–57%), and 22 of 105 (21%, 95% CI = 14–30%) provoked discs. Of the 14 patients who exhibited a Startle Response, four had negative C-PD results (29%, 95% CI = 8–58%). As assessed per disc, C-PD results were positive in 12 of the 22 (55%, 95% CI = 32–76%) provoked discs that generated a Startle Response. Conclusions The present data demonstrate high discordance, 45% (95% CI = 24–68%), between the Startle Response and true-positive C-PD. Clinicians should be aware of this phenomenon and take care to distinguish it from a true-positive response during C-PD, as defined by the SIS guidelines. Misinterpretation of the Startle Response as a positive C-PD result may lead to inappropriate future care decisions in a substantial proportion of patients.

2021 ◽  
pp. 019459982110268
Author(s):  
Jiasen Wang ◽  
Jinrang Li ◽  
Qian Nie ◽  
Ran Zhang

Objectives To evaluate the necessity of multiple salivary pepsin tests within a day when diagnosing laryngopharyngeal reflux. Study Design Prospective cohort study. Setting Tertiary hospitals. Methods A total of 138 patients with signs and/or symptoms associated with laryngopharyngeal reflux were included. Salivary pepsin was detected on the day of 24-hour pH monitoring, and the results of salivary pepsin detected once in the morning and multiple times in 1 day were compared with the results of pH monitoring. Results Among the 138 patients, pH monitoring results were positive in 112. Salivary pepsin was positive in 47 cases in the morning, which was not consistent with the results of pH monitoring (kappa value = 0.117). With the pH monitoring results as the standard, the salivary pepsin detected once in the morning had a sensitivity of 38.4% (43/112) and a specificity of 84.6% (22/26) for the diagnosis of laryngopharyngeal reflux. When salivary pepsin was detected multiple times per day, 102 patients tested positive. The consistency with pH monitoring was moderate (kappa value = 0.587). The sensitivity was 86.6% (97/112), and the specificity was 80.8% (21/26). Of the 97 patients with positive results from pH monitoring and salivary pepsin detected multiple times a day, 54 had negative findings for a single detection in the morning, indicating that 55.7% (54/97) of the true positive cases were missed. Conclusion Although a single detection of salivary pepsin in the morning is more economical, the sensitivity is too low, and it is necessary to detect it multiple times a day.


2019 ◽  
Vol 119 (10) ◽  
pp. 1617-1623 ◽  
Author(s):  
Buster Mannheimer ◽  
Tore B. Stage ◽  
Anton Pottegård ◽  
Jonatan D. Lindh

Background Data indicate that codispensing flucloxacillin to patients already on warfarin may result in decreased warfarin efficacy. Objectives This article investigates the effect of flucloxacillin on warfarin anticoagulation. Patients and Methods In a retrospective cohort study of warfarin users, using three nationwide registers we included 5,848 patients receiving 10 days flucloxacillin treatment and 201 with ≥30 days treatment. To assess the potential for confounding by indication, we also identified 21,430 individuals initiating phenoxymethylpenicillin. International normalized ratio (INR) values and warfarin doses were calculated day-by-day and proportion of patients with a subtherapeutic INR week-by-week during cotreatment. Results Following initiation of flucloxacillin with a planned treatment duration of 10 days and ≥30 days, the mean INR decreased from 2.36 (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.34; 2.37) to 2.20 (95% CI 2.19; 2.21) and from 2.24 (95% CI 2.16; 2.32) to 1.96 (95% CI 1.89; 2.02), respectively. Consequently, for individuals with 10 days treatment the proportion of patients with a subtherapeutic INR of < 2 increased from 22% in the week preceding flucloxacillin initiation to 35% in the third week after initiation of flucloxacillin. In patients with 30 days treatment, the proportion increased from 34 to 63% by week 6. In individuals initiating phenoxymethylpenicillin, INR levels did not decrease. Conclusion One in three patients with 10 days flucloxacillin and almost two in three patients initiating long-term treatment, was exposed to a subsequent subtherapeutic anticoagulant effect. To avoid unnecessary thromboembolic complications, the initiation of flucloxacillin should be accompanied by closer INR monitoring which may be especially important among individuals with lengthy treatments.


2011 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Carol Jagger ◽  
Joanna C Collerton ◽  
Karen Davies ◽  
Andrew Kingston ◽  
Louise A Robinson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  

2001 ◽  
Vol 120 (5) ◽  
pp. A128-A128 ◽  
Author(s):  
H MALATY ◽  
D GRAHAM ◽  
A ELKASABANY ◽  
S REDDY ◽  
S SRINIVASAN ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 158 (6) ◽  
pp. S-1161
Author(s):  
Amrit K. Kamboj ◽  
Amandeep Gujral ◽  
Elida Voth ◽  
Daniel Penrice ◽  
Jessica McGoldrick ◽  
...  

2010 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 25-32 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Walla ◽  
Maria Richter ◽  
Stella Färber ◽  
Ulrich Leodolter ◽  
Herbert Bauer

Two experiments investigate effects related to food intake in humans. In Experiment 1, we measured startle response modulation while study participants ate ice cream, yoghurt, and chocolate. Statistical analysis revealed that ice cream intake resulted in the most robust startle inhibition compared to no food. Contrasting females and males, we found significant differences related to the conditions yoghurt and chocolate. In females, chocolate elicited the lowest response amplitude followed by yoghurt and ice cream. In males, chocolate produced the highest startle response amplitude even higher than eating nothing, whereas ice cream produced the lowest. Assuming that high response amplitudes reflect aversive motivation while low response amplitudes reflect appetitive motivational states, it is interpreted that eating ice cream is associated with the most appetitive state given the alternatives of chocolate and yoghurt across gender. However, in females alone eating chocolate, and in males alone eating ice cream, led to the most appetitive state. Experiment 2 was conducted to describe food intake-related brain activity by means of source localization analysis applied to electroencephalography data (EEG). Ice cream, yoghurt, a soft drink, and water were compared. Brain activity in rostral portions of the superior frontal gyrus was found in all conditions. No localization differences between conditions occurred. While EEG was found to be insensitive, startle response modulation seems to be a reliable method to objectively quantify motivational states related to the intake of different foods.


Author(s):  
Mika Kivimaki ◽  
Marko Elovainio ◽  
Jussi Vahtera ◽  
Marianna Virtanen ◽  
Jane E. Ferrie

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document