Steven P. Cohen, MD; Anuj Bhatia, MBBS, MD; Asokumar Buvanendran, MD; Eric S. Schwenk, MD; Ajay D. Wasan, MD, MSc; Robert W. Hurley, MD, PhD; Eugene R. Viscusi, MD; Samer Narouze, MD, PhD; Fred N. Davis, MD; Elspeth C. Ritchie, MD, MPH; Timothy R. Lubenow, MD; and William M. Hooten, MD
Published 1 July 2018 | DOI: 10.1097/AAP.0000000000000808
Abstract
Background: Over the past 2 decades, the use of intravenous ketamine infusions as a treatment for chronic pain has increased dramatically, with wide variation in patient selection, dosing, and monitoring. This has led to a chorus of calls from various sources for the development of consensus guidelines.
Methods: In November 2016, the charge for developing consensus guidelines was approved by the boards of directors of the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine and, shortly thereafter, the American Academy of Pain Medicine. In late 2017, the completed document was sent to the American Society of Anesthesiologists’ Committees on Pain Medicine and Standards and Practice Parameters, after which additional modifications were made. Panel members were selected by the committee chair and both boards of directors based on their expertise in evaluating clinical trials, past research experience, and clinical experience in developing protocols and treating patients with ketamine. Questions were developed and refined by the committee, and the groups responsible for addressing each question consisted of modules composed of 3 to 5 panel members in addition to the committee chair. Once a preliminary consensus was achieved, sections were sent to the entire panel, and further revisions were made. In addition to consensus guidelines, a comprehensive narrative review was performed, which formed part of the basis for guidelines.
Results: Guidelines were prepared for the following areas: indications; contraindications; whether there was evidence for a dose-response relationship, or a minimum or therapeutic dose range; whether oral ketamine or another N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist was a reasonable treatment option as a follow-up to infusions; preinfusion testing requirements; settings and personnel necessary to administer and monitor treatment; the use of preemptive and rescue medications to address adverse effects; and what constitutes a positive treatment response. The group was able to reach consensus on all questions.
Conclusions: Evidence supports the use of ketamine for chronic pain, but the level of evidence varies by condition and dose range. Most studies evaluating the efficacy of ketamine were small and uncontrolled and were either unblinded or ineffectively blinded. Adverse effects were few and the rate of serious adverse effects was similar to placebo in most studies, with higher dosages and more frequent infusions associated with greater risks. Larger studies, evaluating a wider variety of conditions, are needed to better quantify efficacy, improve patient selection, refine the therapeutic dose range, determine the effectiveness of nonintravenous ketamine alternatives, and develop a greater understanding of the long-term risks of repeated treatments.
Keywords: ketamine, chronic pain, Cohen
