4.3 Article

The incidence and management of tolerance in intrathecal baclofen therapy

期刊

SPINAL CORD
卷 47, 期 10, 页码 751-756

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/sc.2009.34

关键词

intrathecal baclofen; tolerance; spasticity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Study design: Retrospective study. Objectives: To study the incidence and management of tolerance in patients treated with intrathecal baclofen (ITB) therapy. Setting: Department of neurology and neurosurgery, University Medical Center Groningen, The Netherlands. Methods: Medical records of all patients who had received an implantable ITB pump at our clinic during 1991-2005 were reviewed. Results: A total of 37 patients (representing 116 pump years) were included. Mean follow-up time was 38 months (range 3-120 months). Baclofen dose increased in the first 18 months after implantation (P < 0.05), and then stabilized around a mean dose of 350 mu g per day. Eight patients (22%) developed tolerance, defined as a dose increase of > 100 mu g per year. No predictive factors for development of tolerance could be determined. Three different treatment regimens for tolerant patients were analyzed. Altering the infusion mode from simple to complex continuous (n = 6) had no effect on the development of tolerance. Pulsatile bolus infusion (n = 1) and a drug holiday (n = 2) were both effective in reducing the daily baclofen dose. Patients who needed surgical revision of the pump system because of mechanical failures (n = 11) showed a significant dose decrease during the first month after revision, indicating that the preoperative dose increase most likely had been caused by the pump failure. Pump-related complications occurred once per 10.5 years of ITB treatment. Drug-related side effects had an annual risk of 13.8%. The reported events were mostly mild. Conclusions: ITB therapy is effective and safe, also in the long term and causes tolerance in only 22% of the treated patients. Spinal Cord (2009) 47, 751-756; doi: 10.1038/sc.2009.34; published online 31 March 2009

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据