Scielo RSS http://scielo.isciii.es/rss.php?pid=1134-804620170006&lang=pt vol. 24 num. 6 lang. pt http://scielo.isciii.es/img/en/fbpelogp.gif http://scielo.isciii.es http://scielo.isciii.es/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1134-80462017000600283&lng=pt&nrm=iso&tlng=pt http://scielo.isciii.es/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1134-80462017000600288&lng=pt&nrm=iso&tlng=pt RESUMEN Introducción: El dolor torácico agudo es una sensación dolorosa que se manifiesta entre el diafragma y la base del cuello, e implica un reto diagnóstico para cualquier médico en el servicio de urgencias. Objetivo: Determinar las principales características clínicas y epidemiológicas de los pacientes que consultan por dolor torácico en una clínica privada de la ciudad de Medellín. Metodología: Estudio observacional retrospectivo transversal, realizado con la información consignada en las historias clínicas de los adultos que consultaron por dolor torácico en el servicio de urgencias, en el periodo 2014-2015, y que cumplieron con los criterios de elegibilidad. La información se analizó en el programa SPSS 21, a las variables cualitativas se les calcularon frecuencias absolutas y relativas y a las cuantitativas se utilizaron promedios con desviación estándar o medianas. Resultados: Se evaluaron un total de 231 historias clínicas de pacientes que consultaron por dolor torácico. La edad promedio fue 49,5 ± 19,9 años, sexo femenino 56,7 %. Los antecedentes personales más frecuentes fueron hipertensión arterial 35,5 %, diabetes 10,8 %, dislipidemia 10,4 % y enfermedad coronaria 5,2 %. Respecto a las características del dolor, el 40,3 % fue de inicio súbito, de localización precordial el 38,2 %, para el 20 % el desencadenante fue la actividad física y el 60,6 % era de carácter opresivo. De los pacientes con diagnóstico etiológico, el más frecuente fue costocondritis con 18,2 %. Conclusiones: A pesar de que las características clínicas del dolor reportadas coinciden con la presentación clínica de un síndrome coronario agudo, la etiología más frecuente no fue esta, sino que fue la costocondritis, indicando que es un diagnóstico diferencial en el enfoque de un paciente con dolor torácico agudo.<hr/>ABSTRACT Introduction: Acute chest pain is a distressing sensation between the diaphragm and the base of the neck and it represents a diagnostic challenge for any physician in the emergency department. Objective: To establish the main clinical and epidemiological characteristics of patients who present with chest pain to the emergency department in a private clinic from the city of Medellin. Methods: Cross-sectional retrospective observational study, were patients who consulted for chest pain in the emergency department who met the eligibility criteria during 2014-2015. The information was analyzed in SPSS program vr.21; qualitative variables were described through relative frequencies, and the quantitative through mean and standard deviation or medians according to their distribution in the study population. Results: A total of 231 patients were evaluated, the mean age was 49.5 ± 19.9 years, 56.7 % were females. The most frequent pathological antecedents were hypertension 35.5 %, diabetes 10,8 %, dyslipidemia 10.4 % and coronary disease 5.2 %. Regarding pain features, in 40.3 % of the patients the pain began abruptly, in 38.2 % it had a precordial location, for 20 % of the cases physical activity acted as a trigger, and 60.6 % was oppressive. Costochondritis was the most common cause of chest pain among patients with an established etiologic diagnosis, representing the 18.2 %. Conclusions: Although the clinical features of pain reported coincide with the clinical presentation of an acute coronary syndrome, the most common cause of chest pain in study population was costochondritis instead, indicating that it is a differential diagnostic in the approach of patients with pain acute chest. http://scielo.isciii.es/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1134-80462017000600294&lng=pt&nrm=iso&tlng=pt RESUMEN Introducción: La artritis reumatoide tiene un significativo impacto negativo en la capacidad para realizar labores diarias, incluyendo el trabajo, las tareas del hogar y la calidad de vida. Los hallazgos experimentales y clínicos sugieren que el reentrenamiento de la habilidad motora puede proporcionar mejoras en pacientes con dolor crónico de muñeca y mano. Objetivo: Describir los cambios en la función manual, en la fuerza de puño y en el dolor, a la sexta semana y al tercer mes tras la aplicación de ejercicios enfocados en la habilidad motora manual en adultos con artritis reumatoide. Método: Estudio de diseño no experimental, descriptivo serie de casos, muestra 17 participantes con diagnóstico de artritis reumatoide. Los pacientes realizaron un programa de ejercicios enfocados en la habilidad motora manual durante 6 semanas. Se midieron las variables de función, dolor, fuerza de puño y pinza, a la sexta semana y al tercer mes. Resultados: No existe diferencia significativa en la intensidad del dolor, función y fuerza de puño, postintervención p &gt; 0,05. Existe diferencia significativa a la sexta semana en la fuerza de pinza p = 0,002. Durante el seguimiento al tercer mes solo hubo diferencia significativa en la fuerza de puño p = 0,01. Conclusión: La aplicación de un programa de ejercicios enfocados en la habilidad motora manual generó cambios a nivel de la fuerza de puño y pinza. Con respecto a la funcionalidad e intensidad del dolor no se apreciaron diferencias significativas.<hr/>ABSTRACT Introduction: Rheumatoid arthritis has a significant negative impact on the ability to perform daily tasks, including work, household chores and quality of life. Experimental and clinical findings suggest that retraining of motor skills may provide improvements in patients with chronic pain the wrist and hand. Objective: To describe the changes in the manual function, the grip strength and pain, to the sixth week and to the third month after the application of exercises focused on manual motor skills, in adults with rheumatoid arthritis. Method: Non-experimental design study, descriptive case series, sample 17 participants with diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis. The patients performed a program of exercises focused on manual motor skill for 6 weeks. Were measured at the variables of function, the grip strength , digtal clamp and pain, the sixth week and at the third month. Results: There was no significant difference in pain intensity, function and the grip strength, post intervention p &gt; 0,05. There was significant difference at the sixth week in the digital clamp p = 0.002. During follow-up at the third month, there was only significant difference in the grip strength p = 0.01. Conclusion: The application of a program of exercises focused on the manual motor skill, generated changes a level of the grip strength and clamp. Regarding the functionality and intensity of pain, there were no significant differences. http://scielo.isciii.es/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1134-80462017000600304&lng=pt&nrm=iso&tlng=pt RESUMEN Introducción: La neuromodulación de las raíces sacras se ha mostrado eficaz en el tratamiento del dolor pélvico crónico (DPC) refractario a tratamiento farmacológico. En estos pacientes y parece existir un importante grado de sensibilización central. La radiofrecuencia pulsada ha demostrado su utilidad en múltiples cuadros de dolor neuropático. Una modificación de la técnica de radiofrecuencia pulsada (RFP) vía caudal, propuesta por Rohof para el tratamiento de pacientes con sensibilización central, intentando concentrar los impulsos electromagnéticos sobre las vías nerviosas aferentes y eferentes que inervan las distintas estructuras pélvicas, quizá pudiera ser efectiva en el tratamiento de estos pacientes. En este artículo se presentan dos pacientes con DPC refractario a otros tratamientos previos que han respondido adecuadamente a la RFP vía caudal de raíces sacras. Material y métodos: Se presentan dos casos de pacientes con DPC con escasa respuesta previa a distintos tratamientos conservadores e intervencionistas clásicos. Se realiza RFP vía caudal de raíces sacras, con una cánula recta, con control de temperatura (electrodo extraíble Cosman(r) modelo CC152020) situando su punta, mediante control radiológico, a nivel S3 y colocando la placa dispersiva sobre la unión sacro lumbar. Tras la RFP se realiza inyección posterior de anestésico local y corticoide a través de la cánula. Se evalúa a los pacientes cada tres meses hasta el momento actual. Resultados: Tras la aplicación de esta técnica, ambos pacientes refieren disminución de la intensidad del dolor en la escala NRS (de 8-9/10 a 2-3/10), así como un grado de alivio de hasta el 80 %, afirmando haber obtenido con esta técnica el mayor grado de satisfacción logrado hasta el momento con una mayor duración del mismo. Conclusión: La RFP de raíces sacras vía caudal puede suponer una nueva, sencilla, útil y segura alternativa terapéutica en pacientes con DPC.<hr/>ABSTRACT Introduction: Sacral root neuromodulation has been known as a well-established method of managing intractable chronic pelvic pain (CPP), where it seems to exist an important degree of central sensitization. Pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) offers applicability to pathological conditions such as neuropathic pain. A modified caudal PRF proposed by Rohof for the treatment of patients with central sensitization, attempting to concentrate the electromagnetic impulses on the afferent and efferent nerve pathways innervating the different pelvic structures, could be an effective treatment. In this paper, we present two patients with refractory CPP and a remarkable pain relief after being treated with this novel technique. Materials and methods: We present the history of two patients with CPP and refractory to both conservative and interventional classic treatments. Caudal PRF is carried out, with a straight temperature-control cannula (Cosman(r) removable electrode CC152020 model), with radiological control, no further than the S3 level and applying the ground pad on the lumbosacral junction. Then, local anesthesia and corticoids are injected through the cannula. Patients are evaluated every three months until the present time. Results: After the application of this technique, both patients reported decreased pain intensity on the NRS scale (from 8-9/10 to 2-3/10), as well as a degree of pain relief up to 80 %, claiming to have obtained the greater degree of satisfaction and prolong effect achieved so far. Conclusion: Caudal PRF of the sacral roots might be used as a new, simple, useful and safe therapeutic alternative in patients with CPP. http://scielo.isciii.es/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1134-80462017000600309&lng=pt&nrm=iso&tlng=pt RESUMEN El avance científico y la aparición de la inmunoterapia en la oncología obliga a conocer tanto sus resultados en forma de supervivencia como la toxicidad que esta aporta. La estimulación farmacológica del sistema inmune puede producir distorsiones en la regulación del mismo, alterando el proceso de autotolerancia inmune y favoreciendo la aparición de reacciones autoinmunitarias desmedidas contra órganos sanos. La colitis autoinmune es un evento inmunorrelacionado que cursa habitualmente con diarrea. Pese a que el eje del tratamiento es el tratamiento corticoideo, no siempre se consigue controlar el efecto adverso ni el dolor que, en ocasiones, esta provoca. En nuestro caso, la utilización de fentanilo de acción rápida para control del dolor consiguió actuar colateralmente como coadyuvante al tratamiento inmunosupresor, enlenteciendo el tránsito intestinal y, por consiguiente, favoreciendo el control de la colitis.<hr/>ABSTRACT The scientific advance and the appearance of immunotherapy in oncology, requires to know both its results in the form of survival, and the toxicity that this contributes. Pharmacological stimulation of the immune system can cause distortions in the regulation of the immune system and alter the process of immune tolerance, favoring the appearance of excessive autoimmune reactions against healthy organs. Autoimmune colitis is an immunorelated event that usually courses with diarrhea. Although the treatment axis is corticoids, it is not always possible to control the adverse effect or the pain that, sometimes, these treatment cause. In our case, the use of fast-acting fentanyl for pain control was able to act as a coadjuvant to the immunosuppressive treatment, slowing the intestinal transit and, consequently, favoring the control of the colitis. http://scielo.isciii.es/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1134-80462017000600313&lng=pt&nrm=iso&tlng=pt RESUMEN La prescripción de opioides para el dolor crónico se ha incrementado en las últimas décadas. Sin embargo, las dudas sobre su seguridad a largo plazo, un uso inadecuado y el desarrollo de conductas aberrantes asociadas a opioides (CAAO) dificultan la toma de decisiones clínicas, provocando un tratamiento insuficiente del dolor crónico. Diversas guías prácticas han establecido recomendaciones para el control de los pacientes que reciben opioides a largo plazo. Cualquier médico debe conocer las herramientas disponibles para identificar a aquellos pacientes que presenten un riesgo elevado de mal uso de los opioides. Debe, además, saber cómo detectarlo y abordarlo sin comprometer el tratamiento óptimo del dolor en aquellos pacientes que sí pueden beneficiarse de un uso correcto de los opioides. En el presente trabajo se revisan las principales guías de práctica clínica, revisiones sistemáticas, recomendaciones y estrategias para minimizar los riesgos de los opioides en el tratamiento del dolor crónico no oncológico.<hr/>ABSTRACT Prescription of opioids for chronic pain has increased in recent decades. However, issues arise about their long-term safety, abuse and opioid-associated aberrant behaviors that hinder clinical decision-making, thereby contributing to insufficient treatment of chronic pain. Several clinical practice guidelines have established different recommendations for monitoring patients receiving long-term opioid therapies, and screening tools have been recommended to identify those at high risk. Every physician should be aware of the tools available to identify those patients requiring opioid treatment and having a high risk of addictive behaviors, knowing how to detect and treat it without compromising the optimal management of pain in those patients who can benefit from correct use of opioids. We hereby review the main clinical practice guidelines, systematic reviews, recommendations and strategies to minimize the risks of opioids in the treatment of chronic non-cancer pain. http://scielo.isciii.es/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1134-80462017000600324&lng=pt&nrm=iso&tlng=pt RESUMEN Introducción: La osteoartrosis (OA) de rodilla es el tipo más común de OA. Es un desorden multifactorial donde el dolor es la característica clínica más importante. El tratamiento analgésico en la OA de rodilla usualmente comienza con acetaminofén y antinflamatorios no esteroideos. El manejo intervencionista no quirúrgico está indicado en la gonartrosis sintomática no quirúrgica sin respuesta a tratamiento analgésico y antinflamatorio vía oral y tópica, así como en la gonartrosis en fase quirúrgica cuando la cirugía sea desaconsejable o esté contraindicada. Objetivos: Hacer una revisión crítica sobre la evidencia actual para las siguientes terapias intrarticulares (IA): corticoesteroides, ácido hialurónico (AH), ozono, plasma rico en plaquetas (PRP), toxina botulínica (TBA) y radiofrecuencia de nervios geniculados. Metodología: Se hizo una búsqueda y revisión no sistemática de artículos individuales, revisiones sistemáticas y metanálisis. Resultados y conclusiones: Los esteroides IA son efectivos, principalmente en aquellos con mayor compromiso radiográfico, con un nivel de evidencia 1B. El PRP y AH son útiles en pacientes con gonartrosis leve a moderada pero no en gonartrosis severa, con una mayor duración del efecto para el PRP. En grados severos de gonartrosis (grado III-IV), la terapia más indicada es la radiofrecuencia de nervios geniculados. La toxina botulínica es superior a los esteroides IA con adecuada respuesta en los diferentes grados de artrosis, incluso cuando las demás terapias no han logrado una respuesta adecuada. Todas las terapias revisadas han sido efectivas para mejoría del dolor en gonartrosis; sin embargo, hay gran controversia sobre el grado de recomendación para cada una de las terapias, esto debido a la gran variabilidad en los fenotipos de los pacientes incluidos en los diferentes estudios, lo que limita generalizar los resultados y dificulta el enfoque de los pacientes.<hr/>ABSTRACT Introduction: Osteoarthritis (OA) of knee is the most common type of OA. It is a multifactorial disorder where pain is the most important clinical feature. Analgesic treatment in knee OA usually begins with acetaminophen and NSAIDs. Nonsurgical interventional indicated on nonsurgical symptomatic knee OA unresponsive to analgesic and anti-inflammatory oral and topical treatment, as well as knee osteoarthritis in surgery, when surgery is contraindicated or inadvisable. Objectives: A critical review of the current evidence for the following therapies intraarticular (IA): corticosteroids, hyaluronic acid (HA), ozone, platelet-rich plasma (PRP), botulinum toxin and RF geniculate nerves. Methodology: A search and no systematic review of individual articles, systematic reviews, meta-analysis was performed. Results and conclusions: IA steroids are effective, especially in those with greater radiographic commitment, with a level of evidence 1B. The PRP and AH, are useful in patients with mild to moderate knee osteoarthritis but not in severe knee osteoarthritis, with a longer duration of effect for the PRP. In severe degrees of gonarthrosis (Grades III-IV), the most suitable therapy is the RF geniculate nerves. Botulinum toxin, is superior to IA steroids with adequate response in different degrees of arthrosis, even when other therapies have not achieved adequate response. All therapies have been revised effective pain relief in knee osteoarthritis. However, there is great controversy over the degree of recommendation for each of the therapies, this because of the great variability in the phenotypes of patients included in the different studies, limiting generalizability of the results and hinders the approach of patients. http://scielo.isciii.es/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1134-80462017000600333&lng=pt&nrm=iso&tlng=pt resumen está disponible en el texto completo<hr/>ABSTRACT Chronic pain is one of the leading causes of disability and functional impotence in today's society. The increased demand and complexity of infiltrations in chronic pain units increases every day. On the other hand, cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases are the ones that generate more morbi-mortality in our environment. Therefore, one of the problems that we face, prior to the infiltration, is the increase in the number of patients undergoing antiplatelet therapy (AAP) and/or anticoagulant therapy. The intake of antiplatelet agents or anticoagulants is of great concern in order to offer the patient an infiltration that affects the neuroege, deep myofascial infiltrations or deep blockages, since these procedures present a high hemorrhagic risk. The objective of this guide is to improve the quality and safety of antiaggregated and anticoagulated patients in order to receive an infiltration in the Pain Unit, as well as to avoid unnecessary referrals to other specialists. It is necessary to know the hemorrhagic risk of the procedures that we are going to carry out, but also the reasons why the patients are antiaggregated and anticoagulated and the safety limits for laying off each drug, not only to be aware of the consequences of an inadequate suspension of these treatments but to be able to establish an appropriate bridging therapy with. There are also certain circumstances that may increase the risk of procedural bleeding (alterations in the anatomy of the spine, multiple punctures, not using scopia, aspiration of blood after puncture...). This may influence the reintroduction of antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy, which will be routinely reintroduced within 24 hours of infiltration. The anticoagulated patients are divided into two categories according to the infiltration to be performed: those who need to discontinue anticoagulants and to perform low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) bridge therapy and those who do not. Anti-vitamin K would be discontinued 3-5 days prior to infiltration. Direct Anticoagulants (DACOS) between 3-5 days, depending on the drug. LMWH bridging therapy would begin the day after the anticoagulant suspension. We contemplate special situations such as renal failure, which increases the safety intervals in the suspension of the drug for Direct Anticoagulants (DACOS) and requires variations in the pattern of LMWH for bridge therapy. The reintroduction of DACOS deserves special mention. This is done within 24 hours of the technique without the need to put LMWH simultaneously. In addition to the anti-vitamin K, an LMWH should be administered within 24 hours of infiltration, and during the next 5 days, until the INR is within the therapeutic range (control performed on an outpatient basis). Thus patients on acetyl salicylic acid treatment would have two categories: techniques that can be performed while maintaining ASA and those that do not. The remaining antiplatelet agents would have three options: techniques that need to be suspended to perform the techniques with different safety intervals for each drug, techniques in which it would be necessary to replace them with AAS based on thrombotic risk and those that would not require modification of the schedule. The acetyl salicylic acid must be interrupted: ASA 3-4 days, Clopidogrel 5-7 days, Prasugrel 4-6 days and Ticagrelor 3-5 days (Suspension in the lower number of the range will require a multidisciplinary assessment of the case). All recommendations have the objective of getting to the infiltration with drug levels low enough not to produce life-threatening bleeding and at the same time allow the therapeutic levels of each platelet or anticoagulant antiplatelet to be reached as fast possible after reintroduction. The replacement of antiagregant by LMWH at therapeutic doses is a possibility that is not completely validated. In patients with antiaggregant and anticoagulant the indications for each drug should be followed independently. In very specific situations such as double antiagging therapy or triple antitromotic therapy, it is best to wait until the thrombotic risk decreases. If infiltration/blocking is mandatory it is prudent to make a consensual multidisciplinar decision among the Hematology/Hemostasis, Cardiology and Pain Unity teams. At first, it was recommended to wait more than 12 months before suspending the double antiplatelet in patients with drug-eluting stents. However, new-generation stents allow modifications of this safety margin on which the interventional cardiologist should advise us. Special consideration is given to other drugs of habitual consumption, produce hemostasis alterations: NSAIDs, serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). We recommend to request a complete coagulation study (AP, APTT, fibrinogen) for all patients who will undergo infiltrations of moderate or high bleeding risk prior to infiltration and the day of the same in those patients receiving anticoagulants. http://scielo.isciii.es/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1134-80462017000600356&lng=pt&nrm=iso&tlng=pt resumen está disponible en el texto completo<hr/>ABSTRACT Chronic pain is one of the leading causes of disability and functional impotence in today's society. The increased demand and complexity of infiltrations in chronic pain units increases every day. On the other hand, cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases are the ones that generate more morbi-mortality in our environment. Therefore, one of the problems that we face, prior to the infiltration, is the increase in the number of patients undergoing antiplatelet therapy (AAP) and/or anticoagulant therapy. The intake of antiplatelet agents or anticoagulants is of great concern in order to offer the patient an infiltration that affects the neuroege, deep myofascial infiltrations or deep blockages, since these procedures present a high hemorrhagic risk. The objective of this guide is to improve the quality and safety of antiaggregated and anticoagulated patients in order to receive an infiltration in the Pain Unit, as well as to avoid unnecessary referrals to other specialists. It is necessary to know the hemorrhagic risk of the procedures that we are going to carry out, but also the reasons why the patients are antiaggregated and anticoagulated and the safety limits for laying off each drug, not only to be aware of the consequences of an inadequate suspension of these treatments but to be able to establish an appropriate bridging therapy with. There are also certain circumstances that may increase the risk of procedural bleeding (alterations in the anatomy of the spine, multiple punctures, not using scopia, aspiration of blood after puncture...). This may influence the reintroduction of antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy, which will be routinely reintroduced within 24 hours of infiltration. The anticoagulated patients are divided into two categories according to the infiltration to be performed: those who need to discontinue anticoagulants and to perform low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) bridge therapy and those who do not. Anti-vitamin K would be discontinued 3-5 days prior to infiltration. Direct Anticoagulants (DACOS) between 3-5 days, depending on the drug. LMWH bridging therapy would begin the day after the anticoagulant suspension. We contemplate special situations such as renal failure, which increases the safety intervals in the suspension of the drug for Direct Anticoagulants (DACOS) and requires variations in the pattern of LMWH for bridge therapy. The reintroduction of DACOS deserves special mention. This is done within 24 hours of the technique without the need to put LMWH simultaneously. In addition to the anti-vitamin K, an LMWH should be administered within 24 hours of infiltration, and during the next 5 days, until the INR is within the therapeutic range (control performed on an outpatient basis). Thus patients on acetyl salicylic acid treatment would have two categories: techniques that can be performed while maintaining ASA and those that do not. The remaining antiplatelet agents would have three options: techniques that need to be suspended to perform the techniques with different safety intervals for each drug, techniques in which it would be necessary to replace them with AAS based on thrombotic risk and those that would not require modification of the schedule. The acetyl salicylic acid must be interrupted: ASA 3-4 days, Clopidogrel 5-7 days, Prasugrel 4-6 days and Ticagrelor 3-5 days (Suspension in the lower number of the range will require a multidisciplinary assessment of the case). All recommendations have the objective of getting to the infiltration with drug levels low enough not to produce life-threatening bleeding and at the same time allow the therapeutic levels of each platelet or anticoagulant antiplatelet to be reached as fast possible after reintroduction. The replacement of antiagregant by LMWH at therapeutic doses is a possibility that is not completely validated. In patients with antiaggregant and anticoagulant the indications for each drug should be followed independently. In very specific situations such as double antiagging therapy or triple antitromotic therapy, it is best to wait until the thrombotic risk decreases. If infiltration/blocking is mandatory it is prudent to make a consensual multidisciplinar decision among the Hematology/Hemostasis, Cardiology and Pain Unity teams. At first, it was recommended to wait more than 12 months before suspending the double antiplatelet in patients with drug-eluting stents. However, new-generation stents allow modifications of this safety margin on which the interventional cardiologist should advise us. Special consideration is given to other drugs of habitual consumption, produce hemostasis alterations: NSAIDs, serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). We recommend to request a complete coagulation study (AP, APTT, fibrinogen) for all patients who will undergo infiltrations of moderate or high bleeding risk prior to infiltration and the day of the same in those patients receiving anticoagulants. http://scielo.isciii.es/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1134-80462017000600359&lng=pt&nrm=iso&tlng=pt resumen está disponible en el texto completo<hr/>ABSTRACT Chronic pain is one of the leading causes of disability and functional impotence in today's society. The increased demand and complexity of infiltrations in chronic pain units increases every day. On the other hand, cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases are the ones that generate more morbi-mortality in our environment. Therefore, one of the problems that we face, prior to the infiltration, is the increase in the number of patients undergoing antiplatelet therapy (AAP) and/or anticoagulant therapy. The intake of antiplatelet agents or anticoagulants is of great concern in order to offer the patient an infiltration that affects the neuroege, deep myofascial infiltrations or deep blockages, since these procedures present a high hemorrhagic risk. The objective of this guide is to improve the quality and safety of antiaggregated and anticoagulated patients in order to receive an infiltration in the Pain Unit, as well as to avoid unnecessary referrals to other specialists. It is necessary to know the hemorrhagic risk of the procedures that we are going to carry out, but also the reasons why the patients are antiaggregated and anticoagulated and the safety limits for laying off each drug, not only to be aware of the consequences of an inadequate suspension of these treatments but to be able to establish an appropriate bridging therapy with. There are also certain circumstances that may increase the risk of procedural bleeding (alterations in the anatomy of the spine, multiple punctures, not using scopia, aspiration of blood after puncture...). This may influence the reintroduction of antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy, which will be routinely reintroduced within 24 hours of infiltration. The anticoagulated patients are divided into two categories according to the infiltration to be performed: those who need to discontinue anticoagulants and to perform low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) bridge therapy and those who do not. Anti-vitamin K would be discontinued 3-5 days prior to infiltration. Direct Anticoagulants (DACOS) between 3-5 days, depending on the drug. LMWH bridging therapy would begin the day after the anticoagulant suspension. We contemplate special situations such as renal failure, which increases the safety intervals in the suspension of the drug for Direct Anticoagulants (DACOS) and requires variations in the pattern of LMWH for bridge therapy. The reintroduction of DACOS deserves special mention. This is done within 24 hours of the technique without the need to put LMWH simultaneously. In addition to the anti-vitamin K, an LMWH should be administered within 24 hours of infiltration, and during the next 5 days, until the INR is within the therapeutic range (control performed on an outpatient basis). Thus patients on acetyl salicylic acid treatment would have two categories: techniques that can be performed while maintaining ASA and those that do not. The remaining antiplatelet agents would have three options: techniques that need to be suspended to perform the techniques with different safety intervals for each drug, techniques in which it would be necessary to replace them with AAS based on thrombotic risk and those that would not require modification of the schedule. The acetyl salicylic acid must be interrupted: ASA 3-4 days, Clopidogrel 5-7 days, Prasugrel 4-6 days and Ticagrelor 3-5 days (Suspension in the lower number of the range will require a multidisciplinary assessment of the case). All recommendations have the objective of getting to the infiltration with drug levels low enough not to produce life-threatening bleeding and at the same time allow the therapeutic levels of each platelet or anticoagulant antiplatelet to be reached as fast possible after reintroduction. The replacement of antiagregant by LMWH at therapeutic doses is a possibility that is not completely validated. In patients with antiaggregant and anticoagulant the indications for each drug should be followed independently. In very specific situations such as double antiagging therapy or triple antitromotic therapy, it is best to wait until the thrombotic risk decreases. If infiltration/blocking is mandatory it is prudent to make a consensual multidisciplinar decision among the Hematology/Hemostasis, Cardiology and Pain Unity teams. At first, it was recommended to wait more than 12 months before suspending the double antiplatelet in patients with drug-eluting stents. However, new-generation stents allow modifications of this safety margin on which the interventional cardiologist should advise us. Special consideration is given to other drugs of habitual consumption, produce hemostasis alterations: NSAIDs, serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). We recommend to request a complete coagulation study (AP, APTT, fibrinogen) for all patients who will undergo infiltrations of moderate or high bleeding risk prior to infiltration and the day of the same in those patients receiving anticoagulants. http://scielo.isciii.es/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1134-80462017000600361&lng=pt&nrm=iso&tlng=pt resumen está disponible en el texto completo<hr/>ABSTRACT Chronic pain is one of the leading causes of disability and functional impotence in today's society. The increased demand and complexity of infiltrations in chronic pain units increases every day. On the other hand, cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases are the ones that generate more morbi-mortality in our environment. Therefore, one of the problems that we face, prior to the infiltration, is the increase in the number of patients undergoing antiplatelet therapy (AAP) and/or anticoagulant therapy. The intake of antiplatelet agents or anticoagulants is of great concern in order to offer the patient an infiltration that affects the neuroege, deep myofascial infiltrations or deep blockages, since these procedures present a high hemorrhagic risk. The objective of this guide is to improve the quality and safety of antiaggregated and anticoagulated patients in order to receive an infiltration in the Pain Unit, as well as to avoid unnecessary referrals to other specialists. It is necessary to know the hemorrhagic risk of the procedures that we are going to carry out, but also the reasons why the patients are antiaggregated and anticoagulated and the safety limits for laying off each drug, not only to be aware of the consequences of an inadequate suspension of these treatments but to be able to establish an appropriate bridging therapy with. There are also certain circumstances that may increase the risk of procedural bleeding (alterations in the anatomy of the spine, multiple punctures, not using scopia, aspiration of blood after puncture...). This may influence the reintroduction of antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy, which will be routinely reintroduced within 24 hours of infiltration. The anticoagulated patients are divided into two categories according to the infiltration to be performed: those who need to discontinue anticoagulants and to perform low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) bridge therapy and those who do not. Anti-vitamin K would be discontinued 3-5 days prior to infiltration. Direct Anticoagulants (DACOS) between 3-5 days, depending on the drug. LMWH bridging therapy would begin the day after the anticoagulant suspension. We contemplate special situations such as renal failure, which increases the safety intervals in the suspension of the drug for Direct Anticoagulants (DACOS) and requires variations in the pattern of LMWH for bridge therapy. The reintroduction of DACOS deserves special mention. This is done within 24 hours of the technique without the need to put LMWH simultaneously. In addition to the anti-vitamin K, an LMWH should be administered within 24 hours of infiltration, and during the next 5 days, until the INR is within the therapeutic range (control performed on an outpatient basis). Thus patients on acetyl salicylic acid treatment would have two categories: techniques that can be performed while maintaining ASA and those that do not. The remaining antiplatelet agents would have three options: techniques that need to be suspended to perform the techniques with different safety intervals for each drug, techniques in which it would be necessary to replace them with AAS based on thrombotic risk and those that would not require modification of the schedule. The acetyl salicylic acid must be interrupted: ASA 3-4 days, Clopidogrel 5-7 days, Prasugrel 4-6 days and Ticagrelor 3-5 days (Suspension in the lower number of the range will require a multidisciplinary assessment of the case). All recommendations have the objective of getting to the infiltration with drug levels low enough not to produce life-threatening bleeding and at the same time allow the therapeutic levels of each platelet or anticoagulant antiplatelet to be reached as fast possible after reintroduction. The replacement of antiagregant by LMWH at therapeutic doses is a possibility that is not completely validated. In patients with antiaggregant and anticoagulant the indications for each drug should be followed independently. In very specific situations such as double antiagging therapy or triple antitromotic therapy, it is best to wait until the thrombotic risk decreases. If infiltration/blocking is mandatory it is prudent to make a consensual multidisciplinar decision among the Hematology/Hemostasis, Cardiology and Pain Unity teams. At first, it was recommended to wait more than 12 months before suspending the double antiplatelet in patients with drug-eluting stents. However, new-generation stents allow modifications of this safety margin on which the interventional cardiologist should advise us. Special consideration is given to other drugs of habitual consumption, produce hemostasis alterations: NSAIDs, serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). We recommend to request a complete coagulation study (AP, APTT, fibrinogen) for all patients who will undergo infiltrations of moderate or high bleeding risk prior to infiltration and the day of the same in those patients receiving anticoagulants. http://scielo.isciii.es/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1134-80462017000600363&lng=pt&nrm=iso&tlng=pt resumen está disponible en el texto completo<hr/>ABSTRACT Chronic pain is one of the leading causes of disability and functional impotence in today's society. The increased demand and complexity of infiltrations in chronic pain units increases every day. On the other hand, cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases are the ones that generate more morbi-mortality in our environment. Therefore, one of the problems that we face, prior to the infiltration, is the increase in the number of patients undergoing antiplatelet therapy (AAP) and/or anticoagulant therapy. The intake of antiplatelet agents or anticoagulants is of great concern in order to offer the patient an infiltration that affects the neuroege, deep myofascial infiltrations or deep blockages, since these procedures present a high hemorrhagic risk. The objective of this guide is to improve the quality and safety of antiaggregated and anticoagulated patients in order to receive an infiltration in the Pain Unit, as well as to avoid unnecessary referrals to other specialists. It is necessary to know the hemorrhagic risk of the procedures that we are going to carry out, but also the reasons why the patients are antiaggregated and anticoagulated and the safety limits for laying off each drug, not only to be aware of the consequences of an inadequate suspension of these treatments but to be able to establish an appropriate bridging therapy with. There are also certain circumstances that may increase the risk of procedural bleeding (alterations in the anatomy of the spine, multiple punctures, not using scopia, aspiration of blood after puncture...). This may influence the reintroduction of antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy, which will be routinely reintroduced within 24 hours of infiltration. The anticoagulated patients are divided into two categories according to the infiltration to be performed: those who need to discontinue anticoagulants and to perform low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) bridge therapy and those who do not. Anti-vitamin K would be discontinued 3-5 days prior to infiltration. Direct Anticoagulants (DACOS) between 3-5 days, depending on the drug. LMWH bridging therapy would begin the day after the anticoagulant suspension. We contemplate special situations such as renal failure, which increases the safety intervals in the suspension of the drug for Direct Anticoagulants (DACOS) and requires variations in the pattern of LMWH for bridge therapy. The reintroduction of DACOS deserves special mention. This is done within 24 hours of the technique without the need to put LMWH simultaneously. In addition to the anti-vitamin K, an LMWH should be administered within 24 hours of infiltration, and during the next 5 days, until the INR is within the therapeutic range (control performed on an outpatient basis). Thus patients on acetyl salicylic acid treatment would have two categories: techniques that can be performed while maintaining ASA and those that do not. The remaining antiplatelet agents would have three options: techniques that need to be suspended to perform the techniques with different safety intervals for each drug, techniques in which it would be necessary to replace them with AAS based on thrombotic risk and those that would not require modification of the schedule. The acetyl salicylic acid must be interrupted: ASA 3-4 days, Clopidogrel 5-7 days, Prasugrel 4-6 days and Ticagrelor 3-5 days (Suspension in the lower number of the range will require a multidisciplinary assessment of the case). All recommendations have the objective of getting to the infiltration with drug levels low enough not to produce life-threatening bleeding and at the same time allow the therapeutic levels of each platelet or anticoagulant antiplatelet to be reached as fast possible after reintroduction. The replacement of antiagregant by LMWH at therapeutic doses is a possibility that is not completely validated. In patients with antiaggregant and anticoagulant the indications for each drug should be followed independently. In very specific situations such as double antiagging therapy or triple antitromotic therapy, it is best to wait until the thrombotic risk decreases. If infiltration/blocking is mandatory it is prudent to make a consensual multidisciplinar decision among the Hematology/Hemostasis, Cardiology and Pain Unity teams. At first, it was recommended to wait more than 12 months before suspending the double antiplatelet in patients with drug-eluting stents. However, new-generation stents allow modifications of this safety margin on which the interventional cardiologist should advise us. Special consideration is given to other drugs of habitual consumption, produce hemostasis alterations: NSAIDs, serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). We recommend to request a complete coagulation study (AP, APTT, fibrinogen) for all patients who will undergo infiltrations of moderate or high bleeding risk prior to infiltration and the day of the same in those patients receiving anticoagulants. http://scielo.isciii.es/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1134-80462017000600365&lng=pt&nrm=iso&tlng=pt resumen está disponible en el texto completo<hr/>ABSTRACT Chronic pain is one of the leading causes of disability and functional impotence in today's society. The increased demand and complexity of infiltrations in chronic pain units increases every day. On the other hand, cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases are the ones that generate more morbi-mortality in our environment. Therefore, one of the problems that we face, prior to the infiltration, is the increase in the number of patients undergoing antiplatelet therapy (AAP) and/or anticoagulant therapy. The intake of antiplatelet agents or anticoagulants is of great concern in order to offer the patient an infiltration that affects the neuroege, deep myofascial infiltrations or deep blockages, since these procedures present a high hemorrhagic risk. The objective of this guide is to improve the quality and safety of antiaggregated and anticoagulated patients in order to receive an infiltration in the Pain Unit, as well as to avoid unnecessary referrals to other specialists. It is necessary to know the hemorrhagic risk of the procedures that we are going to carry out, but also the reasons why the patients are antiaggregated and anticoagulated and the safety limits for laying off each drug, not only to be aware of the consequences of an inadequate suspension of these treatments but to be able to establish an appropriate bridging therapy with. There are also certain circumstances that may increase the risk of procedural bleeding (alterations in the anatomy of the spine, multiple punctures, not using scopia, aspiration of blood after puncture...). This may influence the reintroduction of antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy, which will be routinely reintroduced within 24 hours of infiltration. The anticoagulated patients are divided into two categories according to the infiltration to be performed: those who need to discontinue anticoagulants and to perform low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) bridge therapy and those who do not. Anti-vitamin K would be discontinued 3-5 days prior to infiltration. Direct Anticoagulants (DACOS) between 3-5 days, depending on the drug. LMWH bridging therapy would begin the day after the anticoagulant suspension. We contemplate special situations such as renal failure, which increases the safety intervals in the suspension of the drug for Direct Anticoagulants (DACOS) and requires variations in the pattern of LMWH for bridge therapy. The reintroduction of DACOS deserves special mention. This is done within 24 hours of the technique without the need to put LMWH simultaneously. In addition to the anti-vitamin K, an LMWH should be administered within 24 hours of infiltration, and during the next 5 days, until the INR is within the therapeutic range (control performed on an outpatient basis). Thus patients on acetyl salicylic acid treatment would have two categories: techniques that can be performed while maintaining ASA and those that do not. The remaining antiplatelet agents would have three options: techniques that need to be suspended to perform the techniques with different safety intervals for each drug, techniques in which it would be necessary to replace them with AAS based on thrombotic risk and those that would not require modification of the schedule. The acetyl salicylic acid must be interrupted: ASA 3-4 days, Clopidogrel 5-7 days, Prasugrel 4-6 days and Ticagrelor 3-5 days (Suspension in the lower number of the range will require a multidisciplinary assessment of the case). All recommendations have the objective of getting to the infiltration with drug levels low enough not to produce life-threatening bleeding and at the same time allow the therapeutic levels of each platelet or anticoagulant antiplatelet to be reached as fast possible after reintroduction. The replacement of antiagregant by LMWH at therapeutic doses is a possibility that is not completely validated. In patients with antiaggregant and anticoagulant the indications for each drug should be followed independently. In very specific situations such as double antiagging therapy or triple antitromotic therapy, it is best to wait until the thrombotic risk decreases. If infiltration/blocking is mandatory it is prudent to make a consensual multidisciplinar decision among the Hematology/Hemostasis, Cardiology and Pain Unity teams. At first, it was recommended to wait more than 12 months before suspending the double antiplatelet in patients with drug-eluting stents. However, new-generation stents allow modifications of this safety margin on which the interventional cardiologist should advise us. Special consideration is given to other drugs of habitual consumption, produce hemostasis alterations: NSAIDs, serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). We recommend to request a complete coagulation study (AP, APTT, fibrinogen) for all patients who will undergo infiltrations of moderate or high bleeding risk prior to infiltration and the day of the same in those patients receiving anticoagulants.