A prospective long-term follow-up of dorsal root ganglion stimulation for the management of chronic intractable pain.

ABSTRACT: Initial clinical studies have shown that the stimulation of the dorsal root ganglion (DRG) can significantly reduce chronic intractable pain. However, clinical data on long-term results and complications of these systems are limited. The aim of this prospective study is to report on a single center long-term follow-up of DRG stimulation for intractable chronic pain. Participants were implanted with DRG stimulation devices between 2013 and 2015 with an observation period of 24 months. Patients were contacted again in 2020 for a final follow-up (ie, between 5 and 7 years postimplantation). Forty-two participants were recruited, of whom 32 received the fully implantable pulse generator (IPG). At the final follow-up, 50% (16/32) of participants were still using DRG stimulation. Two participants still had the original IPG and 14 had received a replacement IPG. Pain scores were significantly reduced at 24 months, mean difference 1.7 (95% confidence interval: 0.2-3.3, P = 0.03), and at the last follow-up, mean difference 2.1 (95% confidence interval: 0.3-4, P = 0.03). Significant improvements were observed for health-related quality of life. The findings were generally robust to imputation methods of missing data. Implantable pulse generators of 8 patients were explanted because of dissatisfaction with pain relief. In conclusion, DRG stimulation can provide effective pain relief and improved quality of life in patients suffering with neuropathic pain, although this study had a revision rate of 42% within the first 24 months, and 56% of IPGs that were replaced because of battery depletion had a shorter than expected battery life.

Analgesic Efficacy of "Burst" and Tonic (500 Hz) Spinal Cord Stimulation Patterns: A Randomized Placebo-Controlled Crossover Study.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy in reducing pain intensity in adult subjects suffering from chronic back and leg pain of burst (BST) and tonic sub-threshold stimulation at 500 Hz (T500) vs. sham stimulation delivered by a spinal cord stimulation (SCS) device capable of automated postural adjustment of current intensity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A multicentre randomized double-blind, three-period, three-treatment, crossover study was undertaken at two centers in the United Kingdom. Patients who had achieved stable pain relief with a conventional SCS capable of automated postural adjustment of current intensity were randomized to sequences of BST, T500, and sham SCS with treatment order balanced across the six possible sequences. A current leakage was programmed into the implantable pulse generator (IPG) in the sham period. The primary outcome was patient reported pain intensity using a visual analog scale (VAS). RESULTS: Nineteen patients were enrolled and randomized. The mean reduction in pain with T500 was statistically significantly greater than that observed with either sham (25%; 95% CI, 8%-38%; p = 0.008) or BST (28%; 95% CI, 13%-41%; p = 0.002). There were no statistically significant differences in pain VAS for BST versus Sham (5%; 95% CI, -13% to 27%; p = 0.59). Exploratory sub-group analyses by study site and sex were also conducted for the T500 vs. sham and BST versus sham comparisons. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest a superior outcome versus sham from T500 stimulation over BST stimulation and a practical equivalence between BST and sham in a group of subjects with leg and back pain habituated to tonic SCS and having achieved a stable status with stimulation.

Comparison of the Effects of Intermittent Boluses to Simple Continuous Infusion on Patients' Global Perceived Effect in Intrathecal Therapy for Pain: A Randomized Double-Blind Crossover Study.

Objective: Intrathecal drug delivery (ITDD) is commonly used for intractable pain management. A paucity of good-quality studies in chronic noncancer patients and concerns over increased dosages have focused interest on different modes of administration. The aim of this international multicenter randomized double-blind crossover trial was to compare the efficacy of the same daily dose of drugs administered by intermittent boluses vs simple continuous infusion. Methods: Eligible patients implanted with a programmable ITDD device were randomized to receive two weeks of either intermittent boluses or a simple continuous flow in period 1, followed by a crossover to the alternative mode of administration. The primary outcome measure was the Patients' Global Impression of Change (PGIC) scale. Results: The mean proportion of positive responders (at least "minimally improved") was 38.4% in the continuous condition vs 37.3% in the bolus (difference in proportions = 1.1%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -21.8-24.0%, P = 0.93). The mean PGIC in the continuous condition was 3.8 vs 3.9 in the bolus (mean difference = -0.1, -0.6-0.4, P = 0.72). Exploratory analyses revealed a tendency for the mean proportion of positive responders to be higher at low vs high flow rates for both bolus and continuous administrations. Two patients were withdrawn from the study due to adverse events during the bolus phase, both with symptoms of increased pain, and one patient with additional symptoms of numbness and urinary retention. Conclusion: The mean PGIC and proportion of positive responders was not substantially different after intermittent bolus vs continuous administration.

Analgesic efficacy of high-frequency spinal cord stimulation: a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study.

INTRODUCTION: Spinal cord stimulation is a recognized treatment of chronic neuropathic and vascular pain. Recent data suggest that the use of very high-frequency (HF) stimulation modes does produce analgesia without paresthesia. AIM OF THE STUDY: To compare the efficacy of HF stimulation (HF spinal cord stimulation [HFSCS]) and sham stimulation on the patient's global impression of change (PGIC), pain intensity, and quality of life. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Forty patients who have achieved stable pain relief with conventional SCS have been recruited. After randomization, HFSCS and sham are initiated in a double-blind randomized two-period-crossover design. RESULTS: Complete data were available from 33 patients. The primary outcome was a minimal improvement in the PGIC. The proportion of patients responding under HFSCS was 42.4% (14/33 patients) vs. 30.3% (10/33 patients) in the sham condition. The mean benefit of HF vs. sham was not statistically significant with a proportion of 11.2% in favor of HFSCS (p = 0.30). There was a highly statistically significant "period effect," irrespective of treatment received, with 51.5% of patients (N = 17) improving at visit 3 vs. 21.2% (N = 7) at visit 5 (p = 0.006). The mean pain visual analog scale (VAS) on sham was 4.26 vs. 4.35 on HFSCS (p = 0.82) and the mean EuroQol five-dimensional (EQ-5D) index with HFSCS was 0.480 vs. 0.463 with sham (p = 0.78). CONCLUSION: This is the first randomized double-blind study on SCS. HFSCS was equivalent to sham for the primary outcome (improvement of PGIC) as well as for both the secondary outcomes (VAS and EQ-5D index). There was a highly statistically significant "period effect" (p = 0.006) with improved PGIC scores in the first study period regardless of the treatment. The same trend was seen for VAS and EQ-5D. It appears that the effect of HFSCS and sham is equal and only the order in the sequence, not the nature of the treatment, seems to dictate the effect.

Bolus intrathecal injection of ziconotide (Prialt®) to evaluate the option of continuous administration via an implanted intrathecal drug delivery (ITDD) system: a pilot study.

OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated efficacy and safety of bolus doses of ziconotide (Prialt®, Eisai Limited, Hertfordshire, UK) to assess the option of continuous administration of this drug via an implanted intrathecal drug delivery system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty adults with severe chronic pain who were under consideration for intrathecal (IT) therapy were enrolled in this open label, nonrandomized, pilot study. Informed consent was obtained. Demographics, medical/pain history, pain scores, and concomitant medications were recorded. A physical examination was performed. Creatine kinase was measured. Initial visual analog scale (VAS), blood pressure, heart rate, and respiratory rate were recorded. All patients received an initial bolus dose of 2.5 mcg ziconotide; the dose in the subsequent visits was modified according to response. Subsequent doses were 2.5 mcg, 1.2 mcg, or 3.75 mcg as per protocol. A good response (≥30% reduction in baseline pain VAS) with no side-effects on two occasions was considered a successful trial. Data were analyzed using a generalized estimating equations model, with pain VAS as the outcome and time (seven time points; preinjection and one to six hours postinjection) as the predictor. RESULTS: Generalized estimating equations analysis of summary measures showed a mean reduction of pain VAS of approximately 25% at the group level; of 11 responders, seven underwent pump implantation procedure, two withdrew because of adverse effects, one refused an implant, and one could not have an implant (lack of funding from the Primary Care Trust). CONCLUSIONS: Our data demonstrated that mean VAS was reduced by approximately 25% at the group level after IT ziconotide bolus. Treatment efficacy did not vary with sex, center, age, or pain etiology. Ziconotide bolus was generally well tolerated. Larger studies are needed to determine if bolus dosing with ziconotide is a good predictor of response to continuous IT ziconotide via an intrathecal drug delivery system.

Effects of flow rate modifications on reported analgesia and quality of life in chronic pain patients treated with continuous intrathecal drug therapy.

OBJECTIVE: We compared the analgesia and the quality of life of a constant daily dose of intrathecal drug administered at different flow rates in patients treated for chronic pain. We postulate that the quality of the analgesia, at the same daily dose, will show an infusion rate dependent pattern with decreased pain at higher flow rates. PATIENTS: Twenty consecutive patients on stable intrathecal treatment were included in a double-blind three-period crossover study where the same daily dose was administered at single, double, and quadruple flow rates in a randomized sequence. OUTCOMES MEASURES: The mean daily pain score and the quality of life (EuroQol measure of health outcome [EQ-5D]) were measured following each flow rate change, after 1 week of stabilization. Results. Visual analog scale (VAS) scores remained unchanged with all flow rates. Compared with the lowest flow rate, the EQ-5D index decreased with double and even more with quadruple flow rate, suggesting a clinically relevant worsening of the health state with higher flow rates. Adverse events were equally distributed in all groups. CONCLUSION: Pain VAS did not significantly change with flow rate. This is consistent with preclinical data showing very limited increase in drug distribution in the cerebrospinal fluid with much larger flow rate augmentation. However, the quality of life decreased consistently as the flow rate increased. This was entirely due to a worsening of the pain and anxiety dimension of the EQ-5D questionnaire, caused presumably by a slight increase in pain rather than adverse events. We suggest that at higher flow rates increased drug dilution results in a decreased effect at the receptor site.