The Neurostimulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC)®: Recommendations for the Mitigation of Complications of Neurostimulation.

INTRODUCTION: The International Neuromodulation Society convened a multispecialty group of physicians based on expertise and international representation to establish evidence-based guidance on the mitigation of neuromodulation complications. This Neurostimulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC)® project intends to update evidence-based guidance and offer expert opinion that will improve efficacy and safety. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Authors were chosen on the basis of their clinical expertise, familiarity with the peer-reviewed literature, research productivity, and contributions to the neuromodulation literature. Section leaders supervised literature searches of MEDLINE, BioMed Central, Current Contents Connect, Embase, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and PubMed from 2017 (when NACC last published guidelines) to October 2023. Identified studies were graded using the United States Preventive Services Task Force criteria for evidence and certainty of net benefit. Recommendations are based on the strength of evidence or consensus when evidence was scant. RESULTS: The NACC examined the published literature and established evidence- and consensus-based recommendations to guide best practices. Additional guidance will occur as new evidence is developed in future iterations of this process. CONCLUSIONS: The NACC recommends best practices regarding the mitigation of complications associated with neurostimulation to improve safety and efficacy. The evidence- and consensus-based recommendations should be used as a guide to assist decision-making when clinically appropriate.

Clinical Longevity of 106,462 Rechargeable and Primary Cell Spinal Cord Stimulators: Real World Study in the Medicare Population.

INTRODUCTION: Spinal cord stimulators (SCS) are available with either primary cell (PC) or rechargeable cell (RC) batteries. Although RC systems are proposed to have a battery longevity upward of nine years, in comparison with four years for PC systems, there are few studies of longevity of SCS in the real world. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was an observational, nonrandomized, retrospective study of Medicare beneficiaries who received neurostimulator implants in the outpatient hospital. This study used Medicare fee-for-service claims data from 2013 to 2020. The clinical longevity of the implantable pulse generator (IPG), defined as the duration from implant until removal for any reason, was compared between PC and RC devices. Life distribution analysis was used to approximate device lifespan. The secondary analysis separated removals into explant or replacements. The statistics were adjusted for relevant clinical covariates. RESULTS: A total of 25,856 PC and 79,606 RC systems were included in the study. At seven years after implant, 53.8% of PC IPGs and 55.0% of RC IPGs remained in use. The life distribution modeling analysis projected a median lifespan of 8.2 years for PC and 9.0 years for RC devices. The rate of explant was lower for PC devices (19.2%) than for RC devices (22.0%, hazard ratio (HR) = 0.96, p = 0.082), whereas the rate of replacements was higher for PC devices (33.7%) than for RC devices (29.5%, HR = 1.31, p < 0.001). An analysis of the battery type used in device replacements showed an increasing adoption of PC devices over time. CONCLUSIONS: This large, retrospective, real-world analysis of Medicare claims data demonstrated that the clinical longevity of neurostimulator devices is similar for PC and RC batteries. In the past, clinicians may have defaulted to RC devices based on the assumption that they provided extended battery life. Considering this longevity data, clinicians should now consider the choice between PC and RC devices based on other individual factors pertinent to the patient experience and not on purported longevity claims.

Holistic Treatment Response: An International Expert Panel Definition and Criteria for a New Paradigm in the Assessment of Clinical Outcomes of Spinal Cord Stimulation.

BACKGROUND: Treatment response to spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is focused on the magnitude of effects on pain intensity. However, chronic pain is a multidimensional condition that may affect individuals in different ways and as such it seems reductionist to evaluate treatment response based solely on a unidimensional measure such as pain intensity. AIM: The aim of this article is to add to a framework started by IMMPACT for assessing the wider health impact of treatment with SCS for people with chronic pain, a "holistic treatment response". DISCUSSION: Several aspects need consideration in the assessment of a holistic treatment response. SCS device data and how it relates to patient outcomes, is essential to improve the understanding of the different types of SCS, improve patient selection, long-term clinical outcomes, and reproducibility of findings. The outcomes to include in the evaluation of a holistic treatment response need to consider clinical relevance for patients and clinicians. Assessment of the holistic response combines two key concepts of patient assessment: (1) patients level of baseline (pre-treatment) unmet need across a range of health domains; (2) demonstration of patient-relevant improvements in these health domains with treatment. The minimal clinical important difference (MCID) is an established approach to reflect changes after a clinical intervention that are meaningful for the patient and can be used to identify treatment response to each individual domain. A holistic treatment response needs to account for MCIDs in all domains of importance for which the patient presents dysfunctional scores pre-treatment. The number of domains included in a holistic treatment response may vary and should be considered on an individual basis. Physiologic confirmation of therapy delivery and utilisation should be included as part of the evaluation of a holistic treatment response and is essential to advance the field of SCS and increase transparency and reproducibility of the findings.

Novel Intermittent Dosing Burst Paradigm in Spinal Cord Stimulation.

INTRODUCTION: Intermittent dosing (ID), in which periods of stimulation-on are alternated with periods of stimulation-off, is generally employed using 30 sec ON and 90 sec OFF intervals with burst spinal cord stimulation (SCS). The goal of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of using extended stimulation-off periods in patients with chronic intractable pain. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective, multicenter, feasibility trial evaluated the clinical efficacy of the following ID stimulation-off times: 90, 120, 150, and 360 sec with burst waveform parameters. After a successful trial (≥50% pain relief) using ID stimulation, subjects were titrated with OFF times beginning with 360 sec. Pain, quality of life, disability, and pain catastrophizing were evaluated at one, three, and six months after permanent implant. RESULTS: Fifty subjects completed an SCS trial using ID stimulation settings of 30 sec ON and 90 sec OFF, with 38 (76%) receiving ≥50% pain relief. Pain scores were significantly reduced from baseline at all time points (p < 0.001). Improvements in quality of life, disability, and pain catastrophizing were aligned with pain relief outcomes; 45.8% of the subjects that completed the six-month follow-up visit used an OFF period of 360 seconds. CONCLUSIONS: ID burst SCS effectively relieved pain for six months. The largest group of subjects used IDB settings of 30 sec ON and 360 sec OFF. These findings present intriguing implications for the optimal "dose" of electricity in SCS and may offer many advantages such as optimizing the therapeutic window, extending battery life, reducing recharge burden and, potentially, mitigating therapy habituation or tolerance.

Multisystem Spinal Cord Stimulation Trialing: A Single Center, Retrospective, Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Spinal cord stimulation is a well-established modality for the treatment of chronic intractable pain. The safety and efficacy of various stimulation therapy designs have been demonstrated in multiple randomized controlled studies, oftentimes comparing an investigational device to an existing commercial therapy. In the real-world setting, data are lacking regarding selection of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) therapy, as waveform, pulse trains, and programming are not interchangeable among the devices. The purpose of this study is to help dissect a methodology for a patient centric multisystem trialing. METHODS: We conducted a single center, retrospective, open label observational chart review. Between June 2017 and June 2019, 83 patients underwent SCS trials. Devices from four commercially available systems were trialed. Patients were given the opportunity to trial up to three systems. If the patient reported 50% or more pain relief/functional improvement with the trial, they were able to choose which system they liked best and proceed with implantation. RESULTS: There were 82% (68/83) of patients who proceeded to permanent implant, with 72 patients electing to trial more than one stimulation paradigm. Of those, 62 trialed 2 SCS systems, whereas 11 trialed 3. During the SCS trials, loss of efficacy due to lead migration was 1.2% (1/83) and no infections occurred. The average pain score measured on the numeric pain rating scale (NRS), improved from 6.8 at baseline to 2.9 after implantation. CONCLUSIONS: Multisystem trialing is safe and effective in providing patients increased exposure to multiple commercially available SCS systems.

Emergence From the COVID-19 Pandemic and the Care of Chronic Pain: Guidance for the Interventionalist.

BACKGROUND: The current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic led to a significant disruption in the care of pain from chronic and subacute conditions. The impact of this cessation of pain treatment may have unintended consequences of increased pain, reduced function, increased reliance on opioid medications, and potential increased morbidity, due to the systemic impact of untreated disease burden. This may include decreased mobility, reduction in overall health status, and increase of opioid use with the associated risks. METHODS: The article is the study of the American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) COVID-19 task force to evaluate the policies set forth by federal, state, and local agencies to reduce or eliminate elective procedures for those patients with pain from spine, nerve, and joint disease. The impact of these decisions, which were needed to reduce the spread of the pandemic, led to a delay in care for many patients. We hence review an emergence plan to reinitiate this pain-related care. The goal is to outline a path to work with federal, state, and local authorities to combat the spread of the pandemic and minimize the deleterious impact of pain and suffering on our chronic pain patients. RESULTS: The article sets forth a strategy for the interventional pain centers to reemerge from the current pandemic and to set a course for future events. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic represents an overwhelming challenge to interventional pain physicians and their patients. In addition to urgent actions needed for disease mitigation, the ASPN recommends a staged return to pain management professionals' workflow.

A Systematic Literature Review of Dorsal Root Ganglion Neurostimulation for the Treatment of Pain.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic literature review of dorsal root ganglion (DRG) stimulation for pain. DESIGN: Grade the evidence for DRG stimulation. METHODS: An international, interdisciplinary work group conducted a literature search for DRG stimulation. Abstracts were reviewed to select studies for grading. General inclusion criteria were prospective trials (randomized controlled trials and observational studies) that were not part of a larger or previously reported group. Excluded studies were retrospective, too small, or existed only as abstracts. Studies were graded using the modified Interventional Pain Management Techniques-Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment, the Cochrane Collaborations Risk of Bias assessment, and the US Preventative Services Task Force level-of-evidence criteria. RESULTS: DRG stimulation has Level II evidence (moderate) based upon one high-quality pivotal randomized controlled trial and two lower-quality studies. CONCLUSIONS: Moderate-level evidence supports DRG stimulation for treating chronic focal neuropathic pain and complex regional pain syndrome.

A Systematic Literature Review of Spine Neurostimulation Therapies for the Treatment of Pain.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic literature review of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for pain. DESIGN: Grade the evidence for SCS. METHODS: An international, interdisciplinary work group conducted literature searches, reviewed abstracts, and selected studies for grading. Inclusion/exclusion criteria included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of patients with intractable pain of greater than one year's duration. Full studies were graded by two independent reviewers. Excluded studies were retrospective, had small numbers of subjects, or existed only as abstracts. Studies were graded using the modified Interventional Pain Management Techniques-Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment, the Cochrane Collaborations Risk of Bias assessment, and the US Preventative Services Task Force level-of-evidence criteria. RESULTS: SCS has Level 1 evidence (strong) for axial back/lumbar radiculopathy or neuralgia (five high-quality RCTs) and complex regional pain syndrome (one high-quality RCT). CONCLUSIONS: High-level evidence supports SCS for treating chronic pain and complex regional pain syndrome. For patients with failed back surgery syndrome, SCS was more effective than reoperation or medical management. New stimulation waveforms and frequencies may provide a greater likelihood of pain relief compared with conventional SCS for patients with axial back pain, with or without radicular pain.

Implementation of the North American Neuromodulation Society Mentorship Program: Recommendations and Survey Results of Participants.

INTRODUCTION: Despite Accredited Counsel of Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) guidance and criteria, there remains variability in training both within each specialty and across the specialties involved in the delivery of neuromodulation. NANS advocates for the efficacious and safe the implementation of neuromodulation and therefore an educational mentoring program with a defined educational platform is needed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a structured, patient centered, and evidence-based approach mentorship program performed more than one year. Mentor/Mentee pairs started in 2015 and data collected were more than a five-year period. RESULTS: There was a 70%-86% response rate on each survey administered. All except one respondent reported that the mentorship program met their previously declared expectations. All the respondents self-reported at least a moderate increase in their knowledge in the field of neuromodulation while 54% of the respondents felt their knowledge in the field to have greatly increased. Most respondents reported an increase in the number of spinal cord stimulator trials and permanent implants performed after the mentorship program. The self-reporting of mentees competencies at the conclusion of the program was statistically significant for higher competency scores in all areas assessed. CONCLUSIONS: The NANs mentorship program met expectations and implementation goals by improving neuromodulation education including covering patient care, delivery, and training topics. The mentoring program provides a structured framework for extending formal physician neuromodulation education outside of direct fellowship training.

Anatomic Lead Placement Without Paresthesia Mapping Provides Effective and Predictable Therapy During the Trial Evaluation Period: Results From the Prospective, Multicenter, Randomized, DELIVERY Study.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the trial success rate between anatomic lead placement (AP) and paresthesia-mapped (PM) lead placement techniques for spinal cord stimulation (SCS) using a nonlinear burst stimulation pattern. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eligible patients with back and/or leg pain with a Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) score of ≥6 who had not undergone previous SCS were enrolled in the study. A total of 270 patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to each treatment arm. In the AP group, one lead tip was placed at the mid-body of T8, and the other at the superior endplate of T9. In the PM group, physicians confirmed coverage of the patient's primary pain location. Trial success was a composite of the following: ≥50% patient-reported pain relief at the end of the minimum three-day trial period, physician's recommendation, and patient's interest in a permanent implant. RESULTS: Trial success for AP vs. PM groups was equivalent to 84.4% and 82.3%, respectively. Physicians who performed both techniques preferred AP technique (70% vs. 30%). Procedure times for placement of two leads were 31% shorter in the AP group (p < 0.0001). Decrease in the mean NRS pain score was similar between groups (53.2%, AP group; 53.8%, PM group, p = 0.79). Trial success for patients who went on to an extended trial with tonic stimulation was 50% (5/10) vs. 79% (11/14) for AP group and PM group, respectively (p = 0.2). A total of 13 adverse events were observed (4.5%), most commonly lead migrations and pain around implant site, with no difference between groups. CONCLUSIONS: When using a nonlinear burst stimulation pattern, anatomic or PM lead placement technique may be used. Nonresponders to subthreshold stimulation had a higher conversion rate when a PM technique was used. AP resulted in shorter procedure times with a similar safety profile and was strongly preferred by trialing physicians.

Intrathecal Therapy for Chronic Pain: A Review of Morphine and Ziconotide as Firstline Options.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the evidence for morphine and ziconotide as firstline intrathecal (IT) analgesia agents for patients with chronic pain. METHODS: Medline was searched (through July 2017) for "ziconotide" or "morphine" AND "intrathecal" AND "chronic pain," with results limited to studies in human populations. RESULTS: The literature supports the use of morphine (based primarily on noncontrolled, prospective, and retrospective studies) and ziconotide (based on randomized controlled trials and prospective observational studies) as first-choice IT therapies. The 2016 Polyanalgesic Consensus Conference (PACC) guidelines recommended both morphine and ziconotide as firstline IT monotherapy for localized and diffuse chronic pain of cancer-related and non-cancer-related etiologies; however, one consensus point emphasized ziconotide use, unless contraindicated, as firstline IT therapy in patients with chronic non-cancer-related pain. Initial IT therapy choice should take into consideration individual patient characteristics (e.g., pain location, response to previous therapies, comorbid medical conditions, psychiatric history). Trialing is recommended to assess medication efficacy and tolerability. For both morphine and ziconotide, the PACC guidelines recommend conservative initial dosing strategies. Due to its narrow therapeutic window, ziconotide requires careful dose titration. Ziconotide is contraindicated in patients with a history of psychosis. IT morphine administration may be associated with serious side effects (e.g., respiratory depression, catheter tip granuloma), require dose increases, and cause dependence over time. CONCLUSION: Based on the available evidence, morphine and ziconotide are recommended as firstline IT monotherapy for cancer-related and non-cancer-related pain. The choice of first-in-pump therapy should take into consideration patient characteristics and the advantages and disadvantages of each medication.

Early US Experience With Stimulation of the Dorsal Root Ganglia for the Treatment of Peripheral Neuropathy in the Lower Extremities: A Multicenter Retrospective Case Series.

BACKGROUND: Peripheral neuropathy is a chronic pain disorder involving physical, chemical, or metabolic damage to peripheral nerves. Its pain can be intense and disabling. Dorsal root ganglion (DRG) stimulation is an effective treatment for neuropathic pain, including cases with the limited regional distributions that often characterize peripheral neuropathy. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was completed. Patients were included on the basis of having chronic intractable peripheral neuropathy of the legs and/or feet and responding successfully to a trial of DRG stimulation with leads at L4-S1. Visual analog scale pain scores and pain medication usage were collected at the baseline visit and after six weeks of treatment. Eight consecutive patients across two study centers were included (7 male, 1 female; mean age: 64.8 ± 10.2 years). Six cases of neuropathy were bilateral and two were unilateral. One patient presented with chronic radiculopathy, two patients had neuropathy associated with diabetes, and five patients had neuropathy not associated with a diabetes history. RESULTS: The pain was rated 7.38 ± 0.74 at baseline and decreased to 1.50 ± 1.31 at the 6-week follow-up, a reduction of 79.5 ± 18.8%. For individual patients, pain relief ranged from 42.86% to 100.00%; two patients experienced complete elimination of pain while seven of the eight patients experienced greater than 50% pain relief. In addition, three patients significantly decreased their pain medication use and four were able to discontinue their medications entirely. CONCLUSION: This small multicenter retrospective case series provides preliminary evidence that the painful symptoms of general peripheral neuropathy in the lower extremities, as well as associated pain medication usage, can be effectively managed by DRG stimulation at the L4-S1 spinal level. Importantly, this treatment appears efficacious for peripheral neuropathy.

Intrathecal Gadolinium Use for the Chronic Pain Physician.

INTRODUCTION: The approach to intrathecal (IT) drug delivery malfunction is complicated, particularly for iodine-allergic patients. In these situations, the current literature has not addressed the use of IT gadolinium. Case reports exist showing severe neurotoxic manifestations with IT gadolinium use. We sought to provide a resource for chronic pain physicians treating an iodine-allergic patient and considering the use of IT gadolinium. METHODS: A thorough literature search identified 11 published cases of gadolinium-induced neurotoxicity due to IT injection and those cases are described in detail. The literature was also reviewed for safe dosages of IT gadolinium. RESULTS: After thorough review, a safe IT gadolinium dose is provided. Additionally, an algorithm was developed for the workup of an IT pump malfunction in iodine allergic patients. CONCLUSION: Herein, we provide guidance on IT gadolinium usage and a framework for IT pump malfunction in iodine allergic patients.

Comparison of Paresthesia Coverage of Patient's Pain: Dorsal Root Ganglion vs. Spinal Cord Stimulation. An ACCURATE Study Sub-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: This was a sub-analysis of the ACCURATE clinical trial that evaluated the accuracy and necessity of targeting paresthesia coverage of painful areas with dorsal root ganglion (DRG) stimulation vs. tonic spinal cord stimulation (SCS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: On diagrams of the torso and lower limbs, subjects marked where they felt pain at baseline and paresthesias at three months postimplant. Seventy-five subjects (41 DRG and 34 SCS) with diagrams of sufficient quality were scanned, digitized, and included in this analysis. Subject completed diagrams were digitized and superimposed with a grid of 1398 squares. Quantification of the percentage of bodily areas affected by pain and stimulation induced paresthesias was performed. RESULTS: The percent of painful areas covered by paresthesia was significantly lower for DRG subjects than for SCS subjects (13% vs. 28% of the painful regions, p < 0.05), possibly because significantly more DRG subjects felt no paresthesia during stimulation when compared to SCS subjects (13/41 DRG vs. 3/34 SCS) (p < 0.05). The amount of paresthesia produced outside the painful areas (unrequired paresthesia) was significantly lower in DRG subjects than that of SCS subjects. On average, the percent of unrequired paresthesia was only 20% of the subjects' total painful body surface area in the DRG group compared to 210% in the SCS group (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this ACCURATE study sub-analysis show that DRG stimulation produces paresthesias, on average, that are less frequent, less intense, with a smaller footprint on the body and less dependent on positional changes.

The Neuromodulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee on Best Practices for Dorsal Root Ganglion Stimulation.

INTRODUCTION: The Neuromodulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC) is dedicated to improving the safety and efficacy of neuromodulation and thus improving the lives of patients undergoing neuromodulation therapies. With continued innovations in neuromodulation comes the need for evolving reviews of best practices. Dorsal root ganglion (DRG) stimulation has significantly improved the treatment of complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS), among other conditions. Through funding and organizational leadership by the International Neuromodulation Society (INS), the NACC reconvened to develop the best practices consensus document for the selection, implantation and use of DRG stimulation for the treatment of chronic pain syndromes. METHODS: The NACC performed a comprehensive literature search of articles about DRG published from 1995 through June, 2017. A total of 2538 article abstracts were then reviewed, and selected articles graded for strength of evidence based on scoring criteria established by the US Preventive Services Task Force. Graded evidence was considered along with clinical experience to create the best practices consensus and recommendations. RESULTS: The NACC achieved consensus based on peer-reviewed literature and experience to create consensus points to improve patient selection, guide surgical methods, improve post-operative care, and make recommendations for management of patients treated with DRG stimulation. CONCLUSION: The NACC recommendations are intended to improve patient care in the use of this evolving therapy for chronic pain. Clinicians who choose to follow these recommendations may improve outcomes.

The MIST Guidelines: The Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Consensus Group Guidelines for Minimally Invasive Spine Treatment.

BACKGROUND: Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) can lead to compression of neural elements and manifest as low back and leg pain. LSS has traditionally been treated with a variety of conservative (pain medications, physical therapy, epidural spinal injections) and invasive (surgical decompression) options. Recently, several minimally invasive procedures have expanded the treatment options. METHODS: The Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Consensus Group convened to evaluate the peer-reviewed literature as the basis for making minimally invasive spine treatment (MIST) recommendations. Eleven consensus points were clearly defined with evidence strength, recommendation grade, and consensus level using U.S. Preventive Services Task Force criteria. The Consensus Group also created a treatment algorithm. Literature searches yielded 9 studies (2 randomized controlled trials [RCTs]; 7 observational studies, 4 prospective and 3 retrospective) of minimally invasive spine treatments, and 1 RCT for spacers. RESULTS: The LSS treatment choice is dependent on the degree of stenosis; spinal or anatomic level; architecture of the stenosis; severity of the symptoms; failed, past, less invasive treatments; previous fusions or other open surgical approaches; and patient comorbidities. There is Level I evidence for percutaneous image-guided lumbar decompression as superior to lumbar epidural steroid injection, and 1 RCT supported spacer use in a noninferiority study comparing 2 spacer products currently available. CONCLUSIONS: MISTs should be used in a judicious and algorithmic fashion to treat LSS, based on the evidence of efficacy and safety in the peer-reviewed literature. The MIST Consensus Group recommend that these procedures be used in a multimodal fashion as part of an evidence-based decision algorithm.

Association of Opioid Usage with Spinal Cord Stimulation Outcomes.

Study Design: Observational study using insurance claims. Objective: To quantify opioid usage leading up to spinal cord stimulation (SCS) and the potential impact on outcomes of SCS. Setting: SCS is an interventional therapy that often follows opioid usage in the care continuum for chronic pain. Methods: This study identified SCS patients using the Truven Health MarketScan databases from January 2010 to December 2014. The index event was the first occurrence of a permanent SCS implant. Indicators of opioid usage at implant were daily morphine equivalent dose (MED), number of unique pain drug classes, and diagnosis code for opioid abuse. System explant was used as a measure of ineffective SCS therapy. Multivariate logistic regression was used to analyze the effect of pre-implant medications on explants. Results: A total of 5,476 patients (56 ± 14 years; 60% female) were included. SCS system removal occurred in 390 patients (7.1%) in the year after implant. Number of drug classes (odds ratio [OR] = 1.11, P = 0.007) and MED level (5-90 vs < 5 mg/d: OR = 1.32, P = 0.043; ≥90 vs < 5 mg/d: OR = 1.57, P = 0.005) were independently predictive of system explant. Over the year before implant, MED increased in 54% (stayed the same in 21%, decreased in 25%) of patients who continued with SCS and increased in 53% (stayed the same in 20%, decreased in 27%) of explant patients (P = 0.772). Over the year after implant, significantly more patients with continued SCS had an MED decrease (47%) or stayed the same (23%) than before (P < 0.001). Conclusions: Chronic pain patients receive escalating opioid dosage prior to SCS implant, and high-dose opioid usage is associated with an increased risk of explant. Neuromodulation can stabilize or decrease opioid usage. Earlier consideration of SCS before escalated opioid usage has the potential to improve outcomes in complex chronic pain.

The Neurostimulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC): Recommendations on Bleeding and Coagulation Management in Neurostimulation Devices.

INTRODUCTION: The Neurostimulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC) was formed by the International Neuromodulation Society (INS) in 2012 to evaluate the evidence to reduce the risk of complications and improve the efficacy of neurostimulation. The first series of papers, published in 2014, focused on the general principles of appropriate practice in the surgical implantation of neurostimulation devices. The NACC was reconvened in 2014 to address specific patient care issues, including bleeding and coagulation. METHODS: The INS strives to improve patient care in an evidence-based fashion. The NACC members were appointed or recruited by the INS leadership for diverse expertise, including international clinical expertise in many areas of neurostimulation, evidence evaluation, and publication. The group developed best practices based on peer-reviewed evidence and, in the absence of specific evidence, on expert opinion. Recommendations were based on international evidence in accordance with guideline creation. CONCLUSIONS: The NACC has recommended specific measures to reduce the risk of bleeding and neurological injury secondary to impairment of coagulation in the setting of implantable neurostimulation devices in the spine, brain, and periphery.

The Polyanalgesic Consensus Conference (PACC): Recommendations for Trialing of Intrathecal Drug Delivery Infusion Therapy.

INTRODUCTION: Intrathecal (IT) drug infusion is an appropriate and necessary tool in the algorithm to treat refractory cancer and noncancer pain. The decision-making steps/methodology for selecting appropriate patients for implanted targeted drug delivery systems is controversial and complicated. Therefore, a consensus on best practices for determining appropriate use of IT drug infusion may involve testing/trialing this therapy before implantation. METHODS: This current Polyanalgesic Consensus Conference (PACC) update was designed to address the deficiencies and emerging innovations since the previous PACC convened in 2012. A literature search identified publications available since the previous PACC publications in 2014, and relevant sources were contributed by the PACC members. After reviewing the literature, the panel determined the evidence levels and degrees of recommendations. The developed consensus was ranked as strong (>80%), moderate (50-79%), or weak (<49%). RESULTS: The trialing for IT drug delivery systems (IDDS) remains an area of continued controversy. The PACC recommendations for trialing are presented in 34 consensus points and cover trialing for morphine, ziconotide, and medication admixtures; starting doses and titration practices; measurements of success; trial settings and monitoring; management of systemic opioids during trialing; and the role of psychological evaluation. Finally, the PACC describes clinical scenarios in which IT trialing is required or not required. CONCLUSION: The PACC provides consensus guidance on best practices of trialing for IDDS implants. In addition, the PACC recommends that no trial may be required in certain patient populations.

The Neurostimulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC) Recommendations for Infection Prevention and Management.

INTRODUCTION: The use of neurostimulation for pain has been an established therapy for many decades and is a major tool in the arsenal to treat neuropathic pain syndromes. Level I evidence has recently been presented to substantiate the therapy, but this is balanced against the risk of complications of an interventional technique. METHODS: The Neurostimulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC) of the International Neuromodulation Society convened an international panel of well published and diverse physicians to examine the best practices for infection mitigation and management in patients undergoing neurostimulation. The NACC recommendations are based on evidence scoring and peer-reviewed literature. Where evidence is lacking the panel added expert opinion to establish recommendations. RESULTS: The NACC has made recommendations to improve care by reducing infection and managing this complication when it occurs. These evidence-based recommendations should be considered best practices in the clinical implantation of neurostimulation devices. CONCLUSION: Adhering to established standards can improve patient care and reduce the morbidity and mortality of infectious complications in patients receiving neurostimulation.