Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
The Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Spinal Cord Stimulation for Refractory Angina (RASCAL Study): A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.
Eldabe, Sam; Thomson, Simon; Duarte, Rui; Brookes, Morag; deBelder, Mark; Raphael, Jon; Davies, Ed; Taylor, Rod.
Afiliação
  • Eldabe S; Department of Pain and Anesthesia, The James Cook University Hospital, Middlesbrough, UK.
  • Thomson S; Basildon and Thurrock University Hospitals, Basildon, Nethermayne, UK.
  • Duarte R; School of Health and Population Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
  • Brookes M; Department of Pain and Anesthesia, The James Cook University Hospital, Middlesbrough, UK.
  • deBelder M; Department of Cardiology, The James Cook University Hospital, Middlesbrough, UK.
  • Raphael J; Department of Pain Medicine, Dudley Group of Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Russells Hall Hospital, Dudley, West Midlands, UK.
  • Davies E; Cardiothoracic Department, Plymouth Hospitals NHS Trust, Plymouth, UK.
  • Taylor R; University of Exeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
Neuromodulation ; 19(1): 60-70, 2016 Jan.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26387883
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

Patients with "refractory angina" (RA) unsuitable for coronary revascularization experience high levels of hospitalization and poor health-related quality of life. Randomized trials have shown spinal cord stimulation (SCS) to be a promising treatment for chronic stable angina and RA; however, none has compared SCS with usual care (UC). The aim of this pilot study was to address the key uncertainties of conducting a definitive multicenter trial to assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of SCS in RA patients, i.e., recruitment and retention of patients, burden of outcome measures, our ability to standardize UC in a UK NHS setting.

METHODS:

RA patients deemed suitable were randomized in a 11 ratio to SCS plus UC (SCS group) or UC alone (UC group). We sought to assess recruitment, uptake, and retention of patients; feasibility and acceptability of SCS treatment; the feasibility and acceptability of standardizing UC; and the feasibility and acceptability of the proposed trial outcome measures. Patient outcomes were assessed at baseline (prerandomization) and three and six months postrandomization.

RESULTS:

We failed to meet our planned recruitment target (45 patients) and randomized 29 patients (15 SCS group, 14 UC group) over a 42-month period across four sites. None of the study participants chose to withdraw following consent and randomization. With exception of two deaths, all completed evaluation at baseline and follow-up. Although the study was not formally powered to compare outcomes between groups, we saw a trend toward larger improvements in both primary and secondary outcomes in the SCS group.

CONCLUSIONS:

While patient recruitment was found to be challenging, levels of participant retention, outcome completion, and acceptability of SCS therapy were high. A number of lessons are presented in order to take forward a future definitive pragmatic randomized trial.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Resultado do Tratamento / Análise Custo-Benefício / Estimulação da Medula Espinal / Angina Pectoris Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2016 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Resultado do Tratamento / Análise Custo-Benefício / Estimulação da Medula Espinal / Angina Pectoris Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2016 Tipo de documento: Article