ECAP-controlled closed-loop versus open-loop SCS for the treatment of chronic pain: 36-month results of the EVOKE blinded randomized clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: The evidence for spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has been criticized for the absence of blinded, parallel randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and limited evaluations of the long-term effects of SCS in RCTs. The aim of this study was to determine whether evoked compound action potential (ECAP)-controlled, closed-loop SCS (CL-SCS) is associated with better outcomes when compared with fixed-output, open-loop SCS (OL-SCS) 36 months following implant. METHODS: The EVOKE study was a multicenter, participant-blinded, investigator-blinded, and outcome assessor-blinded, randomized, controlled, parallel-arm clinical trial that compared ECAP-controlled CL-SCS with fixed-output OL-SCS. Participants with chronic, intractable back and leg pain refractory to conservative therapy were enrolled between January 2017 and February 2018, with follow-up through 36 months. The primary outcome was a reduction of at least 50% in overall back and leg pain. Holistic treatment response, a composite outcome including pain intensity, physical and emotional functioning, sleep, and health-related quality of life, and objective neural activation was also assessed. RESULTS: At 36 months, more CL-SCS than OL-SCS participants reported ≥50% reduction (CL-SCS=77.6%, OL-SCS=49.3%; difference: 28.4%, 95% CI 12.8% to 43.9%, p<0.001) and ≥80% reduction (CL-SCS=49.3%, OL-SCS=31.3%; difference: 17.9, 95% CI 1.6% to 34.2%, p=0.032) in overall back and leg pain intensity. Clinically meaningful improvements from baseline were observed at 36 months in both CL-SCS and OL-SCS groups in all other patient-reported outcomes with greater levels of improvement with CL-SCS. A greater proportion of patients with CL-SCS were holistic treatment responders at 36-month follow-up (44.8% vs 28.4%), with a greater cumulative responder score for CL-SCS patients. Greater neural activation and accuracy were observed with CL-SCS. There were no differences between CL-SCS and OL-SCS groups in adverse events. No explants due to loss of efficacy were observed in the CL-SCS group. CONCLUSION: This long-term evaluation with objective measurement of SCS therapy demonstrated that ECAP-controlled CL-SCS resulted in sustained, durable pain relief and superior holistic treatment response through 36 months. Greater neural activation and increased accuracy of therapy delivery were observed with ECAP-controlled CL-SCS than OL-SCS. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02924129.

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.

Neuromodulation in Treating Pelvic Pain.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Chronic pelvic pain (CPP) is a complex condition that can be multifactorial, disabling, and difficult to treat. It is important to understand the various diagnoses and pathways that can be involved and have an understanding of the available treatment options. RECENT FINDINGS: There is a complex innervation of the pelvic region which makes its treatment very challenging. There are pathophysiological similarities of CPP to disease states like complex regional pain syndrome and sympathetically driven pain. CPP is poorly understood and includes psychological, psychosocial, cultural, and economic influences. Treatment options vary, but neuromodulation does remain a centerpiece and can include sacral stimulation, SCS, DRG stimulation, and PNS.

A Comprehensive Practice Guideline for Magnetic Resonance Imaging Compatibility in Implanted Neuromodulation Devices.

OBJECTIVES: The evolution of neuromodulation devices in order to enter magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanners has been one of understanding limitations, engineering modifications, and the development of a consensus within the community in which the FDA could safely administer labeling for the devices. In the initial decades of neuromodulation, it has been contraindicated for MRI use with implanted devices. In this review, we take a comprehensive approach to address all the major products currently on the market in order to provide physicians with the ability to determine when an MRI can be performed for each type of device implant. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We have prepared a narrative review of MRI guidelines for currently marketed implanted neuromodulation devices including spinal cord stimulators, intrathecal drug delivery systems, peripheral nerve stimulators, deep brain stimulators, vagal nerve stimulators, and sacral nerve stimulators. Data sources included relevant literature identified through searches of PubMed, MEDLINE/OVID, SCOPUS, and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles, as well as manufacturer-provided information. RESULTS: Guidelines and recommendations for each device and their respective guidelines for use in and around MR environments are presented. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first comprehensive guideline with regards to various devices in the market and MRI compatibility from the American Society of Pain and Neuroscience.

All bursts are equal, but some are more equal (to burst firing): burstDR stimulation versus Boston burst stimulation.

Introduction: Since the introduction of burst spinal cord stimulation for neuropathic pain, several companies have developed their own version of burst stimulation, which is confusing the marketplace and clinicians of what burst stimulation truly is, the value and utilization of the therapy.Areas covered: We review those two burst stimulation designs and notice important differences. The original burstDRTM stimulation tries to mimic physiologic burst firing, which involves closely spaced high frequency sodium spikes nested on a calcium mediated plateau. This is realized by generating a train of 5 monophasic spikes of increasing amplitude with passive charge balance after the last spike, in contrast to the other burst designs which involve a version of cycling 4-5 spikes each being individually actively charge balanced spikes.Expert opinion: Based on the neurobiology of burst firing as well as abductive reasoning we like to clarify that burstDRTM is a true physiologic burst stimulation, and that other versions being called burst stimulation are essentially clustered tonic stimulation. This differentiating terminology will prevent confusion for healthcare providers, regulators, and the marketplace of what burst stimulation is.

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.

DRG FOCUS: A Multicenter Study Evaluating Dorsal Root Ganglion Stimulation and Predictors for Trial Success.

INTRODUCTION: Dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRGS) is a powerful tool in the treatment of chronic, neuropathic pain. The premise of DRGS is similar to that of conventional spinal cord stimulation (cSCS), however, there is more variability in how it can be utilized. While it is this variability that likely gives it its versatility, DRGS is not as straightforward to implement as cSCS. The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy of DRGS on a broad number of diagnoses, determine which dorsal root ganglia were associated with better outcomes for particular body parts/diagnoses, and evaluate what factors/parameters were associated with higher rates of trial success. METHODS: This is a physician initiated, multicenter retrospective registry of 217 patients trialed with DRGS. Data were collected via an online questionnaire that assessed specifics regarding the patient's pain, distribution, size, and response to treatment. The data were analyzed to see if there were certain diagnoses and/or parameters that were more or less associated with trial success. RESULTS: DRGS was found to be an effective treatment in all diagnoses evaluated within this study, most of which had statistically significant improvements in pain. The most important predictor of trial success was the amount of painful area covered by paresthesias during the programing phase. The number of leads utilized had a direct and indirect impact on trial success. Pain in the distribution of a specific peripheral nerve responded best and there was no statistical difference based on what body part was being treated. CONCLUSION: DRGS can be an effective treatment for a variety of neuropathic pain syndromes, in addition to CRPS. It is recommended that a minimum of 2 leads should be utilized per area being treated. In addition, this therapy was shown to be equally efficacious in any body part/region so long as the area being treated is focal and not widespread.

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.

A Prospective Analysis of Neuromonitoring for Confirmation of Lead Placement in Dorsal Root Ganglion Stimulation.

BACKGROUND: Dorsal root ganglion stimulation is a neuromodulation therapy used for chronic neuropathic pain. Typically, patients are awakened intraoperatively to confirm adequate placement. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether neuromonitoring can confirm placement in an asleep patient. METHODS: This is a prospective analysis of 12 leads placed in 6 patients. Lead confirmation was confirmed by awake intraoperative testing, as well as asleep testing utilizing neuromonitoring. Patients were used as their own control. Sensory and motor thresholds for each patient with awake and asleep neuromonitoring testing were recorded. Intraoperative impedance and postoperative programming were also recorded. RESULTS: In each patient, paresthesias were generated prior to motor contractions in the awake patient. For each patient, somatosensory evoked potential responses were present after lowering below the dropout threshold of electromyogram responses with neuromonitoring. There were varying degrees of separation in the thresholds that did not appear to be consistent across level or diagnosis. Smaller degrees of separation between thresholds during awake testing also held true in the asleep patient. This was further confirmed with postoperative programming. Impedances did not alter the separation in thresholds or amount of stimulation required for responses. One patient was combative during awake testing, and therefore motor thresholds were not obtained. This same patient was determined to have a ventral placement, confirmed with awake and asleep neuromonitoring testing. CONCLUSION: This series demonstrates that the proposed neuromonitoring protocol can be used in an asleep patient to assure proper positioning of the dorsal root ganglion electrode in the dorsal foramen by generating somatosensory evoked potential responses in the absence of electromyogram responses.

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 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.

The Neurostimulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC) Safety Guidelines for the Reduction of Severe Neurological Injury.

INTRODUCTION: Neurostimulation involves the implantation of devices to stimulate the brain, spinal cord, or peripheral or cranial nerves for the purpose of modulating the neural activity of the targeted structures to achieve specific therapeutic effects. Surgical placement of neurostimulation devices is associated with risks of neurologic injury, as well as possible sequelae from the local or systemic effects of the intervention. The goal of the Neurostimulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC) is to improve the safety of neurostimulation. METHODS: The International Neuromodulation Society (INS) is dedicated to improving neurostimulation efficacy and patient safety. Over the past two decades the INS has established a process to use best evidence to improve care. This article updates work published by the NACC in 2014. NACC authors were chosen based on nomination to the INS executive board and were selected based on publications, academic acumen, international impact, and diversity. In areas in which evidence was lacking, the NACC used expert opinion to reach consensus. RESULTS: The INS has developed recommendations that when properly utilized should improve patient safety and reduce the risk of injury and associated complications with implantable devices. CONCLUSIONS: On behalf of INS, the NACC has published recommendations intended to reduce the risk of neurological injuries and complications while implanting stimulators.

Clinical Uses of Intrathecal Therapy and Its Placement in the Pain Care Algorithm.

Intrathecal drug delivery is an effective treatment option for patients with severe chronic pain who have not obtained adequate analgesia from more conservative therapies (eg, physical therapy, systemic opioids, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, antidepressants, and anticonvulsants). This review focuses on, but is not limited to, the 2 agents currently approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for intrathecal analgesia: preservative-free morphine and ziconotide (a nonopioid, selective N-type calcium channel blocker). We describe the appropriate use of intrathecal therapy in the management of severe chronic pain, based on current best practices. Topics addressed here include patient selection, trialing, dosing and titration, adverse event profiles, long-term management, intrathecal therapy for cancer-related pain, and the placement of intrathecal therapy in the pain care algorithm. In appropriately selected patients with chronic pain, intrathecal therapy can provide substantial pain relief with improved functioning and quality of life. Successful long-term management requires ongoing patient monitoring for changes in efficacy and the occurrence of adverse events, with subsequent changes in intrathecal dosing and titration, the addition of adjuvant intrathecal agents, and the use of concomitant oral medications to address side effects, as needed. Based on an infrequent but clinically concerning risk of overdose, granuloma, and other opioid-induced complications, nonopioid therapy with ziconotide may be preferred as a first-line intrathecal therapy in patients without a history of psychosis or allergy.

Occipital Nerve Stimulation for the Treatment of Patients With Medically Refractory Occipital Neuralgia: Congress of Neurological Surgeons Systematic Review and Evidence-Based Guideline.

BACKGROUND: Occipital neuralgia (ON) is a disorder characterized by sharp, electrical, paroxysmal pain, originating from the occiput and extending along the posterior scalp, in the distribution of the greater, lesser, and/or third occipital nerve. Occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) constitutes a promising therapy for medically refractory ON because it is reversible with minimal side effects and has shown continued efficacy with long-term follow-up. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic literature review and provide treatment recommendations for the use of ONS for the treatment of patients with medically refractory ON. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted using the PubMed database and the Cochrane Library to locate articles published between 1966 and April 2014 using MeSH headings and keywords relevant to ONS as a means to treat ON. A second literature search was conducted using the PubMed database and the Cochrane Library to locate articles published between 1966 and June 2014 using MeSH headings and keywords relevant to interventions that predict response to ONS in ON. The strength of evidence of each article that underwent full text review and the resulting strength of recommendation were graded according to the guidelines development methodology of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons/Congress of Neurological Surgeons Joint Guidelines Committee. RESULTS: Nine studies met the criteria for inclusion in this guideline. All articles provided Class III Level evidence. CONCLUSION: Based on the data derived from this systematic literature review, the following Level III recommendation can be made: the use of ONS is a treatment option for patients with medically refractory ON.

The appropriate use of neurostimulation: stimulation of the intracranial and extracranial space and head for chronic pain. Neuromodulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee.

INTRODUCTION: The International Neuromodulation Society (INS) has identified a need for evaluation and analysis of the practice of neurostimulation of the brain and extracranial nerves of the head to treat chronic pain. METHODS: The INS board of directors chose an expert panel, the Neuromodulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC), to evaluate the peer-reviewed literature, current research, and clinical experience and to give guidance for the appropriate use of these methods. The literature searches involved key word searches in PubMed, EMBASE, and Google Scholar dated 1970-2013, which were graded and evaluated by the authors. RESULTS: The NACC found that evidence supports extracranial stimulation for facial pain, migraine, and scalp pain but is limited for intracranial neuromodulation. High cervical spinal cord stimulation is an evolving option for facial pain. Intracranial neurostimulation may be an excellent option to treat diseases of the nervous system, such as tremor and Parkinson's disease, and in the future, potentially Alzheimer's disease and traumatic brain injury, but current use of intracranial stimulation for pain should be seen as investigational. CONCLUSIONS: The NACC concludes that extracranial nerve stimulation should be considered in the algorithmic treatment of migraine and other disorders of the head. We should strive to perfect targets outside the cranium when treating pain, if at all possible.

Spinal cord injury induced by a cervical spinal cord stimulator.

OBJECTIVE: The use of cervical spinal cord stimulators for the treatment of refractory neck and upper extremity pain is widely accepted and growing in use as a treatment modality. This case highlights a previously unreported potential complication of spinal cord stimulators. METHODS: Analysis of a patient with a cervical spinal cord stimulator presenting with a spinal cord injury. Patient was followed from presentation in the emergency room until 1-year follow-up in the office. RESULTS: The patient in this case presented after a fall and sustained a cervical spinal cord injury induced by the electrodes of her spinal cord stimulator working as a space occupying mass. CONCLUSION: As more patients are undergoing implantation of spinal cord stimulators we must be aware of the long-term risks that can be encountered.

Awake vs. asleep placement of spinal cord stimulators: a cohort analysis of complications associated with placement.

INTRODUCTION: Patients will typically undergo awake surgery for permanent implantation of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in an attempt to optimize electrode placement using patient feedback about the distribution of stimulation-induced paresthesia. The present study compared efficacy of first-time electrode placement under awake conditions with that of neurophysiologically guided placement under general anesthesia. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of 387 SCS surgeries among 259 patients which included 167 new stimulator implantation to determine whether first time awake surgery for placement of spinal cord stimulators is preferable to non-awake placement. RESULTS: The incidence of device failure for patients implanted using neurophysiologically guided placement under general anesthesia was one-half that for patients implanted awake (14.94% vs. 29.7%). CONCLUSION: Non-awake surgery is associated with fewer failure rates and therefore fewer re-operations, making it a viable alternative. Any benefits of awake implantation should carefully be considered in the future.