Durable multimodal and holistic response for physiologic closed-loop spinal cord stimulation supported by objective evidence from the EVOKE double-blind randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic pain patients may experience impairments in multiple health-related domains. The design and interpretation of clinical trials of chronic pain interventions, however, remains primarily focused on treatment effects on pain intensity. This study investigates a novel, multidimensional holistic treatment response to evoked compound action potential-controlled closed-loop versus open-loop spinal cord stimulation as well as the degree of neural activation that produced that treatment response. METHODS: Outcome data for pain intensity, physical function, health-related quality of life, sleep quality and emotional function were derived from individual patient level data from the EVOKE multicenter, participant, investigator, and outcome assessor-blinded, parallel-arm randomized controlled trial with 24 month follow-up. Evaluation of holistic treatment response considered whether the baseline score was worse than normative values and whether minimal clinical important differences were reached in each of the domains that were impaired at baseline. A cumulative responder score was calculated to reflect the total minimal clinical important differences accumulated across all domains. Objective neurophysiological data, including spinal cord activation were measured. RESULTS: Patients were randomized to closed-loop (n=67) or open-loop (n=67). A greater proportion of patients with closed-loop spinal cord stimulation (49.3% vs 26.9%) were holistic responders at 24-month follow-up, with at least one minimal clinical important difference in all impaired domains (absolute risk difference: 22.4%, 95% CI 6.4% to 38.4%, p=0.012). The cumulative responder score was significantly greater for closed-loop patients at all time points and resulted in the achievement of more than three additional minimal clinical important differences at 24-month follow-up (mean difference 3.4, 95% CI 1.3 to 5.5, p=0.002). Neural activation was three times more accurate in closed-loop spinal cord stimulation (p<0.001 at all time points). CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that closed-loop spinal cord stimulation can provide sustained clinically meaningful improvements in multiple domains and provide holistic improvement in the long-term for patients with chronic refractory pain. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02924129.

A Definition of Neuromodulation and Classification of Implantable Electrical Modulation for Chronic Pain.

OBJECTIVES: Neuromodulation therapies use a variety of treatment modalities (eg, electrical stimulation) to treat chronic pain. These therapies have experienced rapid growth that has coincided with escalating confusion regarding the nomenclature surrounding these neuromodulation technologies. Furthermore, studies are often published without a complete description of the effective stimulation dose, making it impossible to replicate the findings. To improve clinical care and facilitate dissemination among the public, payors, research groups, and regulatory bodies, there is a clear need for a standardization of terms. APPROACH: We formed an international group of authors comprising basic scientists, anesthesiologists, neurosurgeons, and engineers with expertise in neuromodulation. Because the field of neuromodulation is extensive, we chose to focus on creating a taxonomy and standardized definitions for implantable electrical modulation of chronic pain. RESULTS: We first present a consensus definition of neuromodulation. We then describe a classification scheme based on the 1) intended use (the site of modulation and its indications) and 2) physical properties (waveforms and dose) of a neuromodulation therapy. CONCLUSIONS: This framework will help guide future high-quality studies of implantable neuromodulatory treatments and improve reporting of their findings. Standardization with this classification scheme and clear definitions will help physicians, researchers, payors, and patients better understand the applications of implantable electrical modulation for pain and guide informed treatment decisions.

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.

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.

The Neurostimulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC): Recommendations on Best Practices for Cervical Neurostimulation.

INTRODUCTION: The International Neuromodulation Society convened a multispecialty group of physicians based on expertise with international representation to establish evidence-based guidance on the use of neurostimulation in the cervical region to improve outcomes. This Neurostimulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC) project intends to provide evidence-based guidance for an often-overlooked area of neurostimulation practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Authors were chosen based upon 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 the present. Identified studies were graded using the US 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 use of cervical neuromodulation to improve safety and efficacy. The evidence- and consensus-based recommendations should be utilized as a guide to assist decision making when clinically appropriate.

A Systematic Literature Review of Peripheral Nerve Stimulation Therapies for the Treatment of Pain.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic literature review of peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) for pain. DESIGN: Grade the evidence for PNS. METHODS: An international interdisciplinary work group conducted a literature search for PNS. Abstracts were reviewed to select studies for grading. Inclusion/exclusion criteria included prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with meaningful clinical outcomes that were not part of a larger or previously reported group. Excluded studies were retrospective, had less than two months of follow-up, or existed only as abstracts. Full studies were graded by two independent reviewers 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: Peripheral nerve stimulation was studied in 14 RCTs for a variety of painful conditions (headache, shoulder, pelvic, back, extremity, and trunk pain). Moderate to strong evidence supported the use of PNS to treat pain. CONCLUSION: Peripheral nerve stimulation has moderate/strong evidence. Additional prospective trials could further refine appropriate populations and pain diagnoses.

Therapy Habituation at 12 Months: Spinal Cord Stimulation Versus Dorsal Root Ganglion Stimulation for Complex Regional Pain Syndrome Type I and II.

The ACCURATE randomized, controlled trial compared outcomes of dorsal root ganglion (DRG) stimulation versus tonic spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in 152 subjects with chronic lower extremity pain due to complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) type I or II. This ACCURATE substudy was designed to evaluate whether therapy habituation occurs with DRG stimulation as compared to SCS through 12-months. A modified intention-to-treat analysis was performed to assess percentage pain relief (PPR) and responder rates at follow-up visits (end-of-trial, 1, 3, 6, 9, 12-months postpermanent implant) for all subjects that completed trial stimulation (DRG:N = 73, SCS:N = 72). For both groups, mean PPR was significantly greater at end-of-trial (DRG = 82.2%, SCS =0 77.0%) than all other follow-ups. Following permanent DRG system implantation, none of the time points were significantly different from one another in PPR (range = 69.3-73.9%). For the SCS group, PPR at 9-months (58.3%) and 12-months (57.9%) was significantly less than at 1-month (66.9%). The responder rate also decreased for the SCS group from 1-month (68.1%) to 12-months (61.1%). After stratifying by diagnosis, it was found that only the CRPS-I population had diminishing pain relief with SCS. DRG stimulation resulted in more stable pain relief through 12-months, while tonic SCS demonstrated therapy habituation at 9- and 12-months. Trial Registration: The ACCURATE study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with Identifier NCT01923285. PERSPECTIVE: This article reports on an ACCURATE substudy, which found that long-term therapy habituation occurred at 12-months with SCS, but not DRG stimulation, in patients with CRPS. The underlying mechanisms of action for these results remain unclear, although several lines of inquiry are proposed.

Neuromodulation of the Dorsal Root Ganglion for Chronic Postsurgical Pain.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to review the available evidence for dorsal root ganglion (DRG) stimulation for the treatment of complex regional pain syndrome type II (CRPS II; peripheral causalgia) associated with chronic neuropathic postsurgical pain (NPP). DESIGN: Available literature was identified through a search of the US National Library of Medicine's Medline database, PubMed.gov. References from published articles also were reviewed for relevant citations. RESULTS: The data published to date support the use of DRG stimulation to treat chronic NPP of the groin, knee, and foot. NPP following procedures such as thoracotomy, hernia surgery, and knee replacement surgery were identified as some of the conditions for which DRG stimulation is likely to be effective. CONCLUSION: DRG stimulation is known to be an effective treatment for focal neuropathic pain. Currently, NPP of the foot, groin, and knee all appear to be the conditions with the most clinical experience, backed by a limited but growing body of evidence. However, prospective studies lag behind real-world clinical experience and are needed to confirm these findings.

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.

Relevant Anatomy, Morphology, and Implantation Techniques of the Dorsal Root Ganglia at the Lumbar Levels.

OBJECTIVES: While dorsal root ganglion (DRG) stimulation has been available in Europe and Australia for the past five years and in the United States for the past year, there are no published details concerning the optimal procedures for DRG lead implantation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We describe several techniques that can be applied to implant cylindrical leads over the DRG, highlighting some tips and tricks according to our experiences. Focus is mainly shifted toward implantations in the lumbar area. We furthermore give some insights in the results we experienced in Spain as well as some worldwide numbers. IMPLANT TECHNIQUES AND RESULTS: A 14-gauge needle is placed using a "2-Level Technique (2-LT)" or exceptionally a "1-Level Technique (1-LT)" or a "Primary- or Secondary Technique" at the level of L5. The delivery sheath, loaded with the lead, is advanced toward the targeted neural foramen. The lead is placed over the dorsal aspect of the DRG. A strain relief loop is created in the epidural space. Sheath and needle are retracted and the lead is secured using an anchor or anchorless technique. In Spain, 87.2% (N = 78) of the selected patients have been successfully implanted. Seven (8.9%) had a negative trial and three (4.2%) were explanted. Average VAS score decreased from 8.8 to 3.3 and on average 94.5% of the pain area was covered. In our center's subjects (N = 47 patients, 60.3% of all implanted patients in Spain), VAS scores decreased from an average of 8.8-1.7 and pain coverage averaged 96.4%. We used an average of 1.8 electrodes. Worldwide more than 4000 permanent cases have been successfully performed. CONCLUSIONS: We present implantation techniques whereby a percutaneous lead is placed over the DRG through the use of a special designed delivery sheath. Further investigation of the safety, efficacy, and sustainability of clinical outcomes using these devices is warranted.

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.

Dorsal root ganglion stimulation yielded higher treatment success rate for complex regional pain syndrome and causalgia at 3 and 12 months: a randomized comparative trial.

Animal and human studies indicate that electrical stimulation of dorsal root ganglion (DRG) neurons may modulate neuropathic pain signals. ACCURATE, a pivotal, prospective, multicenter, randomized comparative effectiveness trial, was conducted in 152 subjects diagnosed with complex regional pain syndrome or causalgia in the lower extremities. Subjects received neurostimulation of the DRG or dorsal column (spinal cord stimulation, SCS). The primary end point was a composite of safety and efficacy at 3 months, and subjects were assessed through 12 months for long-term outcomes and adverse events. The predefined primary composite end point of treatment success was met for subjects with a permanent implant who reported 50% or greater decrease in visual analog scale score from preimplant baseline and who did not report any stimulation-related neurological deficits. No subjects reported stimulation-related neurological deficits. The percentage of subjects receiving ≥50% pain relief and treatment success was greater in the DRG arm (81.2%) than in the SCS arm (55.7%, P < 0.001) at 3 months. Device-related and serious adverse events were not different between the 2 groups. Dorsal root ganglion stimulation also demonstrated greater improvements in quality of life and psychological disposition. Finally, subjects using DRG stimulation reported less postural variation in paresthesia (P < 0.001) and reduced extraneous stimulation in nonpainful areas (P = 0.014), indicating DRG stimulation provided more targeted therapy to painful parts of the lower extremities. As the largest prospective, randomized comparative effectiveness trial to date, the results show that DRG stimulation provided a higher rate of treatment success with less postural variation in paresthesia intensity compared to SCS.

Epidural Electrical Stimulation for Stroke Rehabilitation: Results of the Prospective, Multicenter, Randomized, Single-Blinded Everest Trial.

BACKGROUND: This prospective, single-blinded, multicenter study assessed the safety and efficacy of electrical epidural motor cortex stimulation (EECS) in improving upper limb motor function of ischemic stroke patients with moderate to moderately severe hemiparesis. METHODS: Patients ≥ 4 months poststroke were randomized 2:1 to an investigational (n = 104) or control (n = 60) group, respectively. Investigational patients were implanted (n = 94) with an epidural 6-contact lead perpendicular to the primary motor cortex and a pulse generator. Both groups underwent 6 weeks of rehabilitation, but EECS was delivered to investigational patients during rehabilitation. The primary efficacy endpoint (PE) was defined as attaining a minimum improvement of 4.5 points in the upper extremity Fugl-Meyer (UEFM) scale as well as 0.21 points in the Arm Motor Ability Test (AMAT) 4 weeks postrehabilitation. Follow-up assessments were performed 1, 4, 12, and 24 weeks postrehabilitation. Safety was evaluated by monitoring adverse events (AEs) that occurred between enrollment and the end of rehabilitation. RESULTS: Primary intent-to-treat analysis showed no group differences at 4 weeks, with PE being met by 32% and 29% of investigational and control patients, respectively (P = .36). Repeated-measures secondary analyses revealed no significant treatment group differences in mean UEFM or AMAT scores. However, post hoc comparisons showed that a greater proportion of investigational (39%) than control (15%) patients maintained or achieved PE (P = .003) at 24 weeks postrehabilitation. Investigational group mean AMAT scores also improved significantly (P < .05) when compared to the control group at 24 weeks postrehabilitation. Post hoc analyses also showed that 69% (n = 9/13) of the investigational patients who elicited movement thresholds during stimulation testing met PE at 4 weeks, and mean UEFM and AMAT scores was also significantly higher (P < .05) in this subgroup at the 4-, 12-, and 24-week assessments when compared to the control group. Headache (19%), pain (13%), swelling (7%), and infection (7%) were the most commonly observed implant procedure-related AEs. Overall, there were 11 serious AEs in 9 investigational group patients (7 procedure related, 4 anesthesia related). CONCLUSIONS: The primary analysis pertaining to efficacy of EECS during upper limb motor rehabilitation in chronic stroke patients was negative at 4 weeks postrehabilitation. A better treatment response was observed in a subset of patients eliciting stimulation induced upper limb movements during motor threshold assessments performed prior to each rehabilitation session. Post hoc comparisons indicated treatment effect differences at 24 weeks, with the control group showing significant decline in the combined primary outcome measure relative to the investigational group. These results have the potential to inform future chronic stroke rehabilitation trial design.

The appropriate use of neurostimulation of the spinal cord and peripheral nervous system for the treatment of chronic pain and ischemic diseases: the Neuromodulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee.

INTRODUCTION: The Neuromodulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC) of the International Neuromodulation Society (INS) evaluated evidence regarding the safety and efficacy of neurostimulation to treat chronic pain, chronic critical limb ischemia, and refractory angina and recommended appropriate clinical applications. METHODS: The NACC used literature reviews, expert opinion, clinical experience, and individual research. Authors consulted the Practice Parameters for the Use of Spinal Cord Stimulation in the Treatment of Neuropathic Pain (2006), systematic reviews (1984 to 2013), and prospective and randomized controlled trials (2005 to 2013) identified through PubMed, EMBASE, and Google Scholar. RESULTS: Neurostimulation is relatively safe because of its minimally invasive and reversible characteristics. Comparison with medical management is difficult, as patients considered for neurostimulation have failed conservative management. Unlike alternative therapies, neurostimulation is not associated with medication-related side effects and has enduring effect. Device-related complications are not uncommon; however, the incidence is becoming less frequent as technology progresses and surgical skills improve. Randomized controlled studies support the efficacy of spinal cord stimulation in treating failed back surgery syndrome and complex regional pain syndrome. Similar studies of neurostimulation for peripheral neuropathic pain, postamputation pain, postherpetic neuralgia, and other causes of nerve injury are needed. International guidelines recommend spinal cord stimulation to treat refractory angina; other indications, such as congestive heart failure, are being investigated. CONCLUSIONS: Appropriate neurostimulation is safe and effective in some chronic pain conditions. Technological refinements and clinical evidence will continue to expand its use. The NACC seeks to facilitate the efficacy and safety of neurostimulation.

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.