RESUMO
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.
Assuntos
Dor Crônica , Estimulação da Medula Espinal , Humanos , Dor Crônica/diagnóstico , Dor Crônica/terapia , Estimulação da Medula Espinal/métodos , Qualidade de Vida , Método Duplo-Cego , Medição da Dor/métodos , Resultado do Tratamento , Medula EspinalRESUMO
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.
RESUMO
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.
Assuntos
Dor Crônica , Estimulação da Medula Espinal , Humanos , Dor Crônica/diagnóstico , Dor Crônica/terapia , Dor Crônica/etiologia , Estimulação da Medula Espinal/métodos , Reprodutibilidade dos Testes , Resultado do Tratamento , Medula EspinalRESUMO
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.
Assuntos
Dor Crônica , Dor Lombar , Estimulação Elétrica Nervosa Transcutânea , Humanos , Manejo da Dor , Nervos PeriféricosRESUMO
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:Nâ¯=â¯73, SCS:Nâ¯=â¯72). For both groups, mean PPR was significantly greater at end-of-trial (DRGâ¯=â¯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 (rangeâ¯=â¯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.
Assuntos
Causalgia/terapia , Terapia por Estimulação Elétrica , Gânglios Espinais , Habituação Psicofisiológica , Avaliação de Resultados em Cuidados de Saúde , Distrofia Simpática Reflexa/terapia , Estimulação da Medula Espinal , Adulto , Idoso , Feminino , Seguimentos , Gânglios Espinais/fisiologia , Habituação Psicofisiológica/fisiologia , Humanos , Neuroestimuladores Implantáveis , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Fatores de TempoRESUMO
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.
Assuntos
Terapia por Estimulação Elétrica/métodos , Gânglios Espinais , HumanosRESUMO
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.
Assuntos
Terapia por Estimulação Elétrica/métodos , Gânglios Espinais , Neuralgia/terapia , Dor Crônica/terapia , Humanos , Manejo da Dor/métodos , Estudos Retrospectivos , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
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.
Assuntos
Transtornos da Coagulação Sanguínea/terapia , Consenso , Gerenciamento Clínico , Terapia por Estimulação Elétrica , Hemorragia/terapia , Comitê de Profissionais/normas , Transtornos da Coagulação Sanguínea/etiologia , Terapia por Estimulação Elétrica/efeitos adversos , Terapia por Estimulação Elétrica/instrumentação , Terapia por Estimulação Elétrica/métodos , Medicina Baseada em Evidências , Hemorragia/etiologia , HumanosRESUMO
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.
Assuntos
Consenso , Terapia por Estimulação Elétrica/efeitos adversos , Controle de Infecções/normas , Guias de Prática Clínica como Assunto , Comitê de Profissionais/normas , Humanos , Controle de Infecções/métodos , Infecções , Neuralgia/terapiaRESUMO
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.
Assuntos
Consenso , Terapia por Estimulação Elétrica/métodos , Terapia por Estimulação Elétrica/normas , Doenças do Sistema Nervoso/terapia , Guias de Prática Clínica como Assunto , Comitê de Profissionais/normas , Medicina Baseada em Evidências , HumanosRESUMO
BACKGROUND: A recent multicenter study presented 52-week safety and efficacy results from an open-label extension of a randomized, sham-controlled trial for patients with chronic migraine (CM) undergoing peripheral nerve stimulation of the occipital nerves. We present the data from a single center of 20 patients enrolled at the Cleveland Clinic's Pain Management Department. METHODS: In this single center, 20 patients were implanted with a neurostimulation system, randomized to an active or control group for 12 weeks, and received open-label treatment for an additional 40 weeks. Outcomes collected included number of headache days, pain intensity, Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS), Zung Pain and Distress (PAD), direct patient reports of headache pain relief, quality of life, satisfaction, and adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: Headache days per month were reduced by 8.51 (±9.81) days (P < 0.0001). The proportion of patients who achieved a 30% and 50% reduction in headache days and/or pain intensity was 60% and 35%, respectively. MIDAS and Zung PAD were reduced for all patients. Fifteen (75%) of the 20 patients at the site reported at least one AE. A total of 20 AEs were reported from the site. CONCLUSION: Our results support the 12-month efficacy of 20 CM patients receiving peripheral nerve stimulation of the occipital nerves in this single-center trial.
Assuntos
Terapia por Estimulação Elétrica/métodos , Transtornos de Enxaqueca/terapia , Manejo da Dor/métodos , Adulto , Método Duplo-Cego , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Nervos Periféricos/fisiologia , Qualidade de Vida , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
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.
Assuntos
Causalgia/terapia , Síndromes da Dor Regional Complexa/terapia , Terapia por Estimulação Elétrica/normas , Gânglios Espinais/fisiologia , Adulto , Idoso , Feminino , Seguimentos , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Medição da Dor , Escalas de Graduação Psiquiátrica , Adulto JovemRESUMO
Chronic neuropathic groin pain is a sequela of hernia surgery that occurs at unacceptably high rates, causing widespread impacts on quality of life. Although the medical community is beginning to recognize the role of surgical technique in the initiation and maintenance of postherniorrhaphy neuropathic pain, little information exists regarding pain management strategies for this condition. This review presents a summary of the pain condition state, its treatment options, and treatment recommendations. Both literature review and clinical experience were used to develop a proposed a treatment algorithm for the treatment of postherniorrhaphy pain. The development of chronic pain may be prevented via a number of perioperative measures. For pain that is already established, some surgical approaches including inguinal neurectomy can be effective, in addition to standard pharmacological treatments and local infiltrations. An unmet need may still exist with these options, however, leaving a role for neuromodulation for the treatment of intractable cases. A pain management algorithm for iterative interventions including stimulation of the dorsal root ganglion (DRG) is described. It is expected that cross-disciplinary awareness of surgeons for nonsurgical pain management options in the treatment of chronic neuropathic postherniorrhaphy pain will contribute to better clinical outcomes.
Assuntos
Terapia por Estimulação Elétrica/métodos , Herniorrafia/efeitos adversos , Neuralgia/terapia , Manejo da Dor/métodos , Dor Pós-Operatória/terapia , Dor Crônica/etiologia , Dor Crônica/terapia , Gânglios Espinais/fisiologia , Virilha , Humanos , Neuralgia/etiologia , Dor Pós-Operatória/etiologia , Qualidade de VidaRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Recent studies evaluated short-term efficacy and safety of peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) of the occipital nerves for managing chronic migraine. We present 52-week safety and efficacy results from an open-label extension of a randomized, sham-controlled trial. METHODS: In this institutional review board-approved, randomized, multicenter, double-blinded study, patients were implanted with a neurostimulation system, randomized to an active or control group for 12 weeks, and received open-label treatment for an additional 40 weeks. Outcomes collected included number of headache days, pain intensity, migraine disability assessment (MIDAS), Zung Pain and Distress (PAD), direct patient reports of headache pain relief, quality of life, satisfaction and adverse events. Statistical tests assessed change from baseline to 52 weeks using paired t-tests. Intent-to-treat (ITT) analyses of all patients (N = 157) and analyses of only patients who met criteria for intractable chronic migraine (ICM; N = 125) were performed. RESULTS: Headache days were significantly reduced by 6.7 (±8.4) days in the ITT population (p < 0.001) and by 7.7 (±8.7) days in the ICM population (p < 0.001). The percentages of patients who achieved a 30% and 50% reduction in headache days and/or pain intensity were 59.5% and 47.8%, respectively. MIDAS and Zung PAD scores were significantly reduced for both populations. Excellent or good headache relief was reported by 65.4% of the ITT population and 67.9% of the ICM population. More than half the patients in both cohorts were satisfied with the headache relief provided by the device. A total of 183 device/procedure-related adverse events occurred during the study, of which 18 (8.6%) required hospitalization and 85 (40.7%) required surgical intervention; 70% of patients experienced an adverse event. CONCLUSION: Our results support the 12-month efficacy of PNS of the occipital nerves for headache pain and disability associated with chronic migraine. More emphasis on adverse event mitigation is needed in future research. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical trials.gov (NCT00615342).
Assuntos
Transtornos de Enxaqueca/terapia , Nervos Periféricos/fisiologia , Estimulação Elétrica Nervosa Transcutânea/métodos , Adulto , Idoso , Método Duplo-Cego , Feminino , Humanos , Neuroestimuladores Implantáveis , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Crânio/inervação , Resultado do Tratamento , Adulto JovemRESUMO
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.
Assuntos
Dor Crônica/terapia , Terapia por Estimulação Elétrica , Isquemia/terapia , Manejo da Dor/métodos , Analgésicos/uso terapêutico , Angina Pectoris/terapia , Anticoagulantes/uso terapêutico , Lista de Checagem , Análise Custo-Benefício , Terapia por Estimulação Elétrica/efeitos adversos , Terapia por Estimulação Elétrica/economia , Terapia por Estimulação Elétrica/instrumentação , Terapia por Estimulação Elétrica/métodos , Humanos , Manejo da Dor/economia , Manejo da Dor/instrumentação , Assistência Perioperatória/métodos , Nervos Periféricos/fisiopatologia , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto/métodos , Estimulação da Medula EspinalRESUMO
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.
Assuntos
Transtornos da Cefaleia/terapia , Transtornos de Enxaqueca/terapia , Manejo da Dor/métodos , Analgésicos/uso terapêutico , Anticoagulantes/efeitos adversos , Anticoagulantes/uso terapêutico , Estimulação Encefálica Profunda/efeitos adversos , Estimulação Encefálica Profunda/instrumentação , Estimulação Encefálica Profunda/métodos , Terapia por Estimulação Elétrica/efeitos adversos , Terapia por Estimulação Elétrica/instrumentação , Terapia por Estimulação Elétrica/métodos , Eletrodos Implantados/efeitos adversos , Medicina Baseada em Evidências , Dor Facial/terapia , Cefaleia/terapia , Humanos , Neurocirurgia/educação , Manejo da Dor/economia , Manejo da Dor/instrumentação , Seleção de Pacientes , Estimulação Magnética Transcraniana/instrumentação , Estimulação Magnética Transcraniana/métodos , Ultrassonografia de Intervenção , Estimulação do Nervo Vago/instrumentação , Estimulação do Nervo Vago/métodosRESUMO
INTRODUCTION: The International Neuromodulation Society (INS) has determined that there is a need for guidance regarding safety and risk reduction for implantable neurostimulation devices. The INS convened an international committee of experts in the field to explore the evidence and clinical experience regarding safety, risks, and steps to risk reduction to improve outcomes. METHODS: The Neuromodulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC) reviewed the world literature in English by searching MEDLINE, PubMed, and Google Scholar to evaluate the evidence for ways to reduce risks of neurostimulation therapies. This evidence, obtained from the relevant literature, and clinical experience obtained from the convened consensus panel were used to make final recommendations on improving safety and reducing risks. RESULTS: The NACC determined that the ability to reduce risk associated with the use of neurostimulation devices is a valuable goal and possible with best practice. The NACC has recommended several practice modifications that will lead to improved care. The NACC also sets out the minimum training standards necessary to become an implanting physician. CONCLUSIONS: The NACC has identified the possibility of improving patient care and safety through practice modification. We recommend that all implanting physicians review this guidance and consider adapting their practice accordingly.
Assuntos
Dor Crônica/terapia , Terapia por Estimulação Elétrica/efeitos adversos , Manejo da Dor/métodos , Terapia por Estimulação Elétrica/instrumentação , Terapia por Estimulação Elétrica/métodos , Eletrodos Implantados/efeitos adversos , Segurança de Equipamentos , Medicina Baseada em Evidências , Hematoma/etiologia , Humanos , Neurocirurgia/educação , Manejo da Dor/efeitos adversos , Educação de Pacientes como Assunto , Seleção de Pacientes , Traumatismos dos Nervos Periféricos/etiologia , Traumatismos dos Nervos Periféricos/prevenção & controle , Comportamento de Redução do Risco , Traumatismos da Medula Espinal/etiologia , Traumatismos da Medula Espinal/prevenção & controle , Estimulação da Medula Espinal/efeitos adversos , Estimulação da Medula Espinal/instrumentação , Estimulação da Medula Espinal/métodos , Infecção dos Ferimentos/etiologia , Infecção dos Ferimentos/prevenção & controleRESUMO
INTRODUCTION: The International Neuromodulation Society (INS) has determined that there is a need to provide an expert consensus that defines the appropriate use of neuromodulation technologies for appropriate patients. The Neuromodulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC) was formed to give guidance to current practice and insight into future developments. METHODS: The INS executive board selected members of the international scientific community to analyze scientific evidence for current and future innovations and to use clinical experience to fill in any gaps in information. The NACC used PubMed and Google Scholar to obtain current evidence in the field and used clinical and research experience to give a more complete picture of the innovations in the field. RESULTS: The NACC has determined that currently approved neurostimulation techniques and technologies have expanded our ability to treat patients in a more effective and specific fashion. Despite these advances, the NACC has identified several additional promising technologies and potential applications for neurostimulation that could move this field forward and expand the applicability of neuromodulation. CONCLUSIONS: The NACC concludes that the field of neurostimulation is an evolving and rapidly changing one that will lead to improved patient access, safety, and outcomes.
Assuntos
Dor Crônica/terapia , Terapia por Estimulação Elétrica , Manejo da Dor/métodos , Animais , Doenças Cardiovasculares/terapia , Terapia por Estimulação Elétrica/efeitos adversos , Terapia por Estimulação Elétrica/instrumentação , Terapia por Estimulação Elétrica/métodos , Terapia por Estimulação Elétrica/normas , Eletrodos Implantados/efeitos adversos , Eletrodos Implantados/normas , Medicina Baseada em Evidências , Humanos , Transtornos Mentais/terapia , Camundongos , Neuronavegação , Optogenética/instrumentação , Optogenética/métodos , Manejo da Dor/efeitos adversos , Transplante de Células-Tronco , Telemedicina/métodos , Estimulação Magnética Transcraniana/instrumentação , Estimulação Magnética Transcraniana/métodos , Estimulação Magnética Transcraniana/normasRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Chronic migraine (CM) is a debilitating neurological disorder with few treatment options. Peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) of the occipital nerves is a potentially promising therapy for CM patients. METHODS: In this randomized, controlled multicenter study, patients diagnosed with CM were implanted with a neurostimulation device near the occipital nerves and randomized 2:1 to active (n = 105) or sham (n = 52) stimulation. The primary endpoint was a difference in the percentage of responders (defined as patients that achieved a ≥50% reduction in mean daily visual analog scale scores) in each group at 12 weeks. RESULTS: There was not a significant difference in the percentage of responders in the Active compared with the Control group (95% lower confidence bound (LCB) of -0.06; p = 0.55). However, there was a significant difference in the percentage of patients that achieved a 30% reduction (p = 0.01). Importantly, compared with sham-treated patients, there were also significant differences in reduction of number of headache days (Active Group = 6.1, baseline = 22.4; Control Group = 3.0, baseline = 20.1; p = 0.008), migraine-related disability (p = 0.001) and direct reports of pain relief (p = 0.001). The most common adverse event was persistent implant site pain. CONCLUSION: Although this study failed to meet its primary endpoint, this is the first large-scale study of PNS of the occipital nerves in CM patients that showed significant reductions in pain, headache days, and migraine-related disability. Additional controlled studies using endpoints that have recently been identified and accepted as clinically meaningful are warranted in this highly disabled patient population with a large unmet medical need. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical trials.gov (NCT00615342).