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.

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.

Safety and Efficacy of Occipital Nerves Stimulation for the Treatment of Chronic Migraines: Randomized, Double-blind, Controlled Single-center Experience.

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.

Retrospective review of 707 cases of spinal cord stimulation: indications and complications.

Appropriate patient selection and minimizing complications are critical for successful spinal cord stimulation (SCS) therapy in managing intractable pain. We thus reviewed electronic medical records of 707 consecutive cases of patients who received SCS therapy in the Cleveland Clinic from 2000 to 2005 with an emphasis on indications and complications. SCS was used to treat complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) (345 cases), failed back surgery syndrome (235 cases), peripheral vascular disease (20 cases), visceral pain in the chest, abdomen, and pelvis (37 cases), and peripheral neuropathy (70 cases). CRPS and failed back surgery syndrome accounted for 82% of the cases. The implant-to-trial ratio was 75% on average, with the highest for CRPS type 2 (83%) and the lowest for peripheral vascular diseases (65%). The only documented complication associated with SCS trials was lead migration in 5 of 707 patients (0.7%). There were no permanent neurological deficits or deaths as a result of SCS implant or its complications. Hardware-related complications were common (38%) and included lead migration (22.6%), lead connection failure (9.5%), and lead breakage (6%). Revisions or replacements were required in these cases. Biologically related complications included pain at the generator site (12%) and clinical infection (4.5%; 2.5% with positive culture). The rates of infection varied among the different diagnoses with the highest in failed back surgery syndrome (6.3%). Patients with diabetes had an infection rate of 9%, over the 4% in non-diabetics. Infections were managed successfully with explantation and antibiotic therapy without permanent sequela.

Clinical applications of neurostimulation: forty years later.

With the recent technological advances, neurostimulation has provided new hope for millions of patients with debilitating chronic pain conditions that respond poorly to other therapies. Outcome research demonstrated that patients with failed back surgery syndrome and complex regional pain syndromes benefit significantly from neurostimulation in pain reduction, functional capacity, and quality of life. Increasing clinical evidence supports the use of neurostimulation in post-herpetic neuralgia, peripheral neuropathy, occipital neuralgia, and other neuropathic pain conditions. Strong clinical evidences indicate that neurostimulation offers less invasive and more effective therapies for many patients with ischemic pain caused by cardiovascular and peripheral vascular diseases. A growing body of literature supports neurostimulation for visceral pain in general and interstitial cystitis in particular. As a basic principle, patient selection for the appropriate neurostimulation modalities is essential for safe, efficacious, and cost-effective applications of this therapy. Research with more vigorous designs is needed to establish evidence-based applications of neuromodulation therapy in emerging indications of pain management.

Treatment of intractable discogenic low back pain. A systematic review of spinal fusion and intradiscal electrothermal therapy (IDET).

BACKGROUND: A growing number of patients suffer from severe low back pain of discogenic origin that is not responsive to conservative medical management. These patients must consider the option of surgical spinal fusion or minimally-invasive intradiscal electrothermal therapy (IDET). OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review of clinical outcomes in patients undergoing spinal fusion or the intradiscal electrothermal therapy (IDET) procedure for intractable discogenic low back pain. DESIGN: Systematic literature review. METHODS: English-language journal articles published from January 1995 to December 2005 were identified through computerized searches of the PubMed database and bibliographies of identified articles and review papers. Articles were selected if disc degeneration or disruption was the primary indication for spinal fusion or the IDET procedure and if follow-up outcome data included evaluations of back pain severity, condition-specific functional impairment and/or health-related quality of life. The literature reviewed encompassed 33 spinal fusion articles: 10 randomized controlled trials, 1 nonrandomized controlled trial, 9 before-after trials, and 13 case series. There were 18 IDET articles: 2 randomized controlled trial, 2 nonrandomized controlled trials, 11 before- after trials, and 3 case series. Data were extracted and summarized on patient characteristics, surgical methods, and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Overall, there were similar median percentage improvements realized after spinal fusion and the IDET procedure, respectively, for 2 of the 3 outcomes evaluated: pain severity (50%, 51%), back function (42%, 14%) and quality of life (46%, 43%). There was an identifiable randomized controlled trials trend of both treatments reporting a smaller magnitude of improvement in all 3 primary outcomes (pain severity, back function, quality of life) compared to other types of trials. Perioperative complications were commonly associated with spinal fusion (median: 14%, range: 2% to 54%, n = 31 study groups) whereas adverse events were rarely experienced with the IDET procedure (median: 0%, range: 0% to 16%, n = 14 studies). Randomized controlled trials of spinal fusion, in particular, had important methodological limitations. CONCLUSION: The majority of patients reported improvement in symptoms following both spinal fusion and the IDET procedure. The IDET procedure appears to offer sufficiently similar symptom amelioration to spinal fusion without the attendant complications.

Cost benefit analysis of neurostimulation for chronic pain.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the healthcare utilization of patients with intractable chronic neuropathic pain treated with spinal cord stimulation and peripheral nerve stimulation and to provide a cost-benefit analysis. METHODS: The case records of 222 consecutive patients who received spinal cord stimulation or peripheral nerve stimulation implants at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation between 1990 and 1998 were reviewed retrospectively. Patients were asked to complete a Neurostimulation Outcome Questionnaire designed to gather data on utilization of healthcare resources starting 1 year before surgical implantation. These data were pooled and net differences in events per patient per year, before and after device implantation were calculated and modeled to 2000 cost data obtained from the Medicare Fee Schedule and Healthcare Financing Administration. RESULTS: Neurostimulation Outcome Questionnaires were returned by 128 patients. The mean patient age was 46 +/- 12.5 years (range 21-71 years) and the mean implant duration was 3.1 +/- 2.3 years (range 0.5-8.9 years). The mean per patient total reimbursement of spinal cord stimulation/peripheral nerve stimulation absent pharmacotherapy was $38,187. Patients treated with spinal cord stimulation/peripheral nerve stimulation for pain management achieved reductions in physician office visits, nerve blocks, radiologic imaging, emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and surgical procedures, which translated into a net annual savings of approximately $30,221 and a savings of $93,685 over the 3.1-year implant duration. The large reduction in healthcare utilization following spinal cord stimulation/peripheral nerve stimulation implantation resulted in a net per patient per year cost savings of approximately $17,903. DISCUSSION: The reduced demand for healthcare resources by patients receiving neurostimulation suggests that peripheral nerve stimulation and spinal cord stimulation treatment, although associated with relatively high initial costs, demonstrates substantial long-term economic benefits. Thus, neurostimulation should be considered as a viable option for the early treatment of patients with intractable chronic neuropathic pain.