Feasibility of Spinal Cord Stimulation in Patients With Refractory Angina Pectoris and a Cardiac Implanted Electronic Device.

OBJECTIVES: Five to 10% of patients with stable coronary artery disease have refractory angina pectoris (RAP). These patients are restricted in performing daily activities due to angina pectoris. Spinal cord stimulation is a last resort treatment option. A number of this patient population also has an indication for a cardiac implanted electronic device (CIED) (pacemaker or implantable cardiac defibrillator). Manufacturers of spinal cord stimulators have stated a warning that interference can occur between the spinal cord stimulator and the CIED. Consequently, only a limited number of patients with RAP and a CIED have received a spinal cord stimulator. The aim of this retrospective cohort study is to determine whether spinal cord stimulation can be safely used in patients with RAP and a CIED. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients with RAP referred to our center were screened and included if 1) the patient received a spinal cord stimulator as treatment for RAP and if 2) the patient received a CIED either prior to or after spinal cord stimulator implantation. A transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) treadmill test was used as a screening tool to determine whether the patient was eligible for implantation of a spinal cord stimulator. Interference between the spinal cord stimulator and CIED was checked 1) after TENS treadmill test, 2) during implantation of spinal cord stimulator or CIED, 3) during mode switches of the SCS, and 4) during regular out patient follow-up. RESULTS: In total, 22 patients had both a spinal cord stimulator and a CIED with an average follow-up duration of 44.5 months. No interference between the spinal cord stimulator and CIED was found. CONCLUSION: Spinal cord stimulation can be safely applied in patients with a CIED provided that the CIED is checked for interference during implantation, if mode switches of the SCS occurred and once yearly after implantation according to routine follow-up.

25. Ischemic pain in the extremities and Raynaud's phenomenon.

Two important groups of disorders result from an insufficient blood supply to the extremities: critical vascular disease and the Raynaud's phenomenon. The latter can be subdivided into a primary and a secondary type. Critical ischemic disease is often caused by arteriosclerosis due to hypertension or diabetes. Primary Raynaud's is idiopathic and will be diagnosed as such if underlying systemic pathology has been excluded. Secondary Raynaud's is often a manifestation of a systemic disease. It is essential to try to establish a diagnosis as soon as possible in order to influence the evolution of the disease. A sympathetic nerve block can be considered in patients with critical ischemic vascular disease after extensive conservative treatment, preferably in the context of a study (2B±). If this has insufficient effect, spinal cord stimulation can be considered in a selected patient group (2B±). In view of the degree of invasiveness and the costs involved, this treatment should preferably be applied in the context of a study and with the use of transcutaneous pO(2) measurements. In case of primary Raynaud's, life style changes are the first step. Sympathectomy can be considered as a treatment of Raynaud's phenomenon (2C+), but only after multidisciplinary evaluation of the patient and in close consultation with the patient's rheumatologist, vascular surgeon or internist.

Pulsed radiofrequency adjacent to the cervical dorsal root ganglion in chronic cervical radicular pain: a double blind sham controlled randomized clinical trial.

Cervical radicular pain affects approximately 1 on 1000 adults per year. Although many treatment modalities are described in the literature, the available evidence for efficacy is not sufficient to allow definitive conclusions on the optimal therapy to be made. The effect of pulsed radiofrequency treatment for this type of patients was evaluated in a prospective audit that showed satisfactory pain relief for a mean period of 9.2 months, justifying a randomized sham controlled trial. Twenty-three patients, out of 256 screened, met the inclusion criteria and were randomly assigned in a double blind fashion to receive either pulsed radiofrequency or sham intervention. The evaluation was done by an independent observer. At 3 months the pulsed radiofrequency group showed a significantly better outcome with regard to the global perceived effect (>50% improvement) and visual analogue scale (20 point pain reduction). The quality of life scales also showed a positive trend in favor of the pulsed radiofrequency group, but significance was only reached in the SF-36 domain vitality at 3 months. The need for pain medication was significantly reduced in the pulsed radiofrequency group after six months. No complications were observed during the study period. These study results are in agreement with the findings of our previous clinical audit that pulsed radiofrequency treatment of the cervical dorsal root ganglion may provide pain relief for a limited number of carefully selected patients with chronic cervical radicular pain as assessed by clinical and neurological examination.

Cervicogenic headache: practical approaches to therapy.

Cervicogenic headache is a relatively common and still controversial form of headache arising from structures in the neck. The estimated prevalence of the disorder varies considerably, ranging from 0.7% to 13.8%. Cervicogenic headache is a 'side-locked' or unilateral fixed headache characterised by a non-throbbing pain that starts in the neck and spreads to the ipsilateral oculo-fronto-temporal area. In patients with this disorder, attacks or chronic fluctuating periods of neck/head pain may be provoked/worsened by sustained neck movements or stimulation of ipsilateral tender points. The pathophysiology of cervicogenic headache probably depends on the effects of various local pain-producing or eliciting factors, such as intervertebral dysfunction, cytokines and nitric oxide. Frequent coexistence of a history of head traumas suggests these also play an important role. A reliable diagnosis of cervicogenic headache can be made based on the criteria established in 1998 by the Cervicogenic Headache International Study Group. Positive response after an appropriate nerve block is an essential diagnostic feature of the disorder. Differential diagnoses of cervicogenic headache include hemicrania continua, chronic paroxysmal hemicrania, occipital neuralgia, migraine and tension headache. Various therapies have been used in the management of cervicogenic headache. These range from lowly invasive, drug-based therapies to highly invasive, surgical-based therapies. This review evaluates use of drug therapy with paracetamol and NSAIDs, infliximab and botulinum toxin type A; manual modalities and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation therapy; local injection of anaesthetic or corticosteroids; and invasive surgical therapies for the treatment of cervicogenic headache. A curative therapy for cervicogenic headache will not be developed until increased knowledge of the aetiology and pathophysiology of the condition becomes available. In the meantime, limited evidence suggests that therapy with repeated injections of botulinum toxin type A may be the most safe and efficacious approach. The surgical approach, which includes decompression and radiofrequency lesions of the involved nerve structures, may also provide physicians with further options for refractory cervicogenic headache patients. Unfortunately, the paucity of experimental models for cervicogenic headache and the relative lack of biomolecular markers for the condition mean much is still unclear about cervicogenic headache and the disorder remains inadequately treated.