Examining the Duration of Carryover Effect in Patients With Chronic Pain Treated With Spinal Cord Stimulation (EChO Study): An Open, Interventional, Investigator-Initiated, International Multicenter Study.

OBJECTIVES: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a surgical treatment for severe, chronic, neuropathic pain. It is based on one to two lead(s) implanted in the epidural space, stimulating the dorsal column. It has long been assumed that when deactivating SCS, there is a variable interval before the patient perceives the return of the pain, a phenomenon often termed echo or carryover effect. Although the carryover effect has been problematized as a source of error in crossover studies, no experimental investigation of the effect has been published. This open, prospective, international multicenter study aimed to systematically document, quantify, and investigate the carryover effect in SCS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eligible patients with a beneficial effect from their SCS treatment were instructed to deactivate their SCS device in a home setting and to reactivate it when their pain returned. The primary outcome was duration of carryover time defined as the time interval from deactivation to reactivation. Central clinical parameters (age, sex, indication for SCS, SCS treatment details, pain score) were registered and correlated with carryover time using nonparametric tests (Mann-Whitney/Kruskal-Wallis) for categorical data and linear regression for continuous data. RESULTS: In total, 158 patients were included in the analyses. A median carryover time of five hours was found (interquartile range 2.5;21 hours). Back pain as primary indication for SCS, high-frequency stimulation, and higher pain score at the time of deactivation were correlated with longer carryover time. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms the existence of the carryover effect and indicates a remarkably high degree of interindividual variation. The results suggest that the magnitude of carryover may be correlated to the nature of the pain condition and possibly stimulation paradigms. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: The Clinicaltrials.gov registration number for the study is NCT03386058.

Applicability and Validity of an e-Health Tool for the Appropriate Referral and Selection of Patients With Chronic Pain for Spinal Cord Stimulation: Results From a European Retrospective Study.

OBJECTIVES: To support rational decision-making on spinal cord stimulation (SCS), a European expert panel developed an educational e-health tool using the RAND/University of California at Los Angeles Appropriateness Method. This retrospective study aimed to determine the applicability and validity of the tool using data from patients for whom SCS had been considered. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 12 European implant centers retrieved data from 25 to 50 consecutive patients for whom SCS was considered in 2018-2019. For each patient, data were captured on the clinical and psychosocial variables included in the e-health tool, center decisions on SCS, and patient outcomes. Patient outcomes included global perception of effect by the patient and observer, and pain reduction (numeric pain rating scale) at six-month follow-up. RESULTS: In total, 483 patients were included, of whom 133 received a direct implant, 258 received an implant after a positive trial, 32 had a negative trial, and 60 did not receive SCS for reasons other than a negative trial. The most frequent indication was persistent spinal pain syndrome type 1 and type 2 (74%), followed by neuropathic pain syndromes (13%), complex regional pain syndrome (12%), and ischemic pain syndromes (0.8%). Data on the clinical and psychosocial variables were complete for 95% and 93% of patients, respectively, and missing data did not have a significant impact on the study outcomes. In patients who had received SCS, panel recommendations were significantly associated with patient outcomes (p < 0.001 for all measures). Substantial improvement ranged from 25% if the e-health tool outcome was "not recommended" to 83% if SCS was "strongly recommended". In patients who underwent a trial (N = 290), there was 3% of trial failure when SCS was "strongly recommended" vs 46% when SCS was "not recommended". CONCLUSIONS: Retrospective application of the e-health tool on patient data showed a strong relationship between the panel recommendations and both SCS trial results and treatment outcomes.

Continuous versus intermittent spinal cord stimulation: an analysis of factors influencing clinical efficacy.

OBJECTIVES: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has, for decades, been shown to be successful in a variety of chronic neuropathic pain syndromes. However, there is a paucity of reports in the literature comparing different stimulation patterns. The impact of different stimulation patterns upon outcome remains to be determined, as well as how the latter is influenced by the duration of the post-SCS pain-free interval. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from 61 patients (of 71 eligible patients) were collected by means of a telephone interview. These data included the pattern of stimulation (intermittent or continuous), the intensity of stimulation with regard to threshold, the mean, maximal, and minimal pain strength on a numerical rating scale with and without stimulation, the average duration and number of daily stimulation intervals, the average duration of the pain-relieving effect after switching off the impulse generator, the pain medication intake, the extent of paresthesia coverage, unpleasant side effects, and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: The average improvement in pain score following SCS was 3.10 (50.61%). Twenty-four patients (39.3%) performed continuous stimulation, and 37 patients (60.7%) performed intermittent stimulation. Patients who performed continuous stimulation had significantly shorter pain-free intervals following the cessation of stimulation. These patients also showed a tendency toward higher pain scores with and without stimulation, which was not statistically significant. There were no significant differences in pain scores, duration of pain relief, and usage of the stimulation system between patients with different diagnoses and lead locations. CONCLUSION: Our data showed an equal effectiveness of SCS in the intermittent and in the continuous stimulation mode. The duration of the post-SCS pain-free interval may be predictive for the choice of the most effective individual stimulation pattern and deserves further investigation.

Patient selection for spinal cord stimulation: The importance of an integrated assessment of clinical and psychosocial factors.

BACKGROUND: A previously developed educational e-health tool considers both clinical and psychosocial factors when selecting patients with chronic pain for spinal cord stimulation (SCS). The validity of the composite recommendations was evaluated in a retrospective study, demonstrating a strong relationship with patient outcomes after SCS. METHODS: An additional retrospective analysis was performed to determine the added value of a psychosocial evaluation as part of the decision-making process on SCS. Data concerned 482 patients who were considered for SCS in 2018-2019. The analysis focused on the relationship between the different layers of the tool recommendations (clinical, psychosocial, composite) with trial results and patient outcomes at 6 months after SCS. Of the initial study population, 381 patients underwent SCS and had follow-up data on at least one of three pain-related outcome measures. RESULTS: Pain improvement was observed in 76% of the patients for whom SCS was strongly recommended based on merely the clinical aspects. This percentage varied by the level of psychosocial problems and ranged from 86% in patients without any compromising psychosocial factors to 60% in those with severe problems. Similarly, the severity of psychosocial problems affected trial results in patients for whom SCS was either recommended or strongly recommended. CONCLUSIONS: The strong relationship between psychosocial factors embedded in the SCS e-health tool and patient outcomes supports an integrated and multidisciplinary approach in the selection of patients for SCS. The educational e-health tool, combining both clinical and psychosocial aspects, is believed to be helpful for further education and implementation of this approach. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: This study confirms the relevance of the psychosocial factors embedded in the educational SCS e-health tool (https://scstool.org/). The strong relationship between the severity of psychosocial factors with patient outcomes supports conducting a comprehensive psychological and behavioural assessment when determining the eligibility of patients for SCS.

Appropriate referral and selection of patients with chronic pain for spinal cord stimulation: European consensus recommendations and e-health tool.

BACKGROUND: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an established treatment for chronic neuropathic, neuropathic-like and ischaemic pain. However, the heterogeneity of patients in daily clinical practice makes it often challenging to determine which patients are eligible for this treatment, resulting in undesirable practice variations. This study aimed to establish patient-specific recommendations for referral and selection of SCS in chronic pain. METHODS: A multidisciplinary European panel used the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method (RUAM) to assess the appropriateness of (referral for) SCS for 386 clinical scenarios in four pain areas: chronic low back pain and/or leg pain, complex regional pain syndrome, neuropathic pain syndromes and ischaemic pain syndromes. In addition, the panel identified a set of psychosocial factors that are relevant to the decision for SCS treatment. RESULTS: Appropriateness of SCS was strongly determined by the neuropathic or neuropathic-like pain component, location and spread of pain, anatomic abnormalities and previous response to therapies targeting pain processing (e.g. nerve block). Psychosocial factors considered relevant for SCS selection were as follows: lack of engagement, dysfunctional coping, unrealistic expectations, inadequate daily activity level, problematic social support, secondary gain, psychological distress and unwillingness to reduce high-dose opioids. An educational e-health tool was developed that combines clinical and psychosocial factors into an advice on referral/selection for SCS. CONCLUSIONS: The RUAM was useful to establish a consensus on patient-specific criteria for referral/selection for SCS in chronic pain. The e-health tool may help physicians learn to apply an integrated approach of clinical and psychosocial factors. SIGNIFICANCE: Determining the eligibility of SCS in patients with chronic pain requires careful consideration of a variety of clinical and psychosocial factors. Using a systematic approach to combine evidence from clinical studies and expert opinion, a multidisciplinary European expert panel developed detailed recommendations to support appropriate referral and selection for SCS in chronic pain. These recommendations are available as an educational e-health tool (https://www.scstool.org/).