Burst SCS Microdosing Is as Efficacious as Standard Burst SCS in Treating Chronic Back and Leg Pain: Results From a Randomized Controlled Trial.

INTRODUCTION: The burst waveform, a recent innovation in spinal cord stimulation (SCS), can achieve better outcomes than conventional tonic SCS, both for de novo implants and as a salvage therapy. Burst stimulation delivers more energy per second than tonic stimulation, which is a consideration for battery consumption. The clinical effectiveness of an energy-conserving strategy was investigated. METHODS: Subjects were experienced users of BurstDR SCS for back and leg pain. Three 2-week stimulation paradigms were presented in blinded random order: standard (continuously delivered) BurstDR, microdosing A: 5 sec of BurstDR alternating with 5 sec of no stimulation, and microdosing B: 5 sec of BurstDR alternating with 10 sec of no stimulation. The primary outcome for each paradigm was change in pain ratings, and secondary outcomes included changes in scores for quality of life, satisfaction, and preference. RESULTS: Twenty-five subjects assessed all three stimulation paradigms. There were no significant differences in pain (visual analog scale) or quality of life (EQ-5D) when comparing standard burst outcomes with those of microdosing A and, separately, microdosing B. Microdosing paradigms were graded with slightly higher level of satisfaction and were generally preferred above standard burst stimulation. DISCUSSION: These results suggest that the use of energy-efficient burst microdosing stimulation paradigms with alternating stimulation-on and stimulation-off periods can provide clinically equivalent results to standard burst stimulation. This is important for extending SCS battery life. Further research is needed to comprehensively characterize the clinical utility of this approach and the neurophysiological mechanisms for the maintenance of pain relief during stimulation-off periods.

Spinal cord stimulation for the treatment of chronic back pain patients: 500-Hz vs. 1000-Hz burst stimulation.

OBJECTIVE: Spinal cord stimulation is a commonly used, safe, and effective procedure applied for medically intractable failed back surgery syndrome, as well as other neuropathic pain syndromes. Recently, a novel stimulation paradigm called burst stimulation has been developed that is paresthesia-free and has a more pronounced suppressive effect on neuropathic pain. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifteen patients who were being treated with burst spinal cord stimulation for failed back surgery syndrome participated in an open-label trial to verify whether their pain suppression could be further ameliorated by changing the burst pattern. Burst stimulation with packets of five electrical pulses delivered at 500 Hz with 1000-µsec pulse width 40 times per second was changed to burst mode delivering five spikes at 1000 Hz with 500-µsec pulse width 40 times a second. As the amplitudes did not differ between the two groups, the total delivery of current to the spinal cord was not different between the two modes of burst stimulation. Scores on visual analog scales for pain and paresthesia, the Pain Catastrophizing Scale, the Pain Vigilance and Awareness Questionnaire, and the Short Form 36 quality of life measurement were compared between the two modes of burst stimulation. [Correction added on 06 Feb 2015, after first online publication: this paragraph has been revised to signify the comparison of amplitudes between two groups] RESULTS: No statistically significant differences were found between the two modes of stimulation. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that increasing the frequency from 500 to 1000 Hz while keeping the pulse width constant does not add any extra benefit in suppressing pain. Further studies should verify whether increasing the frequency above 1000 Hz has a similar lack of effect.

A 2-center comparative study on tonic versus burst spinal cord stimulation: amount of responders and amount of pain suppression.

INTRODUCTION: Spinal cord stimulation is a safe and effective procedure applied for medically intractable neuropathic pain and failed back surgery syndrome. Recently, a novel stimulation paradigm was developed, called burst stimulation consisting of intermittent packets of closely spaced high-frequency stimuli. The design consists of 40 Hz burst mode with 5 spikes at 500 Hz per burst, with a pulse width of 1 ms and 1 ms interspike interval delivered in constant current mode. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A retrospective analysis is performed looking at 102 patients from 2 neuromodulation centers, 1 in Belgium and 1 in the Netherlands. This consisted of 2 groups, 1 group who had become failures to tonic (conventional) stimulation and 1 group who still responded to tonic stimulation. All patients were switched from tonic to burst stimulation and the amount of responders as well as the amount of pain suppression was assessed. RESULTS: Overall burst stimulation was significantly better than tonic stimulation and baseline. On average the pain on numeric rating scale (NRS) improved from 7.8 at baseline to 4.9 with tonic to 3.2 with burst stimulation. For the Belgian and Dutch centers combined, 62.5% of nonresponders to tonic stimulation did respond to burst stimulation, on average, with 43% pain suppression. Most responders to tonic further improved with burst stimulation; on average, pain suppression improved from 50.6% to 73.6.3%. The results (from both centers) did not differ for the amount of obtained pain suppression, only for the amount of responders, which could be related to the different profile of the 2 participating centers. CONCLUSIONS: Burst seems to be significantly better than tonic stimulation. It can rescue an important amount of nonresponders to tonic stimulation and can further improve pain suppression in responders to tonic stimulation.