Trends in Utilization and Cost of Inpatient Spinal Cord Stimulation: Analysis of Data from 2008 to 2014.

OBJECTIVE: In this study, we sought to characterize contemporary trends in cost and utilization of spinal cord stimulation (SCS). METHODS: The Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project-National Inpatient Sample was queried for inpatient admissions from 2008 to 2014 where SCS was performed. We then determined the rates and costs of SCS performed in this time frame to treat diagnoses that we classified as device-related complications, degenerative spine disease, pain syndromes, and neuropathies/neuritis/nerve lesions. Least-squares regression was performed to determine the yearly trends for each indication adjusted by the total number of yearly hospitalizations for that diagnosis. RESULTS: We identified a total of 6876 admissions in whom an SCS was performed. The overall rate of inpatient SCS procedures performed has decreased by 45% from 2008 to 2014 (14.0 to 7.7 procedures per 100,000 admissions). Adjusted analysis for yearly trends also demonstrated a declining trend for all indications; however, this was not found to be statistically significant, except for device-related complications (P = 0.004). The median inflation-adjusted cost of an admission where SCS was performed increased slightly by 7.4% from $26,200 (IQR: $16,700-$33,800) in 2008 to $28,100 (IQR: $19,600-$36,900) in 2014. Billed hospital charges demonstrated a significant increase with median inflation-adjusted admission charge of $66,068 in 2008 to $110,672 in 2014. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a declining contemporary trend in inpatient SCS, an increase was noted in admission costs and hospital charges. A significant declining trend was noted in revision SCS implantations due to device-related complications.

Longevity and Utilization Cost of Rechargeable and Non-Rechargeable Spinal Cord Stimulation Implants: A Comparative Study.

INTRODUCTION: Despite major advancements in features and capabilities of the implantable pulse generator (IPG), real-life longevity and cost-effectiveness studies to guide pain specialists to make the appropriate choice between rechargeable and non-rechargeable IPG are limited. Our study aimed to compare the longevity and cost effectiveness of rechargeable vs. non-rechargeable IPG and SCS systems. METHODS: Data were collected for all SCS implantations performed between 1994 and 2018. The primary goal was to determine IPG longevity, defined as the time interval between IPG implantation and elective replacement due to IPG end of life (EOL). On the other hand, SCS system longevity was defined as the time between SCS implantation and its removal or revision for any reason other than IPG EOL. Kaplan-Meier and log-rank tests were used to assess IPG and SCS system longevities. Cost analysis was performed for cost effectiveness. RESULTS: The median IPG longevity was significantly higher for rechargeable SCS devices than for non-rechargeable SCS devices (7.20 years and 3.68 years, respectively). The median cost per day was similar for both IPGs, $13.90 and $13.81 for non-rechargeable and rechargeable, respectively. The median cost for SCS systems was higher for the rechargeable group ($60.70) compared with the non-rechargeable group ($31.38). CONCLUSIONS: Rechargeable IPG had increased longevity compared to their non-rechargeable counterparts, yet there was no significant difference in the actual longevity due to premature revisions or explantations between both SCS systems. Furthermore, non-rechargeable SCS systems were found to be the more cost-effective option when compared with rechargeable SCS systems.

A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations Reporting the Cost-Effectiveness of Spinal Cord Stimulation.

OBJECTIVES: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a recognized treatment for chronic pain. This systematic review aims to assess economic evaluations of SCS for the management of all chronic pain conditions, summarize key findings, and assess the quality of studies to inform healthcare resource allocation decisions and future research. METHODS: Economic evaluations were identified by searching general medical and economic databases complemented with screening of reference lists of identified studies. No restrictions on language or treatment comparators were applied. Relevant data were extracted. The quality of included studies was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist. RESULTS: Fourteen studies met the inclusion criteria and were judged to be of acceptable quality. Economic evaluations assessed SCS for the management of refractory angina pectoris, failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS), complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS), diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN), and peripheral arterial disease. Model-based studies typically applied a 2-stage model, i.e. decision tree followed by Markov model. Time horizon varied from 1 year to lifetime. Cost-effectiveness ranged widely from dominant (SCS cost-saving and more effective) to incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of >£100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Cost-effectiveness appeared to depend on the time horizon, choice of comparator, and indication. Ten of the studies indicated SCS as cost-saving or cost-effective compared with the alternative strategies. CONCLUSION: The results consistently suggest that SCS is cost-effective when considering a long-term time horizon, particularly for the management of FBSS and CRPS. Further studies are needed to assess the cost-effectiveness of SCS for ischemic pain and DPN.

Multicentre, double-blind, randomised, sham-controlled trial of 10 khz high-frequency spinal cord stimulation for chronic neuropathic low back pain (MODULATE-LBP): a trial protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic neuropathic low back pain (CNLBP) is a debilitating condition in which established medical treatments seldom alleviate symptoms. Evidence demonstrates that high-frequency 10 kHz spinal cord stimulation (SCS) reduces pain and improves health-related quality of life in patients with failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS), but evidence of this effect is limited in individuals with CNLBP who have not had surgery. The aim of this multicentre randomised trial is to assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of 10 kHz SCS for this population. METHODS: This is a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, sham-controlled trial with a parallel economic evaluation. A total of 96 patients with CNLBP who have not had spinal surgery will be implanted with an epidural lead and a sham lead outside the epidural space without a screening trial. Patients will be randomised 1:1 to 10 kHz SCS plus usual care (intervention group) or to sham 10 kHz SCS plus usual care (control group) after receiving the full implant. The SCS devices will be programmed identically using a cathodal cascade. Participants will use their handheld programmer to alter the intensity of the stimulation as per routine practice. The primary outcome will be a 7-day daily pain diary. Secondary outcomes include the Oswestry Disability Index, complications, EQ-5D-5 L, and health and social care costs. Outcomes will be assessed at baseline (pre-randomisation) and at 1 month, 3 months and 6 months after device activation. The primary analyses will compare primary and secondary outcomes between groups at 6 months, while adjusting for baseline outcome scores. Incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) will be calculated at 6 months and over the lifetime of the patient. DISCUSSION: The outcomes of this trial will inform clinical practice and healthcare policy on the role of high-frequency 10 kHz SCS for use in patients with CNLBP who have not had surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03470766. Registered on 20 March 2018. DISCLAIMER: The views expressed here are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health. The NIHR had no role in the study design, writing of the manuscript or the decision to submit for publication. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES: AK, SP, DP, SW, RST, AC, SE, LM, RD and JF all contributed to the trial design and to securing trial funding. AK, JR, SP, DP, and SE are involved in the recruitment, the intervention and the follow-up. SW will perform data collection and analysis. RST will be responsible for the statistical analysis, and RD will be responsible for the health economic analysis. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

High-frequency spinal cord stimulation at 10 kHz for the treatment of painful diabetic neuropathy: design of a multicenter, randomized controlled trial (SENZA-PDN).

BACKGROUND: Painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN), a debilitating and progressive chronic pain condition that significantly impacts quality of life, is one of the common complications seen with long-standing diabetes mellitus. Neither pharmacological treatments nor low-frequency spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has provided significant and long-term pain relief for patients with PDN. This study aims to document the value of 10-kHz SCS in addition to conventional medical management (CMM) compared with CMM alone in patients with refractory PDN. METHODS: In a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial (SENZA-PDN), 216 subjects with PDN will be assigned 1:1 to receive 10-kHz SCS combined with CMM or CMM alone after appropriate institutional review board approvals and followed for 24 months. Key inclusion criteria include (1) symptoms of PDN for at least 12 months, (2) average pain intensity of at least 5 cm-on a 0- to 10-cm visual analog scale (VAS)-in the lower limbs, and (3) an appropriate candidate for SCS. Key exclusion criteria include (1) large or gangrenous ulcers or (2) average pain intensity of at least 3 cm on VAS in the upper limbs or both. Along with pain VAS, neurological assessments, health-related quality of life, sleep quality, and patient satisfaction will be captured. The primary endpoint comparing responder rates (≥50% pain relief) and safety rates between the treatment groups will be assessed at 3 months. Several secondary endpoints will also be reported on. DISCUSSION: Enrollment commenced in 2017 and was completed in 2019. This study will help to determine whether 10-kHz SCS improves clinical outcomes and health-related quality of life and is a cost-effective treatment for PDN that is refractory to CMM. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClincalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03228420 (registered 24 July 2017).

Spinal Cord Stimulation Infection Rate and Incremental Annual Expenditures: Results From a United States Payer Database.

OBJECTIVES: Surgical site infections (SSIs) result in significant negative clinical and economic outcomes. The objective of this study is to estimate annual health expenditures associated with spinal cord stimulation (SCS)-related infections. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from the Truven MarketScan® databases were used to identify patients with an SCS implant (2009-2014) and a continuous health plan enrollment for at least 12-months before and after implant (index date). Annual expenditures were estimated for patients with a device-related infection vs. those without infection since index date. A generalized linear model estimated annual expenditures attributable to device-related infection. Multivariable expenditure models were conducted separately for patients in initial and replacement groups, controlling for demographics, comorbidities, and clinical characteristics. RESULTS: The study included 6615 patients. Multivariable expenditure models revealed that patients with infection have higher annual expenditures than patients without infection. Estimated incremental annual healthcare expenditures for patients with an infection were $59,716 (95% CI: $48,965-$69,480) for initial implanted patients and $64,833 (95% CI: $37,377-$86,519) for replacement patients. Only 26% of patients who were explanted for infection underwent a reimplant. CONCLUSIONS: These results show the substantial expenditure burden associated with an SCS-related infection. Management of SCS-related infection is important from both clinical and economic standpoints. The economic and clinical data presented here reinforce the need for additional research and strategies for healthcare providers to minimize SCS infections. Future economic research is needed to further define the specific economic cost drivers associated with the extensive expenditure burden.

Effect of Spinal Cord Stimulation on Early Disability Pension in 198 Failed Back Surgery Syndrome Patients: Case-Control Study.

BACKGROUND: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has proven to be a cost-effective treatment for failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS). However, the effect on patients' working capability remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of SCS on working capability and to identify the factors behind permanent disability in FBSS patients. METHODS: The study group consisted of 198 working-age patients with SCS trialed or implanted for FBSS in a single center between 1996 and 2014. For each patient, 3 living controls, matched by age, gender, and birthplace, were otherwise randomly selected by the Population Register Center. The data on working ability were obtained from the Social Insurance Institution. Patients were divided into 3 groups: SCS trial only, SCS implanted permanently, and SCS implanted but later explanted. RESULTS: A rehabilitation subsidy was given to 68 patients and 8 controls for a mean of 5.2 (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.4-8.2) and 0.2 (95% CI 0.05-0.6) days per month (P < .05). At the end of follow-up, 16 (37%), 13 (33%), 25 (22%), and 27 (5%) subjects were on disability pension (DP) in the SCS trial, SCS explanted, SCS permanent, and control groups. Patients in the SCS trial-only group were significantly more often on DP than were patients with permanent SCS (odds ratio 2.6; 95% CI 1.2-5.9; P = .02). CONCLUSION: Permanent SCS usage was associated with reduced sick leave and DP. Prospective study will be required to assess possible predictive value.

Trial Versus No Trial of Spinal Cord Stimulation for Chronic Neuropathic Pain: Cost Analysis in United Kingdom National Health Service.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the current project was to evaluate the spinal cord stimulation (SCS) screening trial success rate threshold to obtain the same cost impact across two identical sets of patients following either a prolonged screening trial prior to implantation strategy or a full implant without a screening trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cost impact analysis was carried out from a health care perspective and considered trial to implant rates reported in the literature. Items of resource use were costed using national averages obtained from the National Health Service (NHS) reference cost data base. Cost components were added up to derive total patient level costs for the NHS. Only the costs associated with the screening trial procedures and devices were considered. RESULTS: The most conservative of our estimates suggest that a failure rate of less than 15% is cost saving to the NHS. A failure rate as high as 45% can also be cost saving if the less expensive nonrechargeable SCS devices are used. All the thresholds observed represent a considerably higher screening failure rate than that reported in the latest randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of SCS. A trial to implant ratio of 91.6% could represent savings between £16,715 (upper bound 95% CI of rechargeable implantable pulse generator [IPG] cost) and £246,661 (lower bound 95% CI of nonrechargeable IPG cost) per each 100 patients by adopting an implantation only strategy. CONCLUSIONS: Considerable savings could be obtained by adopting an implantation strategy without a screening trial. It is plausible that accounting for other factors, such as complications that can occur with a screening trial, additional savings could be achieved by choosing a straight to implant treatment strategy. Nevertheless, additional evidence is warranted to support this claim.

Brain and spinal stimulation therapies for phantom limb pain: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Although many treatments exist for phantom limb pain (PLP), the evidence supporting them is limited and there are no guidelines for PLP management. Brain and spinal cord neurostimulation therapies are targeted at patients with chronic PLP but have yet to be systematically reviewed. OBJECTIVE: To determine which types of brain and spinal stimulation therapy appear to be the best for treating chronic PLP. DESIGN: Systematic reviews of effectiveness and epidemiology studies, and a survey of NHS practice. POPULATION: All patients with PLP. INTERVENTIONS: Invasive interventions - deep brain stimulation (DBS), motor cortex stimulation (MCS), spinal cord stimulation (SCS) and dorsal root ganglion (DRG) stimulation. Non-invasive interventions - repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Phantom limb pain and quality of life. DATA SOURCES: Twelve databases (including MEDLINE and EMBASE) and clinical trial registries were searched in May 2017, with no date limits applied. REVIEW METHODS: Two reviewers screened titles and abstracts and full texts. Data extraction and quality assessments were undertaken by one reviewer and checked by another. A questionnaire was distributed to clinicians via established e-mail lists of two relevant clinical societies. All results were presented narratively with accompanying tables. RESULTS: Seven randomised controlled trials (RCTs), 30 non-comparative group studies, 18 case reports and 21 epidemiology studies were included. Results from a good-quality RCT suggested short-term benefits of rTMS in reducing PLP, but not in reducing anxiety or depression. Small randomised trials of tDCS suggested the possibility of modest, short-term reductions in PLP. No RCTs of invasive therapies were identified. Results from small, non-comparative group studies suggested that, although many patients benefited from short-term pain reduction, far fewer maintained their benefits. Most studies had important methodological or reporting limitations and few studies reported quality-of-life data. The evidence on prognostic factors for the development of chronic PLP from the longitudinal studies also had important limitations. The results from these studies suggested that pre-amputation pain and early PLP intensity are good predictors of chronic PLP. Results from the cross-sectional studies suggested that the proportion of patients with severe chronic PLP is between around 30% and 40% of the chronic PLP population, and that around one-quarter of chronic PLP patients find their PLP to be either moderately or severely limiting or bothersome. There were 37 responses to the questionnaire distributed to clinicians. SCS and DRG stimulation are frequently used in the NHS but the prevalence of use of DBS and MCS was low. Most responders considered SCS and DRG stimulation to be at least sometimes effective. Neurosurgeons had mixed views on DBS, but most considered MCS to rarely be effective. Most clinicians thought that a randomised trial design could be successfully used to study neurostimulation therapies. LIMITATION: There was a lack of robust research studies. CONCLUSIONS: Currently available studies of the efficacy, effectiveness and safety of neurostimulation treatments do not provide robust, reliable results. Therefore, it is uncertain which treatments are best for chronic PLP. FUTURE WORK: Randomised crossover trials, randomised N-of-1 trials and prospective registry trials are viable study designs for future research. STUDY REGISTRATION: The study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017065387. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Does a Screening Trial for Spinal Cord Stimulation in Patients with Chronic Pain of Neuropathic Origin have Clinical Utility and Cost-Effectiveness? (TRIAL-STIM Study): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The TRIAL-STIM Study aims to assess the diagnostic performance, clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of a screening trial prior to full implantation of a spinal cord stimulation (SCS) device. METHODS/DESIGN: The TRIAL-STIM Study is a superiority, parallel-group, three-centre, randomised controlled trial in patients with chronic neuropathic pain with a nested qualitative study and economic evaluation. The study will take place in three UK centres: South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (The James Cook University Hospital); Basildon and Thurrock University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust; and Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust. A total of 100 adults undergoing SCS implantation for the treatment of neuropathy will be included. Subjects will be recruited from the outpatient clinics of the three participating sites and randomised to undergo a screening trial prior to SCS implant or an implantation-only strategy in a 1:1 ratio. Allocation will be stratified by centre and minimised on patient age (≥ 65 or < 65 years), gender, presence of failed back surgery syndrome (or not) and use of high frequency (HF10™) (or not). The primary outcome measure is the numerical rating scale (NRS) at 6 months compared between the screening trial and implantation strategy and the implantation-only strategy. Secondary outcome measures will include diagnostic accuracy, the proportion of patients achieving at least 50% and 30% pain relief at 6 months as measured on the NRS, health-related quality-of-life (EQ-5D), function (Oswestry Disability Index), patient satisfaction (Patients' Global Impression of Change) and complication rates. A nested qualitative study will be carried out in parallel for a total of 30 of the patients recruited in each centre (10 at each centre) to explore their views of the screening trial, implantation and overall use of the SCS device. The economic evaluation will take the form of a cost-utility analysis. DISCUSSION: The TRIAL-STIM Study is a randomised controlled trial with a nested qualitative study and economic evaluation aiming to determine the clinical utility of screening trials of SCS as well as their cost-effectiveness. The nested qualitative study will seek to explore the patient's view of the screening trials, implantation and overall use of SCS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ISRCTN60778781 . Registered on 15 August 2017.

Long-term Cost Utility of Spinal Cord Stimulation in Patients with Failed Back Surgery Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) is a cause of significant morbidity for up to 40% of patients following spine surgery, and is estimated to cost almost $20 billion. Treatment options for these patients currently include conventional medical management (CMM), repeat operation, or spinal cord stimulation (SCS). Much of the published data regarding cost effectiveness of SCS comprise smaller scale randomized controlled trials (RCTs) rather than large databases capturing practices throughout the US. SCS has been shown to have superior outcomes to CMM or repeat spinal operation in several landmark studies, yet there are few large studies examining its long-term economic impact. OBJECTIVES: This study compares health care utilization for SCS compared to other management in patients with FBSS. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective. SETTING: Inpatient and outpatient sample. METHODS: Patients with a history of FBSS from 2000 to 2012 were selected. We compared those who received SCS to those who underwent conventional management. A longitudinal analysis was used to model the value of log(cost) in each one year interval using a generalized estimating equations (GEE) model to account for the correlation of the same patient's cost in multiple years. Similarly, a Poisson GEE model with the log link was applied to correlated count outcomes. RESULTS: We identified 122,827 FBSS patients. Of these, 5,328 underwent SCS implantation (4.34%) and 117,499 underwent conventional management. Total annual costs decreased over time following implantation of the SCS system, with follow-up analysis at 1, 3, 6, and 9 years. The longitudinal GEE model demonstrated that placement of an SCS system was associated with an initial increase in total costs at the time of implantation (cost ratio [CR]: 1.74; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.41, 2.15, P < 0.001), however there was a significant and sustained 68% decrease in cost in the year following SCS placement (CR: 0.32; 95% CI: 0.24, 0.42, P < 0.001) compared to CMM. There was also an aggregate time trend that for each additional year after SCS, cost decreased on average 40% percent annually (CR: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.55, 0.65, P < 0.001), with follow-up up to 1, 3, 6, and 9 years post-procedure. LIMITATIONS: Costs are not correlated with patient outcomes, patients are not stratified in terms of complexity of prior back surgery, as well as inherent limitations of a retrospective analysis. CONCLUSIONS: We found that from 2000 to 2012, only 4.3% of patients across the United States with FBSS were treated with SCS. Long-term total annual costs for these patients were significantly reduced compared to patients with conventional management. Although implantation of an SCS system results in a short-term increase in costs at one year, the subsequent annual cumulative costs were significantly decreased long-term in the following 9 years after implantation. This study combines the largest group of FBSS patients studied to date along with the longest follow-up interval ever analyzed. Since SCS has repeatedly been shown to have superior efficacy to CMM in randomized clinical trials, the current study demonstrating improved long-term health economics at 1, 3, 6, and 9 years supports the long-term cost utility of SCS in the treatment of FBSS patients. Key words: Failed back surgery syndrome, spinal cord stimulation, back pain, leg pain, neuromodulation, FBSS, SCS.

Multicenter Retrospective Study of Neurostimulation With Exit of Therapy by Explant.

INTRODUCTION: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) devices are cost effective and improve function as well as quality of life. Despite the demonstrated benefits of SCS, some patients have the device explanted. We are interested in exploring the patient characteristics of those explanted. METHODS: This is a retrospective chart review of neurostimulation patients who underwent explantation at 18 centers across the United States within the previous five years. RESULTS: Data from 352 patients were collected and compiled. Failed Back Surgery syndrome was the most common diagnosis (38.9%; n = 136/350) and over half of the patients reported numerical rating scale (NRS) scores ≥8 prior to implant (64.3%; n = 207/322). All patients reported changes in NRS scores across time, with an initial decrease after implant followed by a pre-explant increase (F (2, 961) = 121.7, p < 0.001). The most common reason for device explant was lack or loss of efficacy (43.9%; 152/346) followed by complications (20.2%; 70/346). Eighteen percent (18%; 62/343) of patients were explanted by a different physician than the implanting one. Rechargeable devices were explanted at a median of 15 months, whereas primary cell device explants occurred at a median of 36 months (CI 01.434, 2.373; median endpoint time ratio = 2.40). DISCUSSION: Loss or lack of efficacy and complications with therapy represent the most frequent reasons for neurostimulation explantation. Of the devices that were explanted, therapy was terminated earlier when devices were rechargeable, when complications occurred, or when pain relief was not achieved or maintained. Furthermore, in nearly 20% of the cases, a different provider than the implanting physician performed device removal. CONCLUSIONS: SCS is largely a safe and efficacious strategy for treating select chronic refractory pain syndromes. Further prospective data and innovation are needed to improve patient selection, maintain SCS therapeutic efficacy and reduce the reasons that lead to device explant.

Cost-Effectiveness Data Regarding Spinal Cord Stimulation for Low Back Pain.

STUDY DESIGN: Review of published literature pertaining to spinal cord stimulation (SCS) cost data analysis. OBJECTIVE: To acquire, organize, and succinctly summarize the available literature regarding the costs associated with, and the cost-effectiveness of, SCS. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Chronic back and limb pain is a pervasive complaint in modern society, with estimated annual costs of medical care greater than $100 billion. The traditional standard medical management with or without intermittent surgical decompression/fusion has been plagued by high costs and inconsistent results, leading to poor patient satisfaction and functional outcome, and questions from policy makers regarding use of limited healthcare resources. Neuromodulation techniques, including SCS have recently become more common in the treatment of chronic back/leg pain, with clinical studies showing a high degree of efficacy in alleviating otherwise intractable pain. Given the relatively high upfront costs associated with the hardware and implantation, policy makers have, however, questioned their use in the framework of cost-containment and resource utilization. We reviewed the available literature summarizing cost data of SCS in chronic back and limb pain, as an understanding of these data will be vital to justify continued payment for this expensive, but often very effective, treatment modality. METHODS: We performed a PubMed literature search utilizing the following terms: "spinal cord stimulation," "SCS," "financial," "cost," "cost-effectiveness," and "cost-utility." All studies published in English and containing complete or partial cost evaluations of SCS for chronic back and limb pain were included. RESULTS: The search revealed 21 studies that evaluated cost data, with or without outcomes analysis and cost-utility analysis, for patients with chronic back and limb pain. The overwhelming majority of data presented shows that SCS is not only an effective treatment option for these patients, but also represents cost savings and efficient use of healthcare resources relative to current standards of care. Although not all studies performed cost-utility analyses, those that did tended to show SCS falling well within accepted thresholds of "willingness-to-pay" on the part of third-party payers. That being said, the articles included in this review were almost all small, retrospective, single-institution studies. In addition, many of them relied on modeling for their analyses, and published literature values for cost and/or outcomes data rather than prospectively collected patient data. Although the data presented in this review are encouraging, it should serve as a foundation for a thorough, prospective, cost-utility analysis of SCS in chronic back and limb pain so that the role of this important treatment modality may be cemented in the treatment paradigm for these patients without questions from third-party payers. CONCLUSION: The large majority of data covering costs of SCS argue in favor of the cost-effectiveness of this treatment modality for chronic neuropathic pain, especially in comparison to reoperation and medical management. Although most of the higher-quality evidence is relatively short-term, clinical experience with the durability of treatment benefit of SCS in these patients is promising. Given the pushback regarding high upfront costs of implantation, longer-term, prospective, randomized studies evaluating this topic will be important to help maintain third-party payer reimbursements for SCS. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 5.

Explantation Rates and Healthcare Resource Utilization in Spinal Cord Stimulation.

OBJECTIVES: Certain patients ultimately undergo explantation of their spinal cord stimulation (SCS) devices. Understanding the predictors and rates of SCS explantation has important implications for healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and pain management. The present study identifies explant predictors and discerns differences in HCRU for at-risk populations. METHODS: We designed a large, retrospective analysis using the Truven MarketScan Database. We included all adult patients who underwent a SCS trial from 2007 to 2012. Patients were grouped into cohorts that remained explant-free or underwent explantation over a three-year period, and multivariate models evaluated differences in healthcare resource utilization. RESULTS: A total of 8727 unique instances of trial implants between 2007 and 2012 were identified. Overall, 805 (9.2%) patients underwent device explantation. One year prior to SCS implantation, the explant cohort had significantly higher median baseline costs ($42,140.3 explant vs. $27,821.7 in non-explant groups; p < 0.0001), total number of pain encounters (180 vs. 103 p < 0.0001), and associated costs ($15,446.9 vs. $9,227.9; p < 0.0001). The explant cohort demonstrated increased use of procedures (19.0 vs. 9.0; p < 0.0001) compared to non-explanted patients. For each month after initial SCS implantation, explanted patients had a slower decrease in total costs (4% vs. 6% in non-explant; p < 0.01). At the month of explant, explant patients were expected to have incurred 2.65 times the total cost compared to the non-explant cohort (CR 2.65, 95% CI [1.83, 3.84]; p < 0.001). Medium volume providers had lower rates of explantation at one-year and three-years compared to low volume providers (p = 0.042). Increased age and Charlson index were independent predictors of explantation during the same periods. CONCLUSIONS: In this nationwide analysis, we identified that SCS device explantation is correlated with patients who have higher baseline costs, higher total cost post-SCS implantation, and increased use of procedures to control pain. The higher rates of explantation at three-years postimplant among low volume providers suggest that variations in provider experience and approach also contributes to differences in explantation rates.

A Trial-Based Economic Evaluation Comparing Spinal Cord Stimulation With Best Medical Treatment in Painful Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy.

The objective was to perform an economic evaluation comparing spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in combination with best medical treatment (BMT) with BMT in painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy patients. Alongside a prospective 2-center randomized controlled trial, involving 36 painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy patients with severe lower limb pain not responding to conventional therapy, an economic evaluation was performed. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were based on: 1) societal costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and 2) direct health care costs and the number of successfully treated patients, respectively, both with a time horizon of 12 months. Bootstrap and secondary analyses were performed to address uncertainty. Total societal cost amounted to €26,539.18 versus €5,313.45 per patient in the SCS and BMT group, respectively. QALYs were .58 versus .36 and the number of successfully treated patients was 55% versus 7% for the SCS and BMT group, respectively. This resulted in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of €94,159.56 per QALY and €34,518.85 per successfully treated patient, respectively. Bootstrap analyses showed that the probability of SCS being cost-effective ranges from 0 to 46% with willingness to pay threshold values ranging between €20,000 and €80,000 for a QALY. Secondary analyses showed that cost-effectiveness of SCS became more favorable after correcting for baseline cost imbalance between the 2 groups, extending the depreciation period of SCS material to 4 years, and extrapolation of the data up to 4 years. Although SCS was considerably more effective compared with BMT, the substantial initial investment that is required resulted in SCS not being cost-effective in the short term. Cost-effectiveness results were sensitive to baseline cost imbalances between the groups and the depreciation period of the SCS material. PERSPECTIVE: Painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy is a common complication of diabetes mellitus and the humanistic and economic burden is high. This article presents the cost-effectiveness of SCS in patients suffering from painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy from a societal and health care perspective with a time horizon of 12 months.

[Spinal cord stimulation for the management of chronic pain]. / Traitement des douleurs chroniques par la stimulation médullaire.

Neuromodulation techniques modify the activity of the central or peripheral nervous system. Spinal cord stimulation is a reversible and minimally invasive treatment whose efficacy and cost effectiveness are recognized for the treatment of chronic neuropathic pain or ischemic pain. Spinal cord stimulation is not the option of last resort and should be considered among other options before prescribing long-term opioids or considering reoperation. The selection and regular follow-up of patients are crucial to the success of the therapy.

The Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Spinal Cord Stimulation for Refractory Angina (RASCAL Study): A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with "refractory angina" (RA) unsuitable for coronary revascularization experience high levels of hospitalization and poor health-related quality of life. Randomized trials have shown spinal cord stimulation (SCS) to be a promising treatment for chronic stable angina and RA; however, none has compared SCS with usual care (UC). The aim of this pilot study was to address the key uncertainties of conducting a definitive multicenter trial to assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of SCS in RA patients, i.e., recruitment and retention of patients, burden of outcome measures, our ability to standardize UC in a UK NHS setting. METHODS: RA patients deemed suitable were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to SCS plus UC (SCS group) or UC alone (UC group). We sought to assess: recruitment, uptake, and retention of patients; feasibility and acceptability of SCS treatment; the feasibility and acceptability of standardizing UC; and the feasibility and acceptability of the proposed trial outcome measures. Patient outcomes were assessed at baseline (prerandomization) and three and six months postrandomization. RESULTS: We failed to meet our planned recruitment target (45 patients) and randomized 29 patients (15 SCS group, 14 UC group) over a 42-month period across four sites. None of the study participants chose to withdraw following consent and randomization. With exception of two deaths, all completed evaluation at baseline and follow-up. Although the study was not formally powered to compare outcomes between groups, we saw a trend toward larger improvements in both primary and secondary outcomes in the SCS group. CONCLUSIONS: While patient recruitment was found to be challenging, levels of participant retention, outcome completion, and acceptability of SCS therapy were high. A number of lessons are presented in order to take forward a future definitive pragmatic randomized trial.

Visions on the future of medical devices in spinal cord stimulation: what medical device is needed?

Recently burst stimulation and 10 kHz stimulation have been developed as novel stimulation designs. Both appear to be superior to classical tonic stimulation in the amount of responders and the amount of pain suppression and have as an extra advantage that they are paresthesia-free. This evolution is very important as it shifts the focus of research from better targeting by developing new lead configurations to better communication with the nervous system. It can be envisioned that this is only the start of a new trend in spinal cord, brain, and peripheral nerve stimulation and that more new stimulation designs will be developed in the near future such as pseudorandom burst stimulation, pleasure stimulation, noise stimulation and reconditioning stimulation. This evolution mandates a new approach in the development of internal pulse generators, and the most obvious approach is to develop an upgradable stimulator, on which new stimulation designs can be downloaded, analogous to the apps people download on their smartphones. This will create a shift from hardware driven products to software driven stimulators.