Differential Target Multiplexed Spinal Cord Stimulation: A UK Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this economic analysis was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of differential target multiplexed spinal cord stimulation (DTM-SCS) for treating chronic intractable low back pain, compared with conventional spinal cord stimulation (C-SCS) and conservative medical management (CMM), by updating and expanding the inputs for a previously published cross-industry model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This model comprised a 12-month decision-tree phase followed by a long-term Markov model. Costs and outcomes were calculated from a UK National Health Service perspective, over a base-case horizon of 15 years and up to a maximum of 40 years. All model inputs were derived from published literature or other deidentified sources and updated to reflect recent clinical trials and costs. Deterministic and one-way sensitivity analyses were performed to calculate costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) across the 15-year time horizon and to explore the impact of individual parameter variability on the cost-effectiveness results. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was undertaken to explore the impact of joint parameter uncertainty on the results. RESULTS: DTM-SCS was the most cost-effective option from a payer perspective. Compared with CMM alone, DTM-SCS was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £6101 per QALY gained (incremental net benefit [INB] = £21,281). The INB for C-SCS compared with CMM was lower than for DTM-SCS, at £8551. For the comparison of DTM-SCS and C-SCS, an ICER of £897 per QALY gained was calculated, with a 99.5% probability of cost-effectiveness at a £20,000 per QALY threshold. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with low back pain treated over a 15-year follow-up period, DTM-SCS and C-SCS are cost-effective compared with CMM, from both payer and societal perspectives. DTM-SCS is associated with a lower ICER than that of C-SCS. Wider uptake of DTM-SCS in the UK health care system is warranted to manage chronic low back pain.

Dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRG-s) for potential resolution of restless leg syndrome symptoms and increased cost savings for patients: A case study.

INTRODUCTION: We report successful use of dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRG-s) to treat a patient with persistent symptoms of restless leg syndrome (RLS). METHODS: The treatment involved the placement of a small device millimeters away from the patient's DRG, which are nerves near the spinal cord that carry sensory information from the periphery of the body to the brain. The device automatically delivers electrical impulse to the DRG to alter and decrease pain perception in the brain. RESULTS: Our case report elucidates the use of this procedure as a targeted therapy for RLS, with a nearly 90% reduction in reported symptoms in our patient, thus potentially reducing morbidity associated with this condition. Furthermore, we report a 10-year cost savings of nearly $90,000 following DRG-s for our patient. CONCLUSION: This case study aims to demonstrate the effectiveness of DRG-s neuromodulation in managing RLS, a condition that is often difficult and costly to treat.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[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.

Comparison of tonic spinal cord stimulation, high-frequency and burst stimulation in patients with complex regional pain syndrome: a double-blind, randomised placebo controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS) is a disabling disease that is sometimes difficult to treat. Although spinal cord stimulation (SCS) can reduce pain in most patients with CRPS, some do not achieve the desired reduction in pain. Moreover, the pain reduction can diminish over time even after an initially successful period of SCS. Pain reduction can be regained by increasing the SCS frequency, but this has not been investigated in a prospective trial. This study compares pain reduction using five SCS frequencies (standard 40 Hz, 500 Hz, 1200 Hz, burst and placebo stimulation) in patients with CRPS to determine which of the modalities is most effective. DESIGN: All patients with a confirmed CRPS diagnosis that have unsuccessfully tried all other therapies and are eligible for SCS, can enroll in this trial (primary implantation group). CRPS patients that already receive SCS therapy, or those previously treated with SCS but with loss of therapeutic effect over time, can also participate (re-implantation group). Once all inclusion criteria are met and written informed consent obtained, patients will undergo a baseline assessment (T0). A 2-week trial with SCS is performed and, if successful, a rechargeable internal pulse generator (IPG) is implanted. For the following 3 months the patient will have standard 40 Hz stimulation therapy before a follow-up assessment (T1) is performed. Those who have completed the T1 assessment will enroll in a 10-week crossover period in which the five SCS frequencies are tested in five periods, each frequency lasting for 2 weeks. At the end of the crossover period, the patient will choose which frequency is to be used for stimulation for an additional 3 months, until the T2 assessment. DISCUSSION: Currently no trials are available that systematically investigate the importance of variation in frequency during SCS in patients with CRPS. Data from this trial will provide better insight as to whether SCS with a higher frequency, or with burst stimulation, results in more effective pain relief. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN36655259.

Cost-Effectiveness and Cost-Utility Analysis of Spinal Cord Stimulation in Patients With Failed Back Surgery Syndrome: Results From the PRECISE Study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of Spinal Cord Stimulation (SCS) in patients with failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) refractory to conventional medical management (CMM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted an observational, multicenter, longitudinal ambispective study, where patients with predominant leg pain refractory to CMM expecting to receive SCS+CMM were recruited in 9 Italian centers and followed up to 24 months after SCS. We collected data on clinical status (pain intensity, disability), Health-Related Quality-of-Life (HRQoL) and on direct and indirect costs before (pre-SCS) and after (post-SCS) the SCS intervention. Costs were quantified in € 2009, adopting the National Health Service's (NHS), patient and societal perspectives. Benefits and costs pre-SCS versus post-SCS were compared to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness and cost utility ratios. RESULTS: 80 patients (40% male, mean age 58 years) were recruited. Between baseline and 24 months post-SCS, clinical outcomes and HRQoL significantly improved. The EQ-5D utility index increased from 0.421 to 0.630 (p < 0.0001). Statistically significant improvement was first observed six months post-SCS. Societal costs increased from €6600 (pre-SCS) to €13,200 (post-SCS) per patient per year. Accordingly, the cost-utility acceptability curve suggested that if decision makers' willingness to pay per Quality-Adjusted-Life-Years (QALYs) was €60,000, SCS implantation would be cost-effective in 80% and 85% of cases, according to the NHS's and societal point of views, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that in clinical practice, SCS+CMM treatment of FBSS patients refractory to CMM provides good value for money. Further research is encouraged in the form of larger, long-term studies.

The effect of sacral neuromodulation on anticholinergic use and expenditures in a privately insured population.

OBJECTIVES: Sacral neuromodulation is Food and Drug Administration approved for many types of voiding dysfunction. Goals of treatment often include cessation of anticholinergic therapy. With the goal of understanding the impact of sacral neuromodulation on anticholinergic use, we analyzed patterns of care using a national claims-based dataset. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Ingenix (i3) data base contains insurance claims, including utilization and cost data, for 75 large employers. De-identified patients who underwent sacral neuromodulation between 2002 and 2007 were identified by the unique current procedural terminology-4 procedure code for pulse generator implantation, code 64590. The number and costs of anticholinergic prescriptions were compared before and after treatment. RESULTS: There were 266 percutaneous and 794 two-staged procedures performed from 2002 to 2007 in the i3 dataset. A total of 484 pulse generator implantations were performed, representing 46% of the test procedures. During the year prior to pulse generator placement, each patient purchased an average of 2.1 prescriptions for an anticholinergic agent (SD 3.5). During the year after neuromodulation, each patient purchased an average of 1.0 prescription (SD 2.3, p < 0.0001 by t-test). Prescription charges were $241.31 per patient before and $103.52 after neuromodulation, a statistically significant cost difference (p < 0.0001 by t-test). During the year before the procedure, 50% of patients filled anticholinergic prescriptions. This decreased to 23% after the procedure (p < 0.0001 by chi-square test). CONCLUSIONS: Sacral neuromodulation was associated with a significant decrease in the use of anticholinergic medication. Cost-effectiveness analyses that take into account patient quality-adjusted life years are needed to determine the true cost-benefit ratio of sacral neuromodulation.

Effectiveness of cervical spinal cord stimulation for the management of chronic pain.

INTRODUCTION: Scientific evidence supports spinal cord stimulation (SCS) as a cost-effective treatment option that, for many disease states, should be employed earlier in the treatment continuum. Reimbursement for SCS in the cervical spine has recently been challenged based on supposed lack of clinical literature. To refute this assumption, we analyzed data from an international registry to support the use of cervical SCS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The following outcomes were collected as part of an institutional review board-approved, prospective, multicenter, international registry: pain relief, Pain Disability Index (PDI) score, quality of life (QoL), and satisfaction at 3, 6, and 12 months post-implantation. Descriptive statistics are provided for all measures. Changes from baseline in PDI scores were analyzed using Tukey's pairwise comparisons. RESULTS: Thirty-eight patients underwent implantation of SCS leads in the cervical spine at 16 study sites in the United States and 3 international study sites. Direct patient report of percentage of pain relief was 54.2%, 60.2%, and 66.8% at 3, 6, and 12 months post-implantation, respectively. Pain relief was categorized as excellent/good by 61.6% of patients at 3 months, with similar results observed at 6 and 12 months. PDI scores were significantly reduced at all time points. At 3 months post-implantation, 92.4% of patients indicated they were very satisfied/satisfied with the SCS device. No patients indicated that they were dissatisfied. Overall QoL was reported as improved/greatly improved by 73.1% of patients at 3 months. Similar results for QoL and satisfaction were reported at 6 and 12 months. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that the use of SCS in the cervical spine is a medically effective method of pain management that satisfies and improves the QoL of most patients. The use of SCS can reduce the high cost of direct medical treatment of pain, as well as increasing the productivity of patients, and therefore should be reimbursed in appropriately selected patients.

Network Meta-analysis and Economic Evaluation of Neurostimulation Interventions for Chronic Nonsurgical Refractory Back Pain.

OBJECTIVES: Different types of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) have been evaluated for the management of chronic nonsurgical refractory back pain (NSRBP). A direct comparison between the different types of SCS or between closed-loop SCS with conventional medical management (CMM) for patients with NSRBP has not been previously conducted, and therefore, their relative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness remain unknown. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review, network meta-analysis (NMA) and economic evaluation of closed-loop SCS compared with fixed-output SCS and CMM for patients with NSRBP. METHODS: Databases were searched to September 8, 2023. Randomized controlled trials of SCS for NSRBP were included. The results of the studies were combined using fixed-effect NMA models. A cost-utility analysis was performed from the perspective of the UK National Health Service with results reported as incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). RESULTS: Closed-loop SCS resulted in statistically and clinically significant reductions in pain intensity (mean difference [MD] 32.72 [95% CrI 15.69-49.78]) and improvements in secondary outcomes (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI] and health-related quality of life [HRQoL]) compared with fixed-output SCS at 6-month follow-up. Compared with CMM, both closed-loop and fixed-output SCS resulted in statistically and clinically significant reductions in pain intensity (closed-loop SCS vs. CMM MD 101.58 [95% CrI 83.73-119.48]; fixed-output SCS versus CMM MD 68.86 [95% CrI 63.43-74.31]) and improvements in secondary outcomes (ODI and HRQoL). Cost-utility analysis showed that closed-loop SCS dominates fixed-output SCS and CMM, and fixed-output SCS also dominates CMM. DISCUSSION: Current evidence showed that closed-loop and fixed-output SCS provide more benefits and cost-savings compared with CMM for patients with NSRBP.

Cost-effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation therapy in management of chronic pain.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) and conventional medical management (CMM) compared with CMM alone for patients with failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS), complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS), peripheral arterial disease (PAD), and refractory angina pectoris (RAP). DESIGN: Markov models were developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of SCS vs CMM alone from the perspective of a Canadian provincial Ministry of Health. Each model followed costs and outcomes in 6-month cycles. Health effects were expressed as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Costs were gathered from public sources and expressed in 2012 Canadian dollars (CAN$). Costs and effects were calculated over a 20-year time horizon and discounted at 3.5% annually, as suggested by the National Institute of Clinical Excellence. Cost-effectiveness was identified by deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (50,000 Monte-Carlo iterations). Outcome measures were: cost, QALY, incremental net monetary benefit (INMB), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), expected value of perfect information (EVPI), and strategy selection frequency. RESULTS: The ICER for SCS was: CAN$ 9,293 (FBSS), CAN$ 11,216 (CRPS), CAN$ 9,319 (PAD), CAN$ 9,984 (RAP) per QALY gained, respectively. SCS provided the optimal economic path. The probability of SCS being cost-effective compared with CMM was 75-95% depending on pathology. SCS generates a positive INMB for treatment of pain syndromes. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that results were robust to plausible variations in model costs and effectiveness inputs. Per-patient EVPI was low, indicating that gathering additional information for model parameters would not significantly impact results. CONCLUSION: SCS with CMM is cost-effective compared with CMM alone in the management of FBSS, CRPS, PAD, and RAP.

Spinal cord stimulation as treatment for complex regional pain syndrome should be considered earlier than last resort therapy.

BACKGROUND: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS), by virtue of its historically described up-front costs and level of invasiveness, has been relegated by several complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) treatment algorithms to a therapy of last resort. Newer information regarding safety, cost, and efficacy leads us to believe that SCS for the treatment of CRPS should be implemented earlier in a treatment algorithm using a more comprehensive approach. METHODS: We reviewed the literature on pain care algorithmic thinking and applied the safety, appropriateness, fiscal or cost neutrality, and efficacy (S.A.F.E.) principles to establish an appropriate position for SCS in an algorithm of pain care. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Based on literature-contingent considerations of safety, efficacy, cost efficacy, and cost neutrality, we conclude that SCS should not be considered a therapy of last resort for CRPS but rather should be applied earlier (e.g., three months) as soon as more conservative therapies have failed.

Outcomes of percutaneous and paddle lead implantation for spinal cord stimulation: a comparative analysis of complications, reoperation rates, and health-care costs.

OBJECTIVES: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a well-established modality for the treatment of chronic pain, and can utilize percutaneous or paddle leads. While percutaneous leads are less invasive, they have been shown to have higher lead migration rates. In this study, we compared the long-term outcomes and health-care costs associated with paddle and percutaneous lead implantation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We utilized the MarketScan data base to examine patients who underwent percutaneous or paddle lead SCS system implantation from 2000 to 2009. Outcomes including complications, reoperation rates, and health-care costs were evaluated in propensity score matched cohorts using univariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: The study cohort was comprised of 13,774 patients. At 90 days following the initial procedure, patients in the SCS paddle group were more likely to develop a postoperative complication than patients receiving percutaneous systems (3.4% vs. 2.2%, p = 0.0005). Two-year (6.3% vs. 3.5%, p = 0.0056) and long-term (five+ years) (22.9% vs. 8.5%, p < 0.0008) reoperation rates were significantly higher in those with percutaneous lead systems. However, long-term health-care costs were similar for those receiving paddle and percutaneous leads ($169,768 vs. $186,139, p = 0.30). CONCLUSIONS: While the implantation of paddle leads is associated with slightly higher initial postoperative complications, these leads are associated with significantly lower long-term reoperation rates. Nonetheless, long-term health-care costs are similar between paddle and percutaneous leads. Additional improvements in SCS technologies that address the shortcomings of current systems are needed to reduce the risk of reoperation due to hardware failure. Further study is required to evaluate the efficacy of newer percutaneous and paddle SCS systems and examine their comparative outcomes.

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.