Spinal cord stimulation for non-reconstructable chronic critical leg ischaemia

Therapeutic Alternatives in Diabetic Foot Patients without an Option for Revascularization: A Narrative Review

Background: The healing of foot wounds in patients with diabetes mellitus is frequently complicated by critical limb threatening ischemia (neuro-ischemic diabetic foot syndrome, DFS). In this situation, imminent arterial revascularization is imperative in order to avoid amputation. However, in many patients this is no longer possible (“too late”, “too sick”, “no technical option”). Besides conservative treatment or major amputation, many alternative methods supposed to decrease pain, promote wound healing, and avoid amputations are employed. We performed a narrative review in order to stress their efficiency and evidence. Methods: The literature research for the 2014 revision of the German evidenced-based S3-PAD-guidelines was extended to 2020. Results: If revascularization is impossible, there is not enough evidence for gene- and stem-cell therapy, hyperbaric oxygen, sympathectomy, spinal cord stimulation, prostanoids etc. to be able to recommend them. Risk factor management is recommended for all CLTI patients. With appropriate wound care and strict offloading, conservative treatment may be an effective alternative. Timely amputation can accelerate mobilization and improve the quality of life. Conclusions: Alternative treatments said to decrease the amputation rate by improving arterial perfusion and wound healing in case revascularization is impossible and lack both efficiency and evidence. Conservative therapy can yield acceptable results, but early amputation may be a beneficial alternative. Patients unfit for revascularization or major amputation should receive palliative wound care and pain therapy. New treatment strategies for no-option CLTI are urgently needed.

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/).

Spinal cord stimulation for non-reconstructable chronic critical leg ischaemia

BACKGROUND

Patients suffering from inoperable chronic critical leg ischaemia (NR-CCLI) face amputation of the leg. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has been proposed as a helpful treatment in addition to standard conservative treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To find evidence for an improvement on limb salvage, pain relief, and the clinical situation using SCS compared to conservative treatment alone.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update the Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Specialised Register (last searched January 2013) and CENTRAL (2012, Issue 12).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Controlled studies comparing the addition of SCS with any form of conservative treatment to conservative treatment alone in patients with NR-CCLI.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Both authors independently assessed the quality of the studies and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

Six studies comprising nearly 450 patients were included. In general the quality of the studies was good. No study was blinded due to the type of intervention.Limb salvage after 12 months was significantly higher in the SCS group (risk ratio (RR) 0.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.56 to 0.90; risk difference (RD) -0.11, 95% CI -0.20 to -0.02). Significant pain relief occurred in both treatment groups, but was more prominent in the SCS group where the patients required significantly less analgesics. In the SCS group, significantly more patients reached Fontaine stage II than in the conservative group (RR 4.9, 95% CI 2.0 to 11.9; RD 0.33, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.47). Overall, no significantly different effect on ulcer healing was observed with the two treatments.Complications of SCS treatment consisted of implantation problems (9%, 95% CI 4 to 15%) and changes in stimulation requiring re-intervention (15%, 95% CI 10 to 20%). Infections of the lead or pulse generator pocket occurred less frequently (3%, 95% CI 0 to 6%). Overall risk of complications with additional SCS treatment was 17% (95% CI 12 to 22%), indicating a number needed to harm of 6 (95% CI 5 to 8).Average overall costs (one study) at two years were EUR 36,500 (SCS group) and EUR 28,600 (conservative group). The difference (EUR 7900) was significant (P < 0.009).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is evidence to favour SCS over standard conservative treatment alone to improve limb salvage and clinical situations in patients with NR-CCLI. The benefits of SCS must be considered against the possible harm of relatively mild complications and the costs.

Chronic critical limb ischemia

BACKGROUND

Some 40 000 lower limb amputations are performed in Germany each year, 70% of them in diabetics. About 80% of all major amputations may be preventable with the use of new interventional and vascular surgical procedures, particularly on the arteries of the leg and foot. We present the current state of the art in revascularization techniques and evaluate their usefulness for preservation of the lower limb.

METHODS

This overview is based on the guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of peripheral artery disease (PAD) and diabetic foot syndrome (DFS) that have been issued by the American Heart Association (AHA), the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the German Society of Angiology (DGA), the Trans-Atlantic Intersociety Consensus (TASC II), the German Society of Vascular Surgery (DGG), and the German Diabetes Society (DDG). A selective search in PubMed for relevant articles that appeared from 2000 to 2011 was conducted with the search terms "pedal bypass," "vascular intervention crural pedal," and "crural-pedal revascularization."

RESULTS

Most of the data on crural and pedal revascularization are derived from small-scale studies. The few comparative studies of interventional treatments and bypass surgery have not revealed any significant differences in outcome, but all studies of revascularization have shown good success rates for lower limb preservation.

CONCLUSION

Though the data are still sparse, the high reported rates of limb preservation imply that peripheral revascularization techniques can play a major role in the treatment of chronic critical limb ischemia (CLI). Therefore, these techniques are recommended without exception by the current guidelines.

Critical limb ischemia

Critical limb ischemia (CLI), defined as chronic ischemic rest pain, ulcers, or gangrene attributable to objectively proven arterial occlusive disease, is the most advanced form of peripheral arterial disease. Traditionally, open surgical bypass was the only effective treatment strategy for limb revascularization in this patient population. However, during the past decade, the introduction and evolution of endovascular procedures have significantly increased treatment options. In a certain subset of patients for whom either surgical or endovascular revascularization may not be appropriate, primary amputation remains a third treatment option. Definitive high-level evidence on which to base treatment decisions, with an emphasis on clinical and cost effectiveness, is still lacking. Treatment decisions in CLI are individualized, based on life expectancy, functional status, anatomy of the arterial occlusive disease, and surgical risk. For patients with aortoiliac disease, endovascular therapy has become first-line therapy for all but the most severe patterns of occlusion, and aortofemoral bypass surgery is a highly effective and durable treatment for the latter group. For infrainguinal disease, the available data suggest that surgical bypass with vein is the preferred therapy for CLI patients likely to survive 2 years or more, and for those with long segment occlusions or severe infrapopliteal disease who have an acceptable surgical risk. Endovascular therapy may be preferred in patients with reduced life expectancy, those who lack usable vein for bypass or who are at elevated risk for operation, and those with less severe arterial occlusions. Patients with unreconstructable disease, extensive necrosis involving weight-bearing areas, nonambulatory status, or other severe comorbidities may be considered for primary amputation or palliative measures.

Spinal Cord Stimulation for Chronic Pain

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is one of the most effective modalities for management of re- fractory neuropathic pain unresponsive to conservative therapies. The SCS has been successful in providing analgesia, improving function, and enhancing quality of life for patients suffering from chronic pain conditions such as failed back surgery syndrome, complex regional pain syndrome, ischaemic and phantom limb pain, and coronary artery disease. This technique has proven to be cost effective in the long term despite its high initial cost. In this review article, we discuss the history of SCS development, mechanism of action, and indications for SCS. Key words: Failed back surgery syndrome, Ischaemic pain, Neuropathic pain

Spinal cord stimulation: an update

Spinal cord stimulation has been used in the treatment of many chronic pain disorders since 1967. In this update, the indications for spinal cord stimulation are reviewed with attention to recent publications. A focused review of the literature on abdominal and visceral pain syndromes is also provided. Furthermore, the technology has evolved from the use of monopolar electrodes to complex electrode arrays. Similarly, the power source has changed from a radio frequency-driven system to a rechargeable impulse generator. These topics are covered, along with a short discussion of implant technique. Finally, we include a review of complications of such therapy. SCS as a technology and therapy continues to evolve.

Spinal cord stimulation for non-reconstructable chronic critical leg ischaemia

BACKGROUND

Patients suffering from inoperable chronic critical leg ischaemia (NR-CCLI), face amputation of the leg. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has been proposed as a helpful treatment in addition to standard conservative treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To find evidence for an improvement of limb salvage, pain relief and clinical situation using SCS compared to conservative treatment alone.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group's Specialised Register, (last searched May 2005), and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (last searched Issue 2, 2005). Additional data were obtained from research institutes.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Controlled studies comparing additional SCS with any form of conservative treatment in patients with NR-CCLI.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Both authors independently assessed the quality of the studies and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

Six studies comprising nearly 450 patients were included. In general, the quality of the studies was good. None was blinded due to the nature of the intervention. Limb salvage after 12 months was significantly higher in the SCS group (relative risk (RR) 0.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.56 to 0.90; risk difference (RD) -0.11, 95% CI -0.20 to -0.02). Significant pain relief occurred in both treatment groups, but was more prominent in the SCS group, in which the patients required significantly less analgesics. In the SCS group, significantly more patients reached Fontaine stage II than in the conservative group (RR 4.9, 95% CI 2.0 to 11.9; RD 0.33, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.47). Overall, no significantly different effect on ulcer healing was observed between the two treatments. Complications of SCS treatment consisted of implantation problems (9%, 95% CI 4 to 15%) and changes in stimulation requiring re-intervention (15%, 95% CI 10 to 20%). Infections of the lead or pulse generator pocket occurred less frequently (3%, 95% CI 0 to 6%). The overall risk of complications of additional SCS treatment was 17% (95% CI 12 to 22%), indicating a number needed to harm of 6 (95% CI 5 to 8).A cost comparison was made in only one study. The average overall costs at two years were 36,500 Euros, (SCS group) and 28,600 Euros, (conservative group). The difference (7900 Euros) was significant (P<0.009).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is evidence to favour SCS over standard conservative treatment to improve limb salvage and clinical situation in patients with NR-CCLI. The benefits of SCS against the possible harm of relatively mild complications and costs must be considered.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled trials assessing spinal cord stimulation for inoperable critical leg ischaemia

Background

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) may have a place in the treatment of patients with inoperable chronic critical leg ischaemia.

Methods

A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed of all controlled studies comparing SCS in addition to any form of conservative treatment for inoperable chronic critical leg ischaemia. Main endpoints were limb salvage, pain relief and clinical situation. Systematic methodological appraisal and data extraction were performed by independent reviewers.

Results

Of the 18 reports found, nine trials, comprising 444 patients, matched the selection criteria. After pooling, limb salvage at 12 months appeared significantly greater in the SCS group (risk difference (RD) − 0·13 (95 per cent confidence interval (c.i.) − 0·04 to − 0·22)). Significant pain relief occurred in both treatment groups, but patients who received SCS required significantly less analgesia and reached Fontaine stage 2 more often than those who did not have SCS (RD 0·33 (95 per cent c.i. 0·19 to 0·47)). Complications of SCS were problems of implantation (8·2 per cent), changes in stimulation requiring reintervention (14·8 per cent) and infection (2·9 per cent).

Conclusion

The addition of SCS to standard conservative treatment improves limb salvage, ischaemic pain and the general clinical situation in patients with inoperable chronic critical leg ischaemia. These benefits should be weighed against the cost and the (minor) complications associated with the technique.