Spinal Cord Stimulation Significantly Improves Refractory Angina Pectoris-A Local Experience

Spinal Cord Stimulation

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has been well established as a safe and effective treatment of pain derived from a wide variety of etiologies. Careful patient selection including a rigorous trial period and psychological evaluation are essential. When patients proceed to permanent implantation, various considerations should be made, such as the type of lead, type of anesthesia, and waveform patterns for SCS. This article discusses the common indications for SCS, patient selection criteria, and pertinent outcomes from randomized clinical trials related to common indications treated with SCS. Technical considerations, such as type of implant, anesthesia, and programming, are also discussed.

Neural mechanisms of spinal cord stimulation

Neuromodulation, specifically spinal cord stimulation (SCS), relieves pain and improves organ function. This chapter discusses the limited information presently available about the underlying mechanisms that explain the beneficial effects of treating patients with SCS. Where applicable, information is presented about translational research that illustrates the importance of collaboration between clinicians, basic scientists, and engineers. This chapter presents the infant stage of studies that attempt to explain the mechanisms which come into play for treating neuropathic pain, ischemic pain in peripheral vascular disease, and diseases of the visceral organs, specifically the gastrointestinal tract and the heart. The basic science studies will demonstrate how SCS acts on various pain syndromes and diseases via multiple pathways in the central nervous system as well as in somatic structures and visceral organs.

Spinal cord stimulation has proven benefit on pain and quality of life in patients with angina pectoris when less invasive therapies have failed

Background.  Since 1988, spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has been used at Odense University Hospital for patients with refractory angina pectoris. The aim of our prospective study was to evaluate the long-term effects of SCS on pain, activities of daily living (ADLs), quality of life (QOL), sleep hygiene, and physical functioning for patients with angina pectoris. Methods.  Before and after placement of SCS for patients with intractable angina pectoris, we performed structured telephone interviews questioning for pain relief, ADLs (Nottingham Health Profile), physical functioning (Seattle Angina Questionnaire) and sleep hygiene. Results.  Out of 150 patients with SCS over 15 years, 41 patients had died, 46 patients had their devices explanted, and four patients did not participate or could not be reached. Three patients had less than 6 months of follow-up and were therefore not included in our analysis. The beneficial effects of SCS treatment for intractable angina pectoris were reduction in pain and improvement in QOL. Sleep pattern and physical functioning were not improved to the same extent as reduction in pain or improvement in QOL. Almost all of our SCS-treated patients did recommend SCS for intractable angina pectoris. About 30% of patients discontinued treatment, the most common cause being electrode displacement and malfunction of the system. Other reasons for discontinued therapy were the evolvement of invasive treatment options such as coronary artery bypass graft and PTCA and use of such options in some patients during our prolonged observation period. Conclusion.  This survey shows that SCS leads to a 70-80% improvement in pain, which, in turn, leads to improvement in QOL, whereas, physical condition and sleep pattern did not improve to the same extent.

Technological innovation in spinal cord stimulation: use of a newly developed delivery device for introduction of spinal cord stimulation leads

OBJECTIVE

The use of multiple cylindrical leads and multicolumn and single column paddle leads in spinal cord stimulation offers many advantages over the use of a single cylindrical lead. Despite these advantages, placement of multiple cylindrical leads or a paddle lead requires a more invasive surgical procedure. Thus, the ideal situation for lead delivery would be percutaneous insertion of a paddle lead or multiple cylindrical leads. This study evaluated the feasibility and safety of percutaneous delivery of S-Series paddle leads using a new delivery device called the Epiducer lead delivery system (all St. Jude Medical Neuromodulation Division, Plano, TX, USA).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This uncontrolled, open-label, prospective, two-center study approved by the AZ St. Lucas (Ghent) Ethics Committee evaluated procedural aspects of implantation of an S-Series paddle lead using the Epiducer lead delivery system and any adverse events relating to the device. Efficacy data during the patent's 30-day trial also were collected.

RESULTS

  Data from 34 patients were collected from two investigational sites. There were no adverse events related to the Epiducer lead delivery system. The device was inserted at an angle of either 20°-30° or 30°-40° and was entered into the epidural space at T12/L1 in most patients. The S-Series paddle lead was advanced four vertebral segments in more than 50% of patients. The average (±standard deviation [SD]) time it took to place the Epiducer lead delivery system was 8.7 (±5.0) min. The average (+SD) patient-reported pain relief was 78.8% (+24.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests the safe use of the Epiducer lead delivery system for percutaneous implantation and advancement of the S-Series paddle lead in 34 patients.

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation induces vasodilation in healthy controls but not in refractory angina patients

CONTEXT

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is an effective treatment option to relieve ischemic pain in refractory angina pectoris (RAP). In healthy persons, TENS enhances local blood flow, but the mechanism responsible for the anti-ischemic effect in RAP seems to be different.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the present investigation was to compare the difference in blood flow and vasodilatory response to TENS between angina patients and healthy controls and evaluate how vascular response in these groups is affected by amperage dosage above and below motor threshold levels.

METHODS

Our study evaluated upper limb vascular responses to low- and high-dose TENS (below and above motor threshold) in RAP patients compared with healthy controls. TENS was applied on the nondominating forearm. Forearm blood flow (FBF) was measured by venous occlusion plethysmography. Forearm vascular resistance (FVR) was determined (mean arterial pressure [MAP]/FBF). Measurements were done during baseline, low-dose TENS, high-dose TENS, and during recovery.

RESULTS

A significant dose-dependent increase in FBF in response to TENS stimulation was seen in controls (n=18) but not in RAP (n=23) (P=0.008). There was no significant difference in FVR ratio (FVR(stim)/FVR(ctrl)) between control (n=7) and RAP (n=23) groups at low dose (controls, 5.7+/-21%; RAP, 9.7+/-20%) or recovery (controls, -4.6+19%; RAP, 5.9+25%). High-dose TENS resulted in a significantly reduced FVR ratio (-16.8+/-11%) in controls (n=7) compared with RAP (1.6+/-32%, n=23) (P=0.02).

CONCLUSION

High-dose TENS induces forearm vasodilation in healthy subjects but not in patients with RAP. These findings suggest that TENS has different vascular effects in patients with severe coronary artery disease compared with healthy controls.

Putative mechanisms behind effects of spinal cord stimulation on vascular diseases: a review of experimental studies

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a widely used clinical technique to treat ischemic pain in peripheral, cardiac and cerebral vascular diseases. The use of this treatment advanced rapidly during the late 80's and 90's, particularly in Europe. Although the clinical benefits of SCS are clear and the success rate remains high, the mechanisms are not yet completely understood. SCS at lumbar spinal segments (L2-L3) produces vasodilation in the lower limbs and feet which is mediated by antidromic activation of sensory fibers and decreased sympathetic outflow. SCS at thoracic spinal segments (T1-T2) induces several benefits including pain relief, reduction in both frequency and severity of angina attacks, and reduced short-acting nitrate intake. The benefits to the heart are not likely due to an increase, or redistribution of local blood flow, rather, they are associated with SCS-induced myocardial protection and normalization of the intrinsic cardiac nervous system. At somewhat lower cervical levels (C3-C6), SCS induces increased blood flow in the upper extremities. SCS at the upper cervical spinal segments (C1-C2) increased cerebral blood flow, which is associated with a decrease in sympathetic activity, an increase in vasomotor center activity and a release of neurohumoral factors. This review will summarize the basic science studies that have contributed to our understanding about mechanisms through which SCS produces beneficial effects when used in the treatment of vascular diseases. Furthermore, this review will particularly focus on the antidromic mechanisms of SCS-induced vasodilation in the lower limbs and feet.

Current strategies for the prevention of angina in patients with stable coronary artery disease

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Angina pectoris affects at least 6.6 million people in the US and approximately 400,000 new cases of stable angina occur each year. Angina may be one of the first signs of ischemic heart disease, although it is likely not causally related to the likelihood of plaque rupture leading to an acute coronary syndrome. Modalities for treatment of angina should be used maximally to improve quality of life and decrease cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. The current recommended pharmacologic and invasive approaches, as well as novel therapies, are reviewed.

RECENT FINDINGS

Antiischemic agents, including beta-blockers, nitrates and calcium channel blockers, remain the mainstay in the prevention of angina. Revascularization via percutaneous interventions or coronary bypass surgery are appropriate in specific cases or when medical treatment fails. Noninvasive treatment options for refractory angina, metabolic agents, and vasodilator therapies are adding to the armamentarium to prevent and treat angina.

SUMMARY

A multifaceted approach is optimal to address the prevention of angina. Once angina is recognized, there are many modalities that lessen the incidence of daily life-induced and exercise-induced angina and ischemia. Angina management is best addressed by pharmacologic and lifestyle interventions.