Spinal cord stimulation: Beyond pain management

Spinal cord stimulation for refractory pericarditis: a case report and a review of the mechanism of action

Background and objectives

In recent years, spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has emerged as a promising management option for chronic pain of multiple etiologies. While its effectiveness has been strongly suggested in many patients, the exact mechanism of action of SCS is incompletely understood. This article reviews the leading mechanisms underlying the analgesic and cardiovascular effects of SCS and reports its novel benefits in a case of recurrent pericarditis.

Literature review

Throughout history, the analgesic properties of SCS were thought to arise via stimulation of the spinothalamic tract. Although this mechanism has been thoroughly reported, new research and patient outcomes from SCS have revealed various additional properties that cannot be fully explained by this mechanism alone. Evidence suggests that SCS enhances calcitonin gene-related peptide release and modulates inflammatory cytokine secretion, sympathetic tone, and inhibitory neurotransmitter secretion. These distinct mechanisms likely collectively contribute to the therapeutic effects of SCS on the cardiovascular system and pain management.

Case report

We report the case of a 48-year-old male patient with recurrent pericarditis, characterized by refractory angina-like pain and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). After 1 year of having a spinal cord stimulator implanted, the patient is free from pain and narcotics, with a reduction of 428 mg equivalent dose of morphine. The patient's LVEF increased from 40% to 45% without changes to his previous medical treatment. This is the first reported case of refractory pericarditis managed with spinal cord stimulation.

Conclusion

Recognizing the improved pain management, reduced narcotic usage, and improved LVEF in our patient following SCS is critical to paving the way toward a complete understanding of the mechanism of action of SCS. This case reveals the therapeutic potential of SCS for cardiovascular pathologies other than refractory angina pectoris.

Low-Intensity Focused Ultrasound Alleviates Spasticity and Increases Expression of the Neuronal K-Cl Cotransporter in the L4–L5 Sections of Rats Following Spinal Cord Injury

Low-intensity focused ultrasound (LIFU) has been shown to provide effective activation of the spinal cord neurocircuits. The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of LIFU in order to alleviate spasticity following spinal cord injury (SCI) by activating the spinal neurocircuits and increasing the expression of the neuronal K-Cl cotransporter KCC₂. Adult male Sprague Dawley (SD) rats (220–300 g) were randomly divided into a sham control group, a LIFU⁻ group, and a LIFU⁺ group. The mechanical threshold hold (g) was used to evaluate the behavioral characteristics of spasm. Electromyography (EMG) was used to assess activation of the spinal cord neurocircuits and muscle spontaneous contraction. Spasticity was assessed by frequency-dependent depression (FDD). The expression of KCC₂ of the lumbar spinal cord was determined via western blot (WB) and immunofluorescence (IF) staining. The spinal cord neurocircuits were activated by LIFU simulation, which significantly reduced the mechanical threshold (g), FDD, and EMG recordings (s) after 4 weeks of treatment. WB and IF staining both demonstrated that the expression of KCC₂ was reduced in the LIFU⁻ group (P < 0.05). After 4 weeks of LIFU stimulation, expression of KCC₂ had significantly increased (P < 0.05) in the LIFU⁺ group compared with the LIFU⁻ group. Thus, we hypothesized that LIFU treatment can alleviate spasticity effectively and upregulate the expression of KCC₂ in the L4–L5 section of SCI rats.

Burst Spinal Cord Stimulation in the Management of Chronic Pain: Current Perspectives

Over the last several decades, opioid diversion, misuse, and over-prescription have run rampant in the United States. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has been FDA approved for treatment for a primary indication of neuropathic limb pain that is resistant to more conservative medical therapy. The disorders qualified for treatment include neuropathic, post-surgical, post-amputation, osteodegenerative, and pain related to vascular disease. Some of the most frequently cited conditions for treatment of SCS include failed back surgery syndrome, complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) Type I and Type II, and post-herpetic neuralgias. Developments in SCS systems have led to the differentiation between the delivered electromechanical waveform patterns, including tonic, burst, and high-frequency. Burst SCS mitigates traditional paresthesia due to expedited action potential and offers improved pain relief. Burst SCS has been shown in available studies to be non-inferior to the traditional SCS, which can cause pain paresthesia in patients who already have chronic pain. Burst SCS does not seem to cause or need the paresthesia seen in traditional SCS, making SCS not tolerable to patients.

Moreover, some studies suggest that burst SCS may decrease opioid consumption in patients with chronic pain. This can make burst SCS an extremely useful tool in the battle against chronic pain and the raging opioid epidemic. As of now, more research needs to be performed to further delineate the effectiveness and long-term safety of this device.

Neurosensory Prosthetics: An Integral Neuromodulation Part of Bioelectronic Device

Bioelectronic medicines (BEMs) constitute a branch of bioelectronic devices (BEDs), which are a class of therapeutics that combine neuroscience with molecular biology, immunology, and engineering technologies. Thus, BEMs are the culmination of thought processes of scientists of varied fields and herald a new era in the treatment of chronic diseases. BEMs work on the principle of neuromodulation of nerve stimulation. Examples of BEMs based on neuromodulation are those that modify neural circuits through deep brain stimulation, vagal nerve stimulation, spinal nerve stimulation, and retinal and auditory implants. BEDs may also serve as diagnostic tools by mimicking human sensory systems. Two examples of in vitro BEDs used as diagnostic agents in biomedical applications based on in vivo neurosensory circuits are the bioelectronic nose and bioelectronic tongue. The review discusses the ever-growing application of BEDs to a wide variety of health conditions and practices to improve the quality of life.