Burst spinal cord stimulation can attenuate pain and its affective components in chronic pain patients with high psychological distress: results from the prospective, international TRIUMPH study

Burst Spinal Cord Stimulation as Compared With L2 Dorsal Root Ganglion Stimulation in Pain Relief for Nonoperated Discogenic Low Back Pain: Analysis of Two Prospective Studies

INTRODUCTION

Chronic discogenic low back pain (CD-LBP) is caused by degenerated disks marked by neural and vascular ingrowth. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has been shown to be effective for pain relief in patients who are not responsive to conventional treatments. Previously, the pain-relieving effect of two variations of SCS has been evaluated in CD-LBP: Burst SCS and L2 dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRGS). The aim of this study is to compare the effectivity in pain relief and pain experience of Burst SCS with that of conventional L2 DRGS in patients with CD-LBP.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Subjects were implanted with either Burst SCS (n = 14) or L2 DRGS with conventional stimulation (n = 15). Patients completed the numeric pain rating score (NRS) for back pain and Oswestry disability index (ODI) and EuroQoL 5D (EQ-5D) questionnaires at baseline, and at three, six, and 12 months after implantation. Data were compared between time points and between groups.

RESULTS

Both Burst SCS and L2 DRGS significantly decreased NRS, ODI, and EQ-5D scores as compared with baseline. L2 DRGS resulted in significantly lower NRS scores at 12 months and significantly increased EQ-5D scores at six and 12 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Both L2 DRGS and Burst SCS resulted in reduction of pain and disability, and increased quality of life in patients with CD-LBP. L2 DRGS provided significantly increased pain relief and improvement in quality of life when compared with Burst SCS.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

The clinical trial registration numbers for the study are NCT03958604 and NL54405.091.15.

Treatment of Refractory Low Back Pain Using Passive Recharge Burst in Patients Without Options for Corrective Surgery: Findings and Results From the DISTINCT Study, a Prospective Randomized Multicenter Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is effective for relieving chronic intractable pain conditions. The Dorsal spInal cord STImulatioN vs mediCal management for the Treatment of low back pain study evaluates the effectiveness of SCS compared with conventional medical management (CMM) in the treatment of chronic low back pain in patients who had not undergone and were not candidates for lumbar spine surgery.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Patients were randomized to passive recharge burst therapy (n = 162) or CMM (n = 107). They reported severe pain and disability for more than a decade and had failed a multitude of therapies. Common diagnoses included degenerative disc disease, spondylosis, stenosis, and scoliosis-yet not to a degree amenable to surgery. The six-month primary end point compared responder rates, defined by a 50% reduction in pain. Hierarchical analyses of seven secondary end points were performed in the following order: composite responder rate (numerical rating scale [NRS] or Oswestry Disability Index [ODI]), NRS, ODI, Pain Catastrophizing Scale responder rate, Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) responder rate, and Patient-Reported Outcome Measure Information System-29 in pain interference and physical function.

RESULTS

Intention-to-treat analysis showed a significant difference in pain responders on NRS between SCS (72.6%) and CMM (7.1%) arms (p < 0.0001). Of note, 85.2% of those who received six months of therapy responded on NRS compared with 6.2% of those with CMM (p < 0.0001). All secondary end points indicated the superiority of burst therapy over CMM. A composite measure on function or pain relief showed 91% of subjects with SCS improved, compared with 16% of subjects with CMM. A substantial improvement of 30 points was observed on ODI compared with a

CONCLUSIONS

This study found substantial improvement at six months in back pain, back pain-related disability, pain-related emotional suffering, PGIC, pain interference, and physical function in a population with severe, debilitating back pain for more than a decade. These improvements were reported in conjunction with reduced opioid use, injection, and ablation therapy.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

The Clinicaltrials.gov registration number for the study is NCT04479787.

Collapse

Key Words

• composite outcomes
• persistent spinal pain syndrome
• refractory chronic low back pain
• spinal cord stimulation

Collapse

MESH Headings

• Humans
• Low Back Pain/therapy
• Low Back Pain/psychology
• Treatment Outcome
• Prospective Studies
• Back Pain
• Spinal Cord Stimulation/methods
• Chronic Pain/diagnosis
• Chronic Pain/therapy

Collapse

Grants

• K08 CA228039 NCI NIH HHS

Collapse

Affiliation(s)

Timothy Deer The Spine and Nerve Center of the Virginias, Charleston, WV, USA
Christopher Gilligan Brigham & Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
Steven Falowski Center for Interventional Pain & Spine, Lancaster, PA, USA
Mehul Desai International Spine, Pain & Performance Center, Washington, DC, USA
Julie Pilitsis Florida Atlantic University, FL, USA
Jessica Jameson Axis Spine Center, ID, USA
Susan Moeschler Mayo Clinic, Rochester, NY, USA
Robert Heros Spinal Diagnostics, OR, USA
Edward Tavel Clinical Trials of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA
Anne Christopher Saint Louis Pain Consultants, Chesterfield, MO, USA
Denis Patterson Nevada Advanced Pain Specialists, Reno, NV, USA
Sayed Wahezi Montefiore Medical Center-Waters Place, New York, NY, USA
Jacqueline Weisbein Napa Valley Orthopedic Medical Group, Napa, CA, USA
Ajay Antony The Orthopaedic Institute, FL, USA
Robert Funk Indiana Spine Group, IN, USA
Mohab Ibrahim Banner University Medical Center Tucson Campus, Tucson, AZ, USA
Chi Lim Carolina Orthopaedic & Neurosurgical Associates, SC, USA
Derron Wilson Goodman Campbell Brain & Spine, IN, USA
Michael Fishell Advanced Pain Care, NV, USA
Keith Scarfo Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, RI, USA
David Dickerson Northshore University HealthSystem, Chicago, IL, USA
Edward Braun Kansas University Medical Center, KS, USA
Patrick Buchanan Spanish Hills Interventional Pain Specialists, Camarillo, CA, USA
Robert M Levy Anesthesia Pain Care Consultants-Tamarac
Nathan Miller Coastal Pain & Spinal Diagnostics Medical Group, Carlsbad, CA, USA
Jonathan Duncan Burkhart Research Institute for Orthopaedics, San Antonio, TX, USA
Jijun Xu The Cleveland Clinic Foundation, OH, USA
Kenneth Candido Chicago Anesthesia Associates, SC, Chicago, IL, USA
Scott Kreiner Barrow Brain & Spine-Ahwatukee, Phoenix, AZ, USA
Marie E Fahey Abbott Labs, Austin, TX, USA
James Yue Connecticut Orthopaedics, CT, USA

Collapse

Role of patient selection and trial stimulation for spinal cord stimulation therapy for chronic non-cancer pain: a comprehensive narrative review

Background/importance

Patient selection for spinal cord stimulation (SCS) therapy is crucial and is traditionally performed with clinical selection followed by a screening trial. The factors influencing patient selection and the importance of trialing have not been systematically evaluated.

Objective

We report a narrative review conducted to synthesize evidence regarding patient selection and the role of SCS trials.

Evidence review

Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were searched for reports (any design) of SCS in adult patients, from their inception until March 30, 2022. Study selection and data extraction were carried out using DistillerSR. Data were organized into tables and narrative summaries, categorized by study design. Importance of patient variables and trialing was considered by looking at their influence on the long-term therapy success.

Findings

Among 7321 citations, 201 reports consisting of 60 systematic reviews, 36 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 41 observational studies (OSs), 51 registry-based reports, and 13 case reports on complications during trialing were included. Based on RCTs and OSs, the median trial success rate was 72% and 82%, and therapy success was 65% and 61% at 12 months, respectively. Although several psychological and non-psychological determinants have been investigated, studies do not report a consistent approach to patient selection. Among psychological factors, untreated depression was associated with poor long-term outcomes, but the effect of others was inconsistent. Most RCTs except for chronic angina involved trialing and only one RCT compared patient selection with or without trial. The median (range) trial duration was 10 (0–30) and 7 (0–56) days among RCTs and OSs, respectively.

Conclusions

Due to lack of a consistent approach to identify responders for SCS therapy, trialing complements patient selection to exclude patients who do not find the therapy helpful and/or intolerant of the SCS system. However, more rigorous and large studies are necessary to better evaluate its role.

A prospective study of BurstDR™ spinal cord stimulation for non-operated discogenic low back pain

INTRODUCTION

Chronic discogenic low back pain (CD-LBP) is caused by degeneration of the disc due to trauma to the annulus or by unprovoked degeneration, resulting in chronic pain. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) employing the BurstDR™ waveform has been shown to be an effective treatment in a variety of chronic pain conditions. The aim of this prospective case study was to determine the effect of BurstDR™ SCS on pain relief, disability, and patient satisfaction in a population with CD-LBP.

METHODS

Seventeen subjects with CD-LBP received a SCS trial with BurstDR™ stimulation. Patients with >50% pain relief after a trial period of 2 weeks were permanently implanted (n = 15). Patients then rated LBP and leg pain using the numeric rating scale (NRS), Oswestry disability index (ODI), patient global impression of change (PGIC), EQ-5D quality of life, and painDETECT for neuropathic pain at baseline following trial, 3, 6, and 12 months after permanent implantation.

RESULTS

Treatment with BurstDR™ SCS resulted in significant reduction of LBP as the NRS was reduced from 71.7 ± 7.3 at baseline to 42.5 ± 18.1 at 12 months. Average pain relief at 12 months was 42.5%. In patients with leg pain (n = 8), pain was significantly reduced from 66.9 ± 8.2 to 11.7 ± 10.4 at 12 months. PainDETECT scores for neuropathic pain significantly reduced from 18.9 ± 4.8 at baseline, and 14.8 ± 3.2 at 12 months. Baseline ODI score significantly reduced from 41.2 ± 12.8 to 25.8 ± 8.6 at 12 months. PGIC scores remained low from 2.6 ± 1.6 at 3 months, 2.5 ± 1.0 at 6 months, and 2.5 ± 1.3 at 12 months. EQ-5D-5L rates remained constant from baseline 56.10 ± 23.9 to 68.6 ± 12.9 at 12 months.

CONCLUSION

BurstDR™ SCS resulted in significant reduction of back pain, leg pain, and quality of life in patients with CD-LBP and decreased the level of disability and generated positive patient satisfaction scores.

The Association Between Bodily Functions and Cognitive/Emotional Factors in Patients With Chronic Pain Treated With Neuromodulation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses

OBJECTIVES

To date, pain relief in general continues to be the most prominent outcome measurement in daily routine care and clinical research. Nevertheless, the awareness of a shift toward more functional outcomes and/or emotional and cognitive outcomes has been raised. The interplay between bodily functions (such as pain intensity) and emotional or cognitive factors, however, has not yet been fully elucidated. The aim of this study was to systematically review the evidence for associations between bodily functions and cognitive and emotional factors in patients with chronic pain who are treated with neuromodulation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Four data bases were consulted for this systematic literature review: PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Embase. The Downs and Black Checklist (modified) was used to assess the risk of bias. The study protocol was prospectively registered at the International prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO, CRD42021226803). If two or more studies reported correlation coefficients for a specific association, a meta-analysis based on correlation coefficients was performed for that specific association.

RESULTS

The initial data base search identified a total of 1432 studies, of which 19 studies were eventually included in the systematic review. Evidence was found for two associations: 1) a positive correlation between pain intensity and anxiety (r = 0.42; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.50) and 2) a positive correlation between pain intensity and depression (r = 0.32; 95% CI, 0.10 to 0.51). The association between pain intensity and catastrophizing was not statistically significant (r = 0.23; 95% CI, -0.36 to 0.69).

CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of the associations between pain intensity and anxiety/depression, a biopsychosocial approach might be the most suitable in clinical practice to properly address all aspects of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health framework in patients who are treated with neuromodulation.

Study protocol: Effects of active versus passive recharge burst spinal cord stimulation on pain experience in persistent spinal pain syndrome type 2: a multicentre randomized trial (BURST-RAP study)

Background

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has shown to be an effective treatment for patients with persistent spinal pain syndrome type 2 (PSPS Type 2). The method used to deliver electrical charge in SCS is important. One such method is burst stimulation. Within burst stimulation, a recharge pattern is used to prevent buildup of charge in stimulated tissues. Two variations of burst waveforms are currently in use: one that employs active recharge and one that uses passive recharge. It has been suggested that differences exist between active and passive recharge paradigms related to both efficacy of pain relief and their underlying mechanism of action. Active recharge has been shown to activate both the medial spinal pathway, engaging cortical sensorimotor areas involved in location and intensity of pain, and lateral pathway, reaching brain areas involved with cognitive-emotional aspects of pain. Passive recharge has been suggested to act via modulation of thalamic neurons, which fire in a similar electrical pattern, and thereby modulate activity in various cortical areas including those related to motivational and emotional aspects of pain. The objective of this randomized clinical trial is to assess and compare the effect of active versus passive recharge Burst SCS on a wide spectrum of pain in PSPS Type 2 patients.

Methods

This multicentre randomized clinical trial will take place in 6 Dutch hospitals. PSPS Type 2 patients (n=94) will be randomized into a group receiving either active or passive recharge burst. Following a successful trial period, patients are permanently implanted. Patients complete the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) (primary outcome at 6 months), Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NRS), Patient Vigilance and Awareness Questionnaire (PVAQ), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), Quality of Life (EQ-5D), Oswestery Disability Index (ODI), Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) and painDETECT questionnaires (secondary outcomes) at baseline, after trial, 1, 3, 6 and 12 months following implantation.

Discussion

The BURST-RAP trial protocol will shed light on possible clinical differences and effectivity of pain relief, including emotional-motivational aspects between active and passive burst SCS in PSPS Type 2 patients.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT05421273. Registered on 16 June 2022. Netherlands Trial Register NL9194. Registered on 23 January 2021.

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.