A simple approach to outcomes assessment of the therapeutic and cost–benefit success rates for spinal cord stimulation therapy

Cost-Effectiveness Data Regarding Spinal Cord Stimulation for Low Back Pain

STUDY DESIGN

Review of published literature pertaining to spinal cord stimulation (SCS) cost data analysis.

OBJECTIVE

To acquire, organize, and succinctly summarize the available literature regarding the costs associated with, and the cost-effectiveness of, SCS.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Chronic back and limb pain is a pervasive complaint in modern society, with estimated annual costs of medical care greater than $100 billion. The traditional standard medical management with or without intermittent surgical decompression/fusion has been plagued by high costs and inconsistent results, leading to poor patient satisfaction and functional outcome, and questions from policy makers regarding use of limited healthcare resources. Neuromodulation techniques, including SCS have recently become more common in the treatment of chronic back/leg pain, with clinical studies showing a high degree of efficacy in alleviating otherwise intractable pain. Given the relatively high upfront costs associated with the hardware and implantation, policy makers have, however, questioned their use in the framework of cost-containment and resource utilization. We reviewed the available literature summarizing cost data of SCS in chronic back and limb pain, as an understanding of these data will be vital to justify continued payment for this expensive, but often very effective, treatment modality.

METHODS

We performed a PubMed literature search utilizing the following terms: "spinal cord stimulation," "SCS," "financial," "cost," "cost-effectiveness," and "cost-utility." All studies published in English and containing complete or partial cost evaluations of SCS for chronic back and limb pain were included.

RESULTS

The search revealed 21 studies that evaluated cost data, with or without outcomes analysis and cost-utility analysis, for patients with chronic back and limb pain. The overwhelming majority of data presented shows that SCS is not only an effective treatment option for these patients, but also represents cost savings and efficient use of healthcare resources relative to current standards of care. Although not all studies performed cost-utility analyses, those that did tended to show SCS falling well within accepted thresholds of "willingness-to-pay" on the part of third-party payers. That being said, the articles included in this review were almost all small, retrospective, single-institution studies. In addition, many of them relied on modeling for their analyses, and published literature values for cost and/or outcomes data rather than prospectively collected patient data. Although the data presented in this review are encouraging, it should serve as a foundation for a thorough, prospective, cost-utility analysis of SCS in chronic back and limb pain so that the role of this important treatment modality may be cemented in the treatment paradigm for these patients without questions from third-party payers.

CONCLUSION

The large majority of data covering costs of SCS argue in favor of the cost-effectiveness of this treatment modality for chronic neuropathic pain, especially in comparison to reoperation and medical management. Although most of the higher-quality evidence is relatively short-term, clinical experience with the durability of treatment benefit of SCS in these patients is promising. Given the pushback regarding high upfront costs of implantation, longer-term, prospective, randomized studies evaluating this topic will be important to help maintain third-party payer reimbursements for SCS.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

5.

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.

Dorsal column stimulator applications

Background:

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has been used to treat neuropathic pain since 1967. Following that, technological progress, among other advances, helped SCS become an effective tool to reduce pain.

Methods:

This article is a non-systematic review of the mechanism of action, indications, results, programming parameters, complications, and cost-effectiveness of SCS.

Results:

In spite of the existence of several studies that try to prove the mechanism of action of SCS, it still remains unknown. The mechanism of action of SCS would be based on the antidromic activation of the dorsal column fibers, which activate the inhibitory interneurons within the dorsal horn. At present, the indications of SCS are being revised constantly, while new applications are being proposed and researched worldwide. Failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) is the most common indication for SCS, whereas, the complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is the second one. Also, this technique is useful in patients with refractory angina and critical limb ischemia, in whom surgical or endovascular treatment cannot be performed. Further indications may be phantom limb pain, chronic intractable pain located in the head, face, neck, or upper extremities, spinal lumbar stenosis in patients who are not surgical candidates, and others.

Conclusion:

Spinal cord stimulation is a useful tool for neuromodulation, if an accurate patient selection is carried out prior, which should include a trial period. Undoubtedly, this proper selection and a better knowledge of its underlying mechanisms of action, will allow this cutting edge technique to be more acceptable among pain physicians.

Failure modes of spinal cord stimulation hardware

Object

Epidural spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is effective at treating refractory pain. The failure modes of the implanted hardware, however, have not been well studied. A better understanding of this could aid in improving the current procedure or designing future devices.

Methods

The authors reviewed electronic charts and operative reports of 289 patients who had undergone SCS implantation between 1998 and 2002 at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation. Data were collected on demographics, type of hardware, date of implantation procedure, indication for treatment, time to failure, and failure mode. Data were then analyzed to identify significant differences.

A total of 577 procedures were performed, 43.5% of which involved revision or removal of SCS hardware. The most common indication was complex regional pain syndrome 1, and this was followed by failed–back surgery syndrome. The median number of procedures per patient was two. Approximately 80% of all leads were the percutaneous type. The majority (62%) of leads were placed in the thoracic region, and 33.5% of all leads required revision. Poor pain relief coverage was the most common indication for revision. Surgically implanted leads broke twice as often as percutaneous leads. In 46% of the patients, hardware revision was required, and multiple revisions were necessary in 22.5%. Three-way ANOVA revealed significant differences in failure mode rates according to location (cervical compared with thoracic, p = 0.037) and failure modes (p = 0.019). Laminotomy leads tended to break and migrate sooner than percutaneous leads. Thoracic leads became infected sooner than cervical leads.

Conclusions

The results of this analysis of SCS hardware failures may be used as a basis for refining surgical technique and designing the next generation of SCS hardware.

Neurostimulation for chronic noncancer pain: an evaluation of the clinical evidence and recommendations for future trial designs

Object

Neurostimulation to treat chronic pain includes approved and investigational therapies directed at the spinal cord, thalamus, periaqueductal or periventricular gray matter, motor cortex, and peripheral nerves. Persistent pain after surgery and work-related or neural injuries are common indications for such treatments. In light of the risks, efforts, costs, and expectations associated with neurostimulation therapies, a careful reexamination of the methods used to gather evidence for this treatment’s long-term efficacy is in order.

Methods

The authors combed English-language publications to determine the nature of the evidence supporting the efficacy of neurostimulation therapies for chronic noncancer pain. To formulate recommendations for the design of future studies, the results of their analysis were compared with established guidelines for the evaluation of medical evidence.

Evidence supporting the efficacy of neurostimulation has been collected predominantly from retrospective series or from prospective studies whose design or methods of analysis make them subject to limited interpretation. To date, there has been no successful clinical study focused on establishing the efficacy of neurostimulation for pain and incorporating sufficient numbers of participants, matched control groups, sham stimulation, randomization, prospectively defined end points, and methods for controlling experimental bias. Currently available data provide little support for the common practices of psychological or pharmacological screening or trial stimulation to predict and/or improve long-term results.

Conclusions

These findings do not diminish the value of previous investigations or positive patient experiences and do not mean that the treatments are ineffective; rather, they reveal that new data are required to answer the questions raised in and by previous study data. Future analyses of emerging neurostimulation modalities for pain should, whenever feasible, require unambiguous diagnoses as an entry criterion and should involve the use of randomization, parallel control groups that receive sham stimulation, and blinding of patients, investigators, and device programmers. Given the chronicity of patient symptoms and stimulation therapies, efficacy should be studied for 1 year or longer after device implantation. Meticulous study methods are especially important to evaluate new therapies like motor cortex and occipital nerve stimulation.