Importance of Pharmacological Evaluation in the Treatment of Poststroke Pain by Spinal Cord Stimulation

Short-term cervical spinal cord stimulation for central post-stroke pain: a case report and literature review

Introduction

Post-stroke central pain is disabling yet ineffectively treated with routine medical intervention. In this study, the authors presented an alternative neuromodulation therapy and conducted a brief narrative literature review to examine current evidence of spinal cord stimulation treatment for central post-stroke pain.

Case presentation

Here, the authors reported a case of severe post-stroke syndrome, who achieved satisfactory improvement of pain symptom, as well as muscle rigidity with a novel neuromodulation therapy of short-term implantation of cervical spinal cord stimulation.

Clinical discussion

It remains a great challenge in the management of post-stroke pain, which in turn significantly reduces the quality of life and worsens the burden on the public health system. Spinal cord stimulation therapy is an emerging neuromodulation approach to restore pathological pain status and functional impairment to provide a prospective insight into neuromodulation and rehabilitation options in the management of post-stroke syndrome.

Conclusion

A potential role of spinal cord stimulation in the treatment of post-stroke pain is proposed in combined with traditional medication or other neuromodulation strategies, to achieve better control of pain in the future.

Successful relief of central poststroke pain with BurstDR spinal cord stimulation: A case series

Background

Central poststroke pain (CPSP) is a commonly undertreated condition that can negatively impact a patient's quality of life. The efficacy of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for the treatment of CPSP is not established due to limited studies.

Case Description

Here, two patients, ages 42 and 75, sustained strokes resulting in CPSP. After failed medical management, both underwent placement of paddle-lead SCS systems utilizing BurstDR stimulation that successfully resulted in pain resolution.

Conclusion

Two patients with CPSP were successfully treated with paddle lead SCS with BurstDR programming.

Efficacy of the latest new stimulation patterns of spinal cord stimulation for intractable neuropathic pain compared to conventional stimulation: study protocol for a clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is one of the neuromodulation therapies for chronic neuropathic pain. The conventional paresthesia-based SCS involves the application of tonic stimulation that induces a sense of paresthesia. Recently, new SCS stimulation patterns without paresthesia have been developed. Differential target multiplexed (DTM) stimulation and fast-acting subperception therapy (FAST) stimulation are the latest paresthesia-free SCS patterns.

METHODS

A single-center, open-label, crossover, randomized clinical trial to investigate the superiority of SCS using the latest new stimulation patterns over conventional tonic stimulation for neuropathic pain is planned. This study consists of two steps: SCS trial (first step) and SCS system implantation (second step). In the SCS trial, participants will be randomly assigned to 4 groups receiving stimulation, including tonic, DTM, and FAST. Each stimulation will then be performed for 2 days, and a visual analog scale (VAS) for pain will be evaluated before and after each stimulation pattern. A stimulation-off period for 1 day is set between each stimulation pattern to wash out the residual previous stimulation effects. Pain improvement is defined as more than 33% reduction in the pain VAS. The primary analysis will compare pain improvement between the new stimulation patterns and the conventional tonic stimulation pattern in the SCS trial. The secondary outcomes will be evaluated as follows: (1) the relationships between causative disease and improvement rate by each stimulation pattern; (2) comparison of pain improvement between the DTM and FAST stimulation patterns in all cases and by causative disease; (3) changes in assessment items preoperatively to 24 months after the implantation; (4) preoperative factors associated with long-term effects defined as continuing for more than 12 months; and (5) adverse events related to this study 3 months after the implantation.

DISCUSSION

This study aims to clarify the effectiveness of the latest new stimulation patterns compared to the conventional tonic stimulation. In addition, which stimulation pattern is most effective for which kind of causative disease will be clarified.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Japan Registry of Clinical Trials (jRCT) 1,042,220,094. Registered on 21 November 2022, and last modified on 6 January 2023. jRCT is an approved member of the Primary Registry Network of WHO ICTRP.

Relief of Central Poststroke Pain Affecting Both the Arm and Leg on One Side by Double-independent Dual-lead Spinal Cord Stimulation Using Fast-acting Subperception Therapy Stimulation: A Case Report

Central poststroke pain is a chronic, intractable, central neuropathic pain. Spinal cord stimulation is a neuromodulation therapy for chronic neuropathic pain. The conventional stimulation method induces a sense of paresthesia. Fast-acting subperception therapy is one of the latest new stimulation methods without paresthesia. A case of achieving pain relief of central poststroke pain affecting both the arm and leg on one side by double-independent dual-lead spinal cord stimulation using fast-acting subperception therapy stimulation is presented. A 67-year-old woman had central poststroke pain due to a right thalamic hemorrhage. The numerical rating scale scores of the left arm and leg were 6 and 7, respectively. Using dual-lead stimulation at the Th 9-11 levels, a spinal cord stimulation trial was performed. Fast-acting subperception therapy stimulation achieved pain reduction in the left leg from 7 to 3. Therefore, a pulse generator was implanted, and the pain relief continued for 6 months. Then, two additional leads were implanted at the C 3-5 levels, and pain in the arm decreased from 6 to 4. Independent setting and adjustments of the dual-lead stimulation were required because the thresholds of paresthesia perception were significantly different. To achieve pain relief in both the arm and leg, double-independent dual-lead stimulation placed at cervical and thoracic levels is an effective treatment. Fast-acting subperception therapy stimulation may be effective for central poststroke pain, especially in cases where the paresthesia is perceived as uncomfortable or the conventional stimulation itself is ineffective.

The Management of Poststroke Thalamic Pain: Update in Clinical Practice

Poststroke thalamic pain (PS-TP), a type of central poststroke pain, has been challenged to improve the rehabilitation outcomes and quality of life after a stroke. It has been shown in 2.7–25% of stroke survivors; however, the treatment of PS-TP remains difficult, and in majority of them it often failed to manage the pain and hypersensitivity effectively, despite the different pharmacotherapies as well as invasive interventions. Central imbalance, central disinhibition, central sensitization, other thalamic adaptative changes, and local inflammatory responses have been considered as its possible pathogenesis. Allodynia and hyperalgesia, as well as the chronic sensitization of pain, are mainly targeted in the management of PS-TP. Commonly recommended first- and second-lines of pharmacological therapies, including traditional medications, e.g., antidepressants, anticonvulsants, opioid analgesics, and lamotrigine, were more effective than others. Nonpharmacological interventions, such as transcranial magnetic or direct current brain stimulations, vestibular caloric stimulation, epidural motor cortex stimulation, and deep brain stimulation, were effective in some cases/small-sized studies and can be recommended in the management of therapy-resistant PS-TP. Interestingly, the stimulation to other areas, e.g., the motor cortex, periventricular/periaqueductal gray matter, and thalamus/internal capsule, showed more effect than the stimulation to the thalamus alone. Further studies on brain or spinal stimulation are required for evidence.

Long-term follow-up of motor cortex stimulation on central poststroke pain in thalamic and extrathalamic stroke

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the long-term effects of motor cortex stimulation (MCS) on central poststroke pain (CPSP) in patients with thalamic and extrathalamic stroke.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 21 cases of CPSP patients who were treated with MCS. Pain intensity was evaluated using the visual analog scale (VAS) and Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI) before the operation and at follow-up assessments. Sleep quality was evaluated using the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI).

RESULTS

The average follow-up time was 65.43 ± 26.12 months. In the thalamus stroke group (n = 11), the mean preoperative VAS score was 8.18 ± 0.75 and the final mean follow-up VAS score was 4.0 ± 2.14. The mean total NPSI score at the last follow-up (20.45 ± 12.7) was significantly reduced relative to the pre-MCS score (30.27 ± 8.97, p < 0.001). Similarly, the mean PSQI value at the last follow-up (12.63 ± 1.91) was significantly reduced compared with the pre-MCS value (16.55 ± 1.97, p < 0.001). In the extrathalamic stroke group (n = 11), the mean preoperative VAS score was 8.2 ± 0.79 and the final mean follow-up VAS score was 6.6 ± 2.12. The mean total NPSI score before MCS was not statistically different from that at the last follow-up. There were no statistical differences in sleep quality before versus after surgery.

CONCLUSION

Motor cortex stimulation has higher long-term efficacy in CPSP patients with stroke confined to the thalamus than in CPSP patients with stroke involving extrathalamic structures.

Spinal Cord Stimulation and Treatment of Peripheral or Central Neuropathic Pain: Mechanisms and Clinical Application

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) as an evidence-based interventional treatment has been used and approved for clinical use in a variety of pathological states including peripheral neuropathic pain; however, until now, it has not been used for the treatment of spinal cord injury- (SCI-) induced central neuropathic pain. This paper reviews the underlying mechanisms of SCS-induced analgesia and its clinical application in the management of peripheral and central neuropathic pain. Evidence from recent research publications indicates that nociceptive processing at peripheral and central sensory systems is thought to be modulated by SCS through (i) inhibition of the ascending nociceptive transmission by the release of analgesic neurotransmitters such as GABA and endocannabinoids at the spinal dorsal horn; (ii) facilitation of the descending inhibition by release of noradrenalin, dopamine, and serotonin acting on their receptors in the spinal cord; and (iii) activation of a variety of supraspinal brain areas related to pain perception and emotion. These insights into the mechanisms have resulted in the clinically approved use of SCS in peripheral neuropathic pain states like Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS) and Failed Back Surgery Syndrome (FBSS). However, the mechanisms underlying SCS-induced pain relief in central neuropathic pain are only partly understood, and more research is needed before this therapy can be implemented in SCI patients with central neuropathic pain.

Benefit of spinal cord stimulation for patients with central poststroke pain: a retrospective multicenter study

OBJECTIVE

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has been considered an ineffective procedure for patients with central poststroke pain (CPSP). However, recent case series that included small numbers of patients reported the possible efficacy of SCS as a treatment of CPSP. This multicenter retrospective study aimed to examine the outcomes of using SCS to treat patients with CPSP and to explore factors related to outcomes.

METHODS

The authors reviewed the medical records of patients with CPSP who underwent SCS to collect data regarding their background, surgical information, and outcomes of SCS at trial stimulation and last follow-up after long-term implantation in six study centers. Outcomes were evaluated with a pain score for intensity (range 0-10) and the Patient Global Impression of Changes (PGIC) scale. Factors associated with outcomes were explored with univariable and multivariable analyses.

RESULTS

The authors collected data from a total of 166 patients (mean age 63.4 years; mean pain score at baseline 8.2). Of these patients, 163 underwent trial stimulation. The mean pain score decreased by 42.0%, 104 (64%) patients had ≥ 30% decrease in pain score, and 96 (59%) reported much or very much improved condition on the PGIC scale at trial stimulation. Moreover, 106 (64%) patients underwent long-term implantation of SCS devices. The mean decrease in pain score was 41.4%, 63 (59%) patients continued to show ≥ 30% decrease in pain score at last follow-up, and 60 (56%) reported much or very much improved condition on the PGIC scale at last follow-up (median [range] follow-up period 24 [24-63] months). Eleven device-related complications and 10 permanent explantations were observed. Univariable and multivariable analyses suggested that young age, less sensory disturbance, implantation of cervical leads, treatment of upper-limb pain, and extensive treated regions were associated with satisfactory outcomes at last follow-up after long-term implantation.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings indicate that SCS may modestly benefit patients with CPSP. SCS has therapeutic potential for patients with intractable CPSP owing to the lower invasiveness of the SCS procedure and refractory nature of CPSP. Nevertheless, trial stimulation is necessary because of the high initial failure rate.

Diagnosis, Treatment, and Management of Dejerine-Roussy Syndrome: a Comprehensive Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Post-stroke pain represents a complex condition with few standardized diagnostic criteria. As such, the array of symptoms is often difficult to categorize and diagnose. Central post-stroke pain (CPSP), also known as Dejerine-Roussy syndrome, presents as painful paresthesia in any part of the body that is usually coupled with sensory abnormalities.

RECENT FINDINGS

In patients who had experienced a cerebrovascular accident, CPSP typically affects the same areas of the body that are also impacted by the general motor and sensory deficits that result from stroke. Though it is generally debated, CPSP is thought to result from a lesion in any part of the central nervous system. Pain usually presents in the range of 3-6 months after the occurrence of stroke, manifesting contralaterally to the lesion, and most commonly involving the upper extremities. For the most accurate diagnosis of CPSP, a thorough history and clinical examination should be supplemented with imaging. Infarcted areas of the brain can be visualized using either CT or MRI. First-line treatment of CPSP is pharmacologic and consists of a three-drug regimen. Despite this, CPSP is often refractory to medical management producing only modest pain reduction in a limited subset of patients. Adverse effects associated with pharmacologic management of CPSP and frequent recalcitrance to treatment have driven alternative minimally invasive methods of pain control which include transcranial stimulation, deep brain stimulation, and neuromodulation. The aim of this review is to provide a comprehensive update to recent advances in the understanding of the treatment and management of CPSP.

Prevalence and Management Challenges in Central Post-Stroke Neuropathic Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Introduction

Central post-stroke pain (CPSP) is defined as the neuropathic pain that arises either acutely or in the chronic phase of a cerebrovascular event and is a result of central lesions of the somatosensory tract. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to establish the prevalence of CPSP, to describe its characteristics, and to discuss the associated management challenges.

Methods

After a systematic Medline search, we identified 69 papers eligible to be included.

Results

The pooled prevalence of CPSP in patients with stroke at any location was 11% (95% CI 7–18%), which can increase to more than 50% in the subgroups of patients with medullary or thalamic strokes. CPSP onset coincides with stroke occurrence in 26% of patients (95% CI 18–35%); CPSP manifests within a month since symptom onset in 31% of patients (95% CI 22–42%), and occurs between the first month and the first year in 41% of patients (95% CI 33.9–49.0%). CPSP develops more than 12 months after stroke onset in 5% of patients (95% CI 3–8%).

Conclusions

Clinicians should look for any evidence of central neuropathic pain for at least 12 months after stroke. Both pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions can be used for the management of CPSP. Lamotrigine has the strongest evidence (Level II of evidence, derived from small randomized controlled trials) for being effective in the management of CPSP. Future research should focus on well-designed trials of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions aiming to relief CPSP, which is a very common but often neglected pain syndrome.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s12325-020-01388-w) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Predictive Factors Associated with Pain Relief of Spinal Cord Stimulation for Central Post-stroke Pain

The efficacy and predictive factors associated with successful spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for central post-stroke pain (CPSP) have yet to be definitively established. Thus, this study evaluated the rates of pain relief found after more than 12 months and the predictive factors associated with the success of SCS for CPSP. The degree of pain after SCS in 18 patients with CPSP was assessed using the Visual Analog Scale preoperatively, at 1, 6 and 12 months after surgery, and at the time of the last follow-up. After calculating the percentage of pain relief (PPR), patients were separated into two groups. The first group exhibited continuing PPR ≥30% at more than 12 months (effect group) while the second group exhibited successful/unsuccessful trials followed by decreasing PPR <30% within 12 months (no effect group). Pain relief for more than 12 months was achieved in eight out of 18 (44.4%) patients during the 67.3 ± 35.5 month follow-up period. Statistically significant differences were found for both the age and stroke location during comparisons of the preoperative characteristics between the two groups. There was a significantly younger mean age for the effect versus the no effect group. Patients with stoke in non-thalamus were significantly enriched in effect group compared with those with stoke in thalamus. Multivariable analysis using these two factors found no statistical differences, suggesting that these two factors might possibly exhibit the same behaviors for the SCS effect. These results suggest that SCS may be able to provide pain relief in young, non-thalamus stroke patients with CPSP.

Long-term Effect and Predictive Factors of Motor Cortex and Spinal Cord Stimulation for Chronic Neuropathic Pain

The long-term effects of motor cortex stimulation (MCS) and spinal cord stimulation (SCS) remain unknown. To identify the long-term effects after MCS or SCS and determine any associated predictive factors for the outcomes. Fifty patients underwent MCS (n = 15) or SCS (n = 35) for chronic neuropathic pain. The degree of pain was assessed preoperatively, at 1, 6, and 12 months after surgery, and during the time of the last follow-up using Visual Analog Scale (VAS). Percentage of pain relief (PPR) was calculated, with “long-term effect” defined as PPR ≥ 30% and the presence of continued pain relief over 12 months. Outcomes were classified into excellent (PPR ≥ 70%) and good (PPR 30–69%) sub-categories. Long-term effects of MCS and SCS were observed in 53.3% and 57.1% of the patients, respectively. There were no predictive factors of long-term effects identified for any of the various preoperative conditions. However, the VAS at 1 month after surgery was significantly associated with the long-term effects in both MCS and SCS. All patients with an excellent outcome at 1 month after the surgery continued to exhibit these effects. In contrast, patients with the good outcome at 1 month exhibited a significant decrease in the effects at 6 months after surgery. The long-term effects of MCS and SCS were approximately 50% during the more than 8.5 and 3.5 years of follow-up, respectively. The VAS at 1 month after surgery may be a postoperative predictor of the long-term effects for both MCS and SCS.

Bipolar dual-lead spinal cord stimulation between two electrodes on the ventral and dorsal sides of the spinal cord: consideration of putative mechanisms

We have applied bipolar dual-lead spinal cord stimulation (SCS) between two cylinder-type electrodes placed on the ventral and dorsal sides of the spinal cord (dual-VD-SCS). A 36-year-old man suffered from burning pain from his right elbow down to his hand after brachial plexus avulsion. The areas with paresthesia induced by conventional SCS did not include the painful hand area. However, dual-VD-SCS completely induced paresthesia in the painful hand area. We speculate that dual-VD-SCS can be applied to stimulate deeper sites of the dorsal column and dorsal horn than conventional SCS and is useful for pain reduction.