High cervical spinal cord stimulation for chronic cluster headache

Neuromodulation for Craniofacial Pain and Headaches

Headaches and facial pain are highly prevalent diseases but are often difficult to treat. Though there have been significant advances in medical management, many continue to suffer from refractory pain. Neuromodulation has been gaining interest for its therapeutic purposes in many chronic pain conditions, including headaches and facial pain. There are many potential targets of neuromodulation for headache and facial pain, and some have more robust evidence in favor of their use than others. Despite the need for more high-quality research, the available evidence for the use of neuromodulation in treating headaches and facial pain is promising. Considering the suffering that afflicts patients with intractable headache, neuromodulation may be an appropriate tool to improve not only pain but also disability and quality of life.

Neuromodulation for the Sphenopalatine Ganglion-a Narrative Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To provide an integrated overview of the current state of knowledge of neuromodulation for the sphenopalatine ganglion (SPG) by reviewing relevant and significant literature.

RECENT FINDINGS

There are several case reports and clinical trials evaluating neuromodulation for the SPG. We identified two blinded, randomized clinical trials for patients with chronic cluster headache. The randomized trials and additional studies demonstrated the long-term safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of neuromodulation for the SPG. Recent studies in Europe and the USA suggest that SPG neuromodulation is a novel modality with clinical importance for treating acute cluster headaches and reducing the frequency of attacks.

Use of spinal cord stimulation in treatment of intractable headache diseases

Headache diseases remain one of the leading causes of disability in the world. With the development of neuromodulation strategies, high cervical spinal cord stimulation (hcSCS) targeting the trigeminocervical complex has been deployed to treat refractory headache diseases. In this article, we review the proposed mechanism behind hcSCS stimulation, and the various studies that have been described for the successful use of this treatment strategy in patients with chronic migraine, cluster headache, and other trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias.

Cervical Spinal Cord Stimulation for the Treatment of Headache Disorders: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

Chronic headache remains a major cause of disability and pain worldwide. Although the literature has extensively described pharmacologic options for headache treatment and prophylaxis, there remains a paucity of data on the efficacy of neuromodulation interventions for treatment of headache unresponsive to conventional pharmacologic therapy. The primary aim of this review was to appraise the literature for the efficacy of cervical spinal cord stimulation (cSCS) in treating any intractable chronic headache, including migraine headaches (with or without aura), cluster headache, tension headache, and other types of headaches.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines, we performed a systematic review by identifying studies in PubMed, Embase (Scopus), Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials that assessed cSCS to treat chronic headache. Data were synthesized qualitatively, with primary outcomes of headache intensity and frequency. The secondary outcome was adverse effects.

RESULTS

In total, 16 studies comprising 107 patients met the inclusion criteria. Findings were presented based on type of headache, which included migraine headache with or without aura, cluster headache, trigeminal neuropathy, occipital neuralgia, posttraumatic headache, cervicogenic headache, short-lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache with autonomic symptoms, and poststroke facial pain. Per the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations criteria, there was very low-quality evidence that cSCS is associated with a decrease in migraine headache frequency, migraine headache intensity, and trigeminal neuropathy intensity. Placement for cSCS leads ranged from C1 to C4.

CONCLUSIONS

Our review suggests promising data from observational studies that cSCS may be helpful in decreasing frequency and intensity of chronic intractable headache. Future well-powered, randomized controlled trials are needed.

Preventive treatment of refractory chronic cluster headache: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Preventive treatment for refractory chronic cluster headache (rCCH) is challenging and many therapies have been tried.

OBJECTIVE

To study what could be considered the therapy of choice in rCCH through a systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

This review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (ID CRD42021290983). A systematic search was performed in MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, clinicaltrials.gov, and the WHO's-International-Clinical-Trials-Registry-Platform. Studies on the preventive treatment for rCCH as defined by the European Headache Federation consensus statement were included. A meta-analysis of the pooled response rate was conducted for the different therapies.

RESULTS

Of 336 results, 45 were eligible for inclusion. Most articles studied the effect of neuromodulation as a preventive treatment for rCCH. The most studied neuromodulation technique was occipital nerve stimulation (ONS), with a pooled response rate in the meta-analysis of 57.3% (95% CI 0.481-0.665). Deep brain stimulation (DBS) was the second most studied treatment with a pooled response rate of 77.0% (95% CI 0.594-0.957). DBS results were more heterogeneous than ONS, which could be related to the different stimulation targets in DBS studies, and reported more serious adverse events than in ONS studies. The remaining therapies (anti-CGRP pathway drugs, warfarin, ketamine-magnesium infusions, serial occipital nerve blocks, clomiphene, onabotulinum toxin A, ketogenic diet, sphenopalatine ganglion radiofrequency or stimulation, vagus nerve stimulation, percutaneous bioelectric current stimulation, upper cervical cord stimulation, and vidian neurectomy) present weaker results or have less quality of evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that ONS could be the first therapeutic strategy for patients with rCCH based on the current evidence.

Neurostimulation Treatment in Chronic Cluster Headache-a Narrative Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In this narrative review, the current literature on neurostimulation methods in the treatment of chronic cluster headache is evaluated. These neurostimulation methods include deep brain stimulation, vagus nerve stimulation, greater occipital nerve stimulation, sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation, transcranial magnetic stimulation, transcranial direct current stimulation, supraorbital nerve stimulation, and cervical spinal cord stimulation.

RECENT FINDINGS

Altogether, only nVNS and SPG stimulation are supported by at least one positive sham-controlled clinical trial for preventive and acute attack (only SPG stimulation) treatment. Other clinical trials either did not control at all or controlled by differences in the stimulation technique itself but not by a sham-control. Case series report higher responder rates. The evidence for these neurostimulation methods in the treatment of chronic cluster headache is poor and in part contradictive. However, except deep brain stimulation, tolerability and safety of these methods are good so that in refractory situations application might be justified in individual cases.

Safety and Efficacy of 10 kHz Spinal Cord Stimulation for the Treatment of Refractory Chronic Migraine: A Prospective Long-Term Open-Label Study

BACKGROUND

Refractory chronic migraine (rCM) is a highly disabling condition for which novel safe and effective treatments are needed. Safety and long-term efficacy of paresthesia-free high cervical 10 kHz spinal cord stimulation (SCS) were here prospectively evaluated for the treatment of rCM.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty adults with rCM (mean numbers of preventive treatments failed: 12.2 ± 3.1) were enrolled in this single-center, open-label, prospective study and implanted with a 10 kHz SCS system (Senza™ system, Nevro Corp.), with the distal tip of the lead(s) positioned epidurally at the C2 vertebral level. Safety and effectiveness outcomes, such as adverse events, headache and migraine reductions, responder rates, Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS), Headache Impact Test-6 (HIT-6), and Migraine-Specific Quality-of-Life (MSQ), were captured up to 52 weeks after implantation.

RESULTS

Compared to baseline, at 52 weeks postimplantation, there was a significant reduction of mean monthly migraine days (MMD) by 9.3 days (p < 0.001). Sixty percent and 50% of patients obtained respectively at least 30% and at least 50% reduction in mean MMD. By week 52, 50% of patients' chronic pattern converted to an episodic pattern. The proportion of subjects classified with severe headache-related disability on the HIT-6, decreased from 100% to 60% at week 52. Meaningful improvements of headache-related quality of life measured by the MSQ scale were observed with mean gain of 24.9 ± 23.1 (p < 0.001) points at 52 weeks. No unanticipated adverse device effects occurred. No patients required any additional device surgical revision.

CONCLUSION

10 kHz SCS may a be safe and effective neurostimulation option for rCM patients. The paresthesia-free waveform constitutes an unprecedented advantage for future methodologically sound sham-controlled studies in headache neuromodulation.

An unusual case of lead migration in occipital nerve stimulation: A case report and literature review

Background:

Lead migration is a complication associated with occipital nerve stimulation (ONS). We present a rare case in which fibrosis in the stress relief loop caused lead migration in the treatment of occipital neuralgia.

Case Description:

A 30-year-old woman with a 5-year history of refractory occipital neuralgia, who had been under ONS therapy for 2 months, presented with a sudden onset of typical occipital neuralgia pain associated with cervical muscles spasms and myoclonus. A skull radiography showed lead migration. The patient underwent surgery for lead repositioning. During surgery, we identified extensive fibrosis throughout the stress relief loop that produced several constriction points. The fibrosis in the stress relief loop increased tension on the lead during head-and-neck movement, causing progressive migration of the lead.

Conclusion:

Although lead migration is a common complication of ONS, its association with fibrosis in the stress relief loop has not, to the best of our knowledge, been reported before. Lead migration can directly affect treatment outcome and it is, therefore, important to fully understand the possible mechanisms that can cause it and how to promptly manage them.

Spinal cord stimulation in the treatment of peripheral vascular disease: a systematic review - revival of a promising therapeutic option?

INTRODUCTION

Peripheral vascular disease (PVD) is caused by a blood circulation disorder of the arteries and Critical Limb Ischemia (CLI) is the advanced state of PVD. For patients with surgically non-reconstructable CLI, Spinal Cord Stimulation (SCS) appears to be an alternative therapeutic option.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of our study was to investigate the efficacy of SCS in non-reconstructable CLI compared with the conservative treatment and re-appraise the existing literature in light of the recent advances in neuromodulation.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, using electronic databases and reference lists for article retrieval.

RESULTS

A total of 404 records were identified and finally 6 randomised controlled trials (RCTs), a Cochrane review and a meta-analysis were included in our systematic review. The studies assessed the efficacy of tonic SCS in the treatment of patients with non-reconstructable CLI compared with the conservative treatment. There is moderate to high quality evidence suggesting, that tonic SCS has beneficial effects for patients suffering from non-reconstructable CLI in terms of limb salvage, pain relief, clinical improvement and quality of life. The contradictory conclusions of the two meta-analyses regarding the efficacy of SCS for limb salvage at 12 months refer rather to the magnitude of the beneficial effect than to the effect itself. So far, the current literature provides evidence about the traditional tonic SCS but there is a lack of studies investigating the efficacy of new waveforms in the treatment of non-reconstructable CLI.

CONCLUSION

SCS represents an alternative for PVD patients with non-reconstructable CLI and the existing literature provides encouraging clinical results, that should not be neglected. Instead, they should be re-appraised in light of the recent advances in neuromodulation with the emergence of novel waveform technologies and neuromodulation targets.

Neuromodulation in headache and craniofacial neuralgia: guidelines from the Spanish Society of Neurology and the Spanish Society of Neurosurgery

INTRODUCTION

Numerous invasive and non-invasive neuromodulation devices have been developed and applied to patients with headache and neuralgia in recent years. However, no updated review addresses their safety and efficacy, and no healthcare institution has issued specific recommendations on their use for these 2 conditions.

METHODS

Neurologists from the Spanish Society of Neurology's (SEN) Headache Study Group and neurosurgeons specialising in functional neurosurgery, selected by the Spanish Society of Neurosurgery (SENEC), performed a comprehensive review of articles on the MEDLINE database addressing the use of the technique in patients with headache and neuralgia.

RESULTS

We present an updated review and establish the first set of consensus recommendations of the SEN and SENC on the use of neuromodulation to treat headache and neuralgia, analysing the current levels of evidence on its effectiveness for each specific condition.

CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence supports the indication of neuromodulation techniques for patients with refractory headache and neuralgia (especially migraine, cluster headache, and trigeminal neuralgia) selected by neurologists and headache specialists, after pharmacological treatment options are exhausted. Furthermore, we recommend that invasive neuromodulation be debated by multidisciplinary committees, and that the procedure be performed by teams of neurosurgeons specialising in functional neurosurgery, with acceptable rates of morbidity and mortality.

Safety and efficacy of percutaneous pulsed radiofrequency treatment at the C1-C2 level in chronic cluster headache: a retrospective analysis of 21 cases

We performed a study of the safety and efficacy of percutaneous pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) treatment directed at C1 and C2 levels as performed at our local pain clinic in refractory chronic cluster headache (CCH) patients. We identified 21 CCH patients treated with PRF (240 s, max. 45 V, max. 42 °C) directed at the ganglion and/or nerve root of C1 and C2. Data were collected through retrospective analysis of patients' files and include demographic variables, onset and duration of the headache, mean attack frequency, and prior pharmacological treatment. Safety and reduction of attack frequency in the first 3 months after a first PRF treatment was the primary outcome parameter of this study. All patients had been treated with at least two prophylactic drugs and 19 (90%) had previously been treated with verapamil, lithium, and topiramate. Ten patients (47.6%) reported no meaningful effect, four patients (19%) reported a meaningful reduction of < 50%, and seven patients (33.3%) reported a reduction in headache burden of at least 50% in the 3 months following treatment. Two patients reported occurrence or increase in frequency of contralateral cluster attacks. No other adverse events were reported or detected at follow-up. Upper cervical PRF treatment appears to be a safe procedure that could prove effective in the treatment of patients with refractory CCH and warrants a prospective study.

Device review: Pulsante™ sphenopalatine ganglion microstimulator

Cluster headache (CH) is a primary headache disorder. The use of neuromodulation in treatment of CH is well documented. The sphenopalatine ganglion (SPG) has long been a target for management of CH. Intervention at the level of the SPG can interrupt the trigemino-autonomic reflex, which mediates CH pain. The Pulsante system is the only device on the market created for SPG stimulation. The Pulsante device consists of the device body, a lead with six stimulating electrodes placed in the pterygopalatine fossa, and a fixation plate to allow anchoring of the device to the maxilla. Stimulation is administered via a patient-controlled handheld remote control held over the cheek. SPG stimulation is an important treatment option for CH patients.

New strategies for the treatment and prevention of primary headache disorders

The primary headache disorders, which include migraine, cluster headache and tension-type headache, are among the most common diseases and leading causes of disability worldwide. The available treatment options for primary headache disorders have unsatisfactory rates of efficacy, tolerability and patient adherence. In this Review, we discuss promising new approaches for the prevention of primary headache disorders, such as monoclonal antibodies targeting calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) or its receptor, and small-molecule CGRP receptor antagonists. Neuromodulation approaches employing noninvasive or implantable devices also show promise for treating primary headache disorders. Noninvasive treatments, such as transcranial magnetic stimulation and transcutaneous peripheral nerve stimulation, are delivered by devices that patients can self-administer. Implantable devices targeting the occipital nerves, sphenopalatine ganglion or high cervical spinal cord are placed using percutaneous and/or surgical procedures, and are powered either wirelessly or by surgically implanted batteries. These new and emerging treatments have the potential to address unmet patient needs and reduce headache-associated disability.

Therapeutic Approaches for the Management of Trigeminal Autonomic Cephalalgias

Trigeminal autonomic cephalalgia (TAC) encompasses 4 unique primary headache types: cluster headache, paroxysmal hemicrania, hemicrania continua, and short-lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache attacks with conjunctival injection and tearing and short-lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache attacks with cranial autonomic symptoms. They are grouped on the basis of their shared clinical features of unilateral headache of varying durations and ipsilateral cranial autonomic symptoms. The shared clinical features reflect the underlying activation of the trigeminal-autonomic reflex. The treatment for TACs has been limited and not specific to the underlying pathogenesis. There is a proportion of patients who are refractory or intolerant to the current standard medical treatment. From instrumental bench work research and neuroimaging studies, there are new therapeutic targets identified in TACs. Treatment has become more targeted and aimed towards the pathogenesis of the conditions. The therapeutic targets range from the macroscopic and structural level down to the molecular and receptor level. The structural targets for surgical and noninvasive neuromodulation include central neuromodulation targets: posterior hypothalamus and, high cervical nerves, and peripheral neuromodulation targets: occipital nerves, sphenopalatine ganglion, and vagus nerve. In this review, we will also discuss the neuropeptide and molecular targets, in particular, calcitonin gene-related peptide, somatostatin, transient receptor potential vanilloid-1 receptor, nitric oxide, melatonin, orexin, pituitary adenylate cyclase-activating polypeptide, and glutamate.

Femoral vascular conductance and peroneal muscle sympathetic nerve activity responses to acute epidural spinal cord stimulation in humans

NEW FINDINGS

What is the central question of this research? Does acute spinal cord stimulation increase vascular conductance and decrease muscle sympathetic nerve activity in the lower limbs of humans? What is the main finding and its importance? Acute spinal cord stimulation led to a rapid rise in femoral vascular conductance, and peroneal muscle sympathetic nerve activity demonstrated a delayed reduction that was not associated with the initial increase in femoral vascular conductance. These findings suggest that neural mechanisms in addition to attenuated muscle sympathetic nerve activity might be involved in the initial increase in femoral vascular conductance during acute spinal cord stimulation.

ABSTRACT

Clinical cases have indicated an increase in peripheral blood flow after continuous epidural spinal cord stimulation (SCS) and that reduced muscle sympathetic nerve activity (MSNA) might be a potential mechanism. However, no studies in humans have directly examined the effects of acute SCS (<60 min) on vascular conductance and MSNA. In study 1, we tested the hypothesis that acute SCS (<60 min) of the thoracic spine would lead to increased common femoral vascular conductance, but not brachial vascular conductance, in 11 patients who previously underwent surgical SCS implantation for management of neuropathic pain. Throughout 60 min of SCS, common femoral artery conductance was elevated and significantly different from brachial artery conductance [in millilitres per minute: 15 min, change (Δ) 26 ± 37 versus Δ-2 ± 19%; 30 min, Δ28 ± 45 versus Δ0 ± 26%; 45 min, Δ48 ± 43 versus Δ2 ± 21%; 60 min, Δ36 ± 61 versus Δ1 ± 24%; and 15 min post-SCS, Δ51 ± 64 versus Δ6 ± 33%; P = 0.013]. A similar examination in a patient with cervical SCS revealed minimal changes in vascular conductance. In study 2, we examined whether acute SCS reduces peroneal MSNA in a subset of SCS patients (n = 5). The MSNA burst incidence in response to acute SCS gradually declined and was significantly reduced at 45 and 60 min of SCS (in bursts per 100 heart beats: 15 min, Δ-1 ± 12%; 30 min, Δ-14 ± 12%; 45 min, Δ-19 ± 16%; 60 min, Δ-24 ± 18%; and 15 min post-SCS: Δ-11 ± 7%; P = 0.015). These data demonstrate that acute SCS rapidly increases femoral vascular conductance and reduces peroneal MSNA. The gradual reduction in peroneal MSNA observed during acute SCS suggests that neural mechanisms in addition to attenuated MSNA might be involved in the acute increase in femoral vascular conductance.

Burst and high frequency stimulation: underlying mechanism of action

INTRODUCTION

Paresthesia-free spinal cord stimulation (SCS) techniques, such as burst and high-frequency (HF) SCS, have been developed and demonstrated to be successful for treating chronic pain, albeit via different mechanisms of action. The goal of this review is to discuss the mechanisms of action for pain suppression at both the cellular and systems levels for burst and HF SCS. In addition, we also discuss the neuromodulation devices that mimic these paradigms.

AREAS COVERED

The authors performed a literature review to unravel the mechanisms of action for burst and HF SCS coupled with booklets and user manuals from neuromodulation companies to understand the programmable parameters and operating ranges. Burst SCS modulates the medial pathway to suppress pain. On cellular level, burst SCS is independent on activation of γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA) receptors to inhibit neuronal firing. HF SCS blocks large-diameter fibers from producing action potentials with little influence on smaller fibers, increasing pain suppression as frequency increases.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

The neuromodulation industry is in a phase of intense innovation characterized by adaptive stimulation to improve patients' experience and experiment with alternative frequencies and novel stimulation targets.

Incidence and predictive factors of spinal cord stimulation treatment after lumbar spine surgery

Introduction

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is recommended for the treatment of postsurgical chronic back and leg pain refractory to other treatments. We wanted to estimate the incidence and predictive factors of SCS treatment in our lumbar surgery cohort.

Patients and methods

Three questionnaires (a self-made questionnaire, the Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire, and the Beck Depression Inventory) were sent to patients aged 18–65 years with no contraindications for the use of SCS, and who had undergone non-traumatic lumbar spine surgery in the Oulu University Hospital between June 2005 and May 2008. Patients who had a daily pain intensity of ≥5/10 with predominant radicular component were interviewed by telephone.

Results

After exclusions, 814 patients remained in this cohort. Of those, 21 patients had received SCS by the end of June 2015. Fifteen (71%) of these received benefit and continued with the treatment. Complications were rare. The number of patients who replied to the postal survey were 537 (66%). Eleven of them had undergone SCS treatment after their reply. Features predicting SCS implantation were daily or continuous pain, higher intensities of pain with predominant radicular pain, more severe pain-related functional disability, a higher prevalence of depressive symptoms, and reduced benefit from pain medication. The mean waiting time was 65 months (26–93 months). One hundred patients were interviewed by telephone. Fourteen seemed to be potential SCS candidates. From the eleven patients who underwent SCS after responding to the survey, two were classified as potential candidates in the phone interview, while nine were other patients. Twelve patients are still waiting for treatment to commence.

Conclusion

In our region, the SCS treatment is used only for very serious pain conditions. Waiting time is too long and it may be the reason why this treatment option is not offered to all candidates.

Alternate Intraspinal Targets for Spinal Cord Stimulation: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Conventional dorsal column spinal cord stimulation (SCS) provides less than optimal pain relief for certain pain syndromes and anatomic pain distributions. Practitioners have sought to treat these challenging therapeutic areas with stimulation of alternate intraspinal targets.

OBJECTIVE

To identify and systematically review the evidence for the value neuromodulating specific neuronal targets within the spinal canal to achieve relief of chronic pain.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed for clinical trials published from 1966 to March 1, 2015 to identify neurostimulation studies that employed non-dorsal column intraspinal stimulation to achieve pain relief. Identified studies on such targeted intraspinal stimulation were reviewed and graded using Evidence Based Interventional Pain Medicine criteria.

RESULTS

We found a total of 13 articles that satisfied our search criteria on targeted, non-dorsal column intraspinal stimulation for pain. We identified five studies on neurostimulation of the cervicomedullary junction, six studies on neurostimulation of the dorsal root ganglion, two studies on the neurostimulation of the conus medullaris, unfortunately none was found on intraspinal nerve root stimulation.

LIMITATIONS

The limitations of this review include the relative paucity of well-designed prospective studies on targeted SCS.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical use of intraspinal neurostimulation is expanding at a very fast pace. Intraspinal stimulation of non-dorsal column targets may well be the future of neurostimulation as it provides new clinically significant neuromodulation of specific therapeutic targets that are not well or not easily addressed with conventional dorsal column SCS. In addition, they may avoid undesired stimulation induced paraesthesia, particularly in non-painful areas of the body.

Cluster headache and other TACs: Pathophysiology and neurostimulation options

BACKGROUND

The trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias (TACs) are highly disabling primary headache disorders. There are several issues that remain unresolved in the understanding of the pathophysiology of the TACs, although activation of the trigeminal-autonomic reflex and ipsilateral hypothalamic activation both play a central role. The discovery of the central role of the hypothalamus led to its use as a therapeutic target. After the good results obtained with hypothalamic stimulation, other peripheral neuromodulation targets were tried in the management of refractory cluster headache (CH) and other TACs.

METHODS

This review is a summary both of CH pathophysiology and of efficacy of the different neuromodulation techniques.

RESULTS

In chronic cluster headache (CCH) patients, hypothalamic deep brain stimulation (DBS) produced a decrease in attack frequency of more than 50% in 60% of patients. Occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) also elicited favorable outcomes with a reduction of more than 50% of attacks in around 70% of patients with medically intractable CCH. Stimulation of the sphenopalatine ganglion (SPG) with a miniaturized implanted stimulator produced a clinically significant improvement in 68% of patients (acute, preventive, or both). Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) with a portable device used in conjunction with standard of care in CH patients resulted in a reduction in the number of attacks. DBS and ONS have been used successfully in some cases of other TACs, including hemicrania continua (HC) and short-lasting unilateral headache attacks (SUNHA).

CONCLUSIONS

DBS has good results, but it is a more invasive technique and can generate serious adverse events. ONS has good results, but frequent and not serious adverse events. SPG stimulation (SPGS) is also efficacious in the acute and prophylactic treatment of refractory cluster headache. At this moment, ONS and SPG stimulation techniques are recommended as first line therapy in refractory cluster patients. New recent non-invasive approaches such as the non-invasive vagal nerve stimulator (nVNS) have shown efficacy in a few trials and could be an interesting alternative in the management of CH, but require more testing and positive randomized controlled trials.

Safety and efficacy of cervical 10 kHz spinal cord stimulation in chronic refractory primary headaches: a retrospective case series

Background

Paresthesia-free cervical 10 kHz spinal cord stimulation (HF10 SCS) may constitute a novel treatment modality for headache disorders, when pharmacological approaches fail. We report the results of a retrospective analysis assessing the long-term safety, tolerability and efficacy of HF10 SCS in a group of patients with chronic refractory primary headache disorders.

Findings

Four patients with chronic migraine (CM), two with chronic SUNA (Short-lasting Unilateral Neuralgiform headache attacks with Autonomic symptoms) and one with chronic cluster headache (CCH) refractory to medical treatments, were implanted with cervical HF10 SCS. Pre- and post-implantation data were collected from the medical notes and from headache charts. At an average follow-up of 28 months (range: 12–42 months) we observed an improvement of at least 50 % in headache frequency and/or intensity in all CM patients. One SUNA patient became pain free and the other reported at least 50 % improvement in attacks frequency an duration. The CCH patient reported a significant reduction in CH attacks duration. Two patients underwent a surgical revision due to lead migration.

Conclusions

Paresthesia-free high cervical HF10 SCS appears to be a long-term safe and likely effective therapeutic approach for patients with chronic refractory primary headache disorders. These results warrant further prospective studies in larger series of patients.

Advanced technologies and novel neurostimulation targets in trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias

The trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias (TACs) are a group of rare but disabling primary headache disorders. Their management is challenging, since only few effective treatments are available and high doses may be required to control the headache, compromising patients' adherence to treatments. A significant minority of patients, who fail to respond to or tolerate established treatments, are left with enormous level of disability and disruption to their quality of life. A growing body of evidence demonstrates the efficacy of central and peripheral neuromodulation approaches for management of patients with refractory TACs. In view of the potential risks related to deep brain stimulation of the posterior hypothalamic region, occipital nerve stimulation is currently considered the first treatment option for refractory chronic TACs. However, in view of the presence of paraesthesia induced by the stimulator, no robust controlled trials have been possible so far. Additionally, the equipment used for occipital nerve stimulation is not designed specifically for peripheral nerve stimulation, thus a significant proportion of patients experience device-related complications that often require surgical revisions. To overcome these issues, new neurostimulation technologies using less invasive or non-invasive approaches and modulating different neuroanatomical targets have been recently studied.

Spinal stimulation for pain: future applications

With continuous progress and rapid technological advancement of neuromodulation it is conceivable that within next decade or so, our approach to the electrical stimulation of the spinal cord used in treatment of chronic pain will change radically. The currently used spinal cord stimulation (SCS), with its procedural invasiveness, bulky devices, simplistic stimulation paradigms, and frustrating decline in effectiveness over time will be replaced by much more refined and individually tailored modality. Better understanding of underlying mechanism of action will allow us to use SCS in a more rational way, selecting patient-specific targets and techniques that properly fit each patient with chronic pain based on pain characteristics, distribution, and cause. Based on the information available today, this article will summarize emerging applications of SCS in the treatment of pain and theorize on further developments that may be introduced in the foreseeable future. An overview of clinical and technological innovations will serve as a basis for better understanding of SCS landscape for the next several years.

Stimulation of the sphenopalatine ganglion in intractable cluster headache: expert consensus on patient selection and standards of care

CONTEXT AND OVERVIEW

Chronic cluster headache (CCH) is a debilitating headache disorder with a significant impairment of the patients' lives. Within the past decade, various invasive neuromodulatory approaches have been proposed for the treatment of CCH refractory to standard preventive drug, but only very few randomized controlled studies exist in the field of neuromodulation for the treatment of drug-refractory headaches. Based on the prominent role of the cranial parasympathetic system in acute cluster headache attacks, high-frequency sphenopalatine ganglion (SPG) stimulation has been shown to abort ongoing attacks in some patients in a first small study. As preventive effects of SPG-stimulation have been suggested and the rate of long-term side effects was moderate, SPG stimulation appears to be a promising new treatment strategy.

AIMS AND CONCLUSION

As SPG stimulation is effective in some patients and the first commercially available CE-marked SPG neurostimulator system has been introduced for cluster headache, patient selection and care should be standardized to ensure maximal efficacy and safety. As only limited data have been published on SPG stimulation, standards of care based on expert consensus are proposed to ensure homogeneous patient selection and treatment across international headache centres. Given that SPG stimulation is still a novel approach, all expert-based consensus on patient selection and standards of care should be re-reviewed when more long-term data are available.

Neuromodulation of chronic headaches: position statement from the European Headache Federation

The medical treatment of patients with chronic primary headache syndromes (chronic migraine, chronic tension-type headache, chronic cluster headache, hemicrania continua) is challenging as serious side effects frequently complicate the course of medical treatment and some patients may be even medically intractable. When a definitive lack of responsiveness to conservative treatments is ascertained and medication overuse headache is excluded, neuromodulation options can be considered in selected cases. Here, the various invasive and non-invasive approaches, such as hypothalamic deep brain stimulation, occipital nerve stimulation, stimulation of sphenopalatine ganglion, cervical spinal cord stimulation, vagus nerve stimulation, transcranial direct current stimulation, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation are extensively published although proper RCT-based evidence is limited. The European Headache Federation herewith provides a consensus statement on the clinical use of neuromodulation in headache, based on theoretical background, clinical data, and side effect of each method. This international consensus further gives recommendations for future studies on these new approaches. In spite of a growing field of stimulation devices in headaches treatment, further controlled studies to validate, strengthen and disseminate the use of neurostimulation are clearly warranted. Consequently, until these data are available any neurostimulation device should only be used in patients with medically intractable syndromes from tertiary headache centers either as part of a valid study or have shown to be effective in such controlled studies with an acceptable side effect profile.

Neurostimulation in cluster headache: A review of current progress

Purpose of review

Neurostimulation has emerged as a viable treatment for intractable chronic cluster headache. Several therapeutic strategies are being investigated including stimulation of the hypothalamus, occipital nerves and sphenopalatine ganglion. The aim of this review is to provide an overview of the rationale, methods and progress for each of these.

Latest findings

Results from a randomized, controlled trial investigating sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation have just been published. Reportedly the surgery is relatively simple and it is apparently the only therapy that provides relief acutely.

Summary

The rationale behind these therapies is based on growing evidence from clinical, hormonal and neuroimaging studies. The overall results are encouraging, but unfortunately not all patients have benefited. All the mentioned therapies require weeks to months of stimulation for a prophylactic effect to occur, suggesting brain plasticity as a possible mechanism, and only stimulation of the sphenopalatine ganglion has demonstrated an acute, abortive effect. Predictors of effect for all modes of neurostimulation still need to be identified and in the future, the least invasive and most effective strategy must be preferred as first-line therapy for intractable chronic cluster headache.

Neurostimulation for chronic cluster headache

Neurostimulation techniques for the treatment of primary headache syndromes, particularly of chronic cluster headache, have received much interest in recent years. Occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) has yielded favourable clinical results and, despite the limited numbers of published cases, is becoming a routine treatment for refractory chronic cluster headache in specialized centres. Meanwhile, other promising techniques such as spinal cord stimulation (SCS) or sphenopalate ganglion stimulation have emerged. In this article the current state of clinical research for neurostimulation techniques for chronic cluster headache is reviewed.

Neurostimulation therapies for primary headache disorders: present and future

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Most pharmacological treatments of primary headache disorders are partially effective and have cumbersome side effects. Therapies with better efficacy and tolerance are needed. Neurostimulation techniques may have this potential. This is an attempt to summarize the latest clinical trial results published in the field.

RECENT FINDINGS

Hypothalamic deep brain stimulation is effective in drug-resistant chronic cluster headache (drCCH) but not riskless. Recent anatomical MRI studies indicate that the effective stimulation sites are rather widespread. Occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) seems to be effective in up to 76% of drCCH patients and its benefit long-lasting. A minority of patients are able to abandon preventive drugs. Its mechanism of action appears nonspecific. In chronic migraine, randomized controlled trials of ONS showed recently encouraging results, but long-term studies are missing. An ongoing sham-controlled trial suggests sphenopalatine ganglion neurostimulation (SPGS) efficacy in drCCH acute treatment, but possibly also in preventive therapy. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) modulate cortical excitability and connectivity. TMS could prevent headache when applied over the occipital cortex during the migraine aura. Repetitive TMS and tDCS have provided mixed results in a few small studies and warrant further trials.

SUMMARY

Neurostimulation therapies inaugurate a new era in headache management and offer a promising alternative to medications. Future studies are necessary to provide evidence-based efficacy data, knowledge on their mode of action and information about their pharmaco-economic advantages.