Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a minimally invasive therapy used for the treatment of chronic neuropathic pain. SCS is a safe and effective alternative to medications such as opioids, and multiple randomized controlled studies have demonstrated efficacy for difficult-to-treat neuropathic conditions such as failed back surgery syndrome. Conventional SCS is believed mediate pain relief via activation of dorsal column Aβ fibers, resulting in variable effects on sensory and pain thresholds, and measurable alterations in higher order cortical processing. Although potentiation of inhibition, as suggested by Wall and Melzack's gate control theory, continues to be the leading explanatory model, other segmental and supraspinal mechanisms have been described. Novel, non-standard, stimulation waveforms such as high-frequency and burst have been shown in some studies to be clinically superior to conventional SCS, however their mechanisms of action remain to be determined. Additional studies are needed, both mechanistic and clinical, to better understand optimal stimulation strategies for different neuropathic conditions, improve patient selection and optimize efficacy.

Spinal Cord Stimulation: Clinical Efficacy and Potential Mechanisms.

Summary Background Spinal cord stimulation has been an established treatment for chronic back and leg pain for more than 50 years; however, outcomes are variable and unpredictable, and objective evidence of the mechanism of action is needed. A novel spinal cord stimulation system provides the first in vivo, real-time, continuous objective measure of spinal cord activation in response to therapy via recorded evoked compound action potentials (ECAPs) in patients during daily use. These ECAPs are also used to optimise programming and deliver closed-loop spinal cord stimulation by adjusting the stimulation current to maintain activation within patients' therapeutic window. We aimed to examine pain relief and the extent of spinal cord activation with ECAP-controlled closed-loop versus fixed-output, open-loop spinal cord stimulation for the treatment of chronic back and leg pain. Methods This multicentre, double-blind, parallel-arm, randomised controlled trial was done at 13 specialist clinics, academic centres, and hospitals in the USA. Patients with chronic, intractable pain of the back and legs (Visual Analog Scale [VAS] pain score ≥60 mm; Oswestry Disability Index [ODI] score 41–80) who were refractory to conservative therapy, on stable pain medications, had no previous experience with spinal cord stimulation, and were appropriate candidates for a spinal cord stimulation trial were screened. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive ECAP-controlled closed-loop spinal cord stimulation (investigational group) or fixed-output, open-loop spinal cord stimulation (control group). The randomisation sequence was computer generated with permuted blocks of size 4 and 6 and stratified by site. Patients, investigators, and site staff were masked to the treatment assignment. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with a reduction of 50% or more in overall back and leg pain with no increase in pain medications. Non-inferiority (δ=10%) followed by superiority were tested in the intention-to-treat population at 3 months (primary analysis) and 12 months (additional prespecified analysis) after the permanent implant. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT02924129 , and is ongoing. Findings Between Feb 21, 2017, and Feb 20, 2018, 134 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned (67 to each treatment group). The intention-to-treat analysis comprised 125 patients at 3 months (62 in the closed-loop group and 63 in the open-loop group) and 118 patients at 12 months (59 in the closed-loop group and 59 in the open-loop group). The primary outcome was achieved in a greater proportion of patients in the closed-loop group than in the open-loop group at 3 months (51 [82·3%] of 62 patients vs 38 [60·3%] of 63 patients; difference 21·9%, 95% CI 6·6–37·3; p=0·0052) and at 12 months (49 [83·1%] of 59 patients vs 36 [61·0%] of 59 patients; difference 22·0%, 6·3–37·7; p=0·0060). We observed no differences in safety profiles between the two groups. The most frequently reported study-related adverse events in both groups were lead migration (nine [7%] patients), implantable pulse generator pocket pain (five [4%]), and muscle spasm or cramp (three [2%]). Interpretation ECAP-controlled closed-loop stimulation provided significantly greater and more clinically meaningful pain relief up to 12 months than open-loop spinal cord stimulation. Greater spinal cord activation seen in the closed-loop group suggests a mechanistic explanation for the superior results, which aligns with the putative mechanism of action for spinal cord stimulation and warrants further investigation. Funding Saluda Medical.

Long-term safety and efficacy of closed-loop spinal cord stimulation to treat chronic back and leg pain (Evoke): a double-blind, randomised, controlled trial

Objective
The PROCO RCT is a multicenter, double-blind, crossover, randomized controlled trial (RCT) that investigated the effects of rate on analgesia in kilohertz frequency (1–10 kHz) spinal cord stimulation (SCS).

Materials and Methods
Patients were implanted with SCS systems and underwent an eight-week search to identify the best location (“sweet spot”) of stimulation at 10 kHz within the searched region (T8–T11). An electronic diary (e-diary) prompted patients for pain scores three times per day. Patients who responded to 10 kHz per e-diary numeric rating scale (ED-NRS) pain scores proceeded to double-blind rate randomization. Patients received 1, 4, 7, and 10 kHz SCS at the same sweet spot found for 10 kHz in randomized order (four weeks at each frequency). For each frequency, pulse width and amplitude were titrated to optimize therapy.

Results
All frequencies provided equivalent pain relief as measured by ED-NRS (p ≤ 0.002). However, mean charge per second differed across frequencies, with 1 kHz SCS requiring 60–70% less charge than higher frequencies (p ≤ 0.0002).

Conclusions
The PROCO RCT provides Level I evidence for equivalent pain relief from 1 to 10 kHz with appropriate titration of pulse width and amplitude. 1 kHz required significantly less charge than higher frequencies.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/ner.12746

Effects of Rate on Analgesia in Kilohertz Frequency Spinal Cord Stimulation: Results of the PROCO Randomized Controlled Trial

Neuromodulation for chronic pain.

Summary Neuromodulation, the use of electrical interfaces to alter neuronal activity, has been successful as a treatment approach in several neurological disorders, including deep brain stimulation for Parkinson's disease and epidural spinal stimulation for chronic pain. Neuromodulation can also be beneficial for spinal cord injury, from assisting basic functions such as respiratory pacing and bladder control, through to restoring volitional movements and skilled hand function. Approaches range from electrical stimulation of peripheral muscles, either directly or via brain-controlled bypass devices, to stimulation of the spinal cord and brain. Limitations to widespread clinical application include durability of neuromodulation devices, affordability and accessibility of some approaches, and poor understanding of the underlying mechanisms. Efforts to overcome these challenges through advances in technology, together with pragmatic knowledge gained from clinical trials and basic research, could lead to personalised neuromodulatory interventions to meet the specific needs of individuals with spinal cord injury.

/pdf/neuromodulation-in-the-restoration-of-function-after-spinal-5glel40o0h.pdf

Neuromodulation in the restoration of function after spinal cord injury.

Objective
The purpose of the multicenter, randomized, unblinded, crossover Success Using Neuromodulation with BURST (SUNBURST) study was to determine the safety and efficacy of a device delivering both traditional tonic stimulation and burst stimulation to patients with chronic pain of the trunk and/or limbs.

Methods
Following a successful tonic trial, 100 subjects were randomized to receive one stimulation mode for the first 12 weeks, and then the other stimulation mode for the next 12 weeks. The primary endpoint assessed the noninferiority of the within-subject difference between tonic and burst for the mean daily overall VAS score. An intention-to-treat analysis was conducted using data at the 12- and 24-week visits. Subjects then used the stimulation mode of their choice and were followed for one year. Descriptive statistics were used analyze additional endpoints and to characterize the safety profile of the device.

Results
The SUNBURST study demonstrated that burst stimulation is noninferior to tonic stimulation (p < 0.001). Superiority of burst was also achieved (p < 0.017). Significantly more subjects (70.8%) preferred burst stimulation over tonic stimulation (p < 0.001). Preference was sustained through one year: 68.2% of subjects preferred burst stimulation, 23.9% of subjects preferred tonic, and 8.0% of subjects had no preference. No unanticipated adverse events were reported and the safety profile was similar to other spinal cord stimulation studies.

Conclusions
The SUNBURST study demonstrated that burst spinal cord stimulation is safe and effective. Burst stimulation was not only noninferior but also superior to tonic stimulation for the treatment of chronic pain. A multimodal stimulation device has advantages.

Success Using Neuromodulation With BURST (SUNBURST) Study: Results From a Prospective, Randomized Controlled Trial Using a Novel Burst Waveform.

Introduction DeRidder's burst stimulation design has become a key spinal cord stimulation (SCS) waveform because it reduces the intensity of pain as well as its associated emotional distress. The brain pathways underlying these outcomes may also allow for the effects of stimulation to carry over after stimulation is turned off, making it amenable to intermittent application. Here, the utility of intermittently cycled burst was evaluated using data from two large real-world prospective studies (TRIUMPH, REALITY). Materials and methods Subjects used intermittent dosing in a 1:3 ratio (30 sec on, 90 sec off; N = 100) in TRIUMPH and 1:12 ratio in REALITY (30-sec on, 360-sec off; N = 95) for six months. Pain intensity (0-10 numeric rating scale), pain-related emotions on the pain catastrophizing scale (PCS), and physical function on PROMIS questionnaires were compared with preimplant baseline ratings and by group. Results In both groups, mean pain intensity decreased by nearly 50% relative to baseline, PCS scores significantly decreased, and physical function improved. Importantly, no differences between the 1:3 and 1:12 groups were identified. A high proportion, 80% and 77% of the 1:3 and 1:12 groups, respectively, were considered responders on a multiple measures. No adverse events were associated with intermittent stimulation. Discussion Intermittent cycling of burst SCS lowers the overall electric charge delivered to the spinal cord and preserves battery consumption, without compromising pain relief and associated symptoms.

Ultra-Low Energy Cycled Burst Spinal Cord Stimulation Yields Robust Outcomes in Pain, Function, and Affective Domains: A Subanalysis From Two Prospective, Multicenter, International Clinical Trials.

Ed Tavel

Papers

Success Using Neuromodulation With BURST (SUNBURST) Study: Results From a Prospective, Randomized Controlled Trial Using a Novel Burst Waveform.

Ultra-Low Energy Cycled Burst Spinal Cord Stimulation Yields Robust Outcomes in Pain, Function, and Affective Domains: A Subanalysis From Two Prospective, Multicenter, International Clinical Trials.