Postoperative Infections Associated With Prolonged Spinal Cord Stimulation Trial Duration (PROMISE RCT).

INTRODUCTION: In the PROMISE study, a multinational randomized controlled trial (RCT) of the effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) with multicolumn surgical leads as a treatment of low back pain, clinicians followed their usual practice. An early, unplanned safety analysis revealed that the infection rate in Belgium (5/23), where trial duration was a median 21.5 days, was significantly higher than the 1/64 rate observed in the other study countries (median 5.8 days, p < 0.01). This report reviews infections observed in the PROMISE study after study completion. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For all infections related to SCS, we used descriptive statistics and tests of independent variables to analyze potentially contributing factors (age, sex, coexisting medical conditions, tobacco use, lead type, and trial duration) between subjects with infections versus those without. Cumulative incidence curves were created using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared between the two strata using a log-rank test. RESULTS: Among nine (5.2%) infections in 174 subjects trialed, the only significant contributing factor to infection was trial duration: median 21 days (range 3-56) for those with infection vs. six days (1-41) for those without (p = 0.001; Wilcoxon rank-sum test). The cumulative incidence of infection for subjects trialed >10 days was 24.1% vs. 1.4% for subjects trialed ≤10 days (p < 0.001). After the protocol was amended to limit trial duration to 10 days, 14 infection-free trials were performed in Belgium. CONCLUSIONS: Although not part of the preplanned analysis, our observation supports the hypothesis of a cause-effect relationship between trial duration and the risk of infection and the conclusion that prolonged SCS trials should be avoided.

Multicolumn spinal cord stimulation for predominant back pain in failed back surgery syndrome patients: a multicenter randomized controlled trial.

Despite optimal medical management (OMM), low back pain (LBP) can be disabling, particularly after spinal surgery. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is effective in reducing neuropathic leg pain; however, evidence is limited for LBP. This prospective, open-label, parallel-group trial randomized (1:1) failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) patients with predominant LBP to SCS plus OMM (SCS group) or OMM alone (OMM group) at 28 sites in Europe and the Americas. If trial stimulation was successful, a multicolumn SCS system was implanted. Outcomes were assessed at baseline (before randomization) and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after randomization. Patients could change treatment groups at 6 months. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with ≥50% reduction in LBP (responder) at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included change in pain intensity, functional disability, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). The results are posted at ClinicalTrials.gov under registration number NCT01697358. In the intent-to-treat analysis, there were more responders in the SCS group than in the OMM group (13.6%, 15/110 vs 4.6%, 5/108, difference 9% with 95% confidence interval 0.6%-17.5%, P = 0.036) at 6 months. The SCS group improved in all secondary outcomes compared with the OMM group. The OMM group only improved in HRQoL. In the SCS group, 17.6% (18/102) experienced SCS-related adverse events through 6 months, with 11.8% (12/102) requiring surgical reintervention. Adding multicolumn SCS to OMM improved pain relief, HRQoL, and function in a traditionally difficult-to-treat population of failed back surgery syndrome patients with predominant LBP. Improvements were sustained at 12 and 24 months.

Spinal cord stimulation for chronic refractory pain: Long-term effectiveness and safety data from a multicentre registry.

BACKGROUND: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an established therapy for refractory neuropathic pain. To ascertain the balance between treatment benefits and risks, the French National Authority for Health requested a post-market registry for real-world evaluation of the long-term effectiveness and safety of the therapy. METHODS: A total of 402 patients undergoing implantation with a Medtronic SCS device as either a primo-implant (n = 264) or replacement implant (n = 138) were enrolled across 28 representative sites in France. Outcome measures at 2 years included pain intensity, satisfaction with treatment, improvement of pain relief and daily life activity, willingness to undergo the treatment again and use of pain treatments. A patient was considered a responder if, compared to baseline, predominant pain reduction was ≥50%. RESULTS: At the 2-year follow-up visit, predominant pain intensity for primo-implant patients had decreased from baseline (p < 0.001), with responder rates of 55%, 36% and 67% for the lower limbs, back and upper limbs, respectively. Most patients acknowledged an improvement in pain relief (89%) and daily life activity (82%) were satisfied with treatment (91%) and willing to undergo the treatment again (93%). A significant decrease (p < 0.01) in the proportion of patients receiving pain treatment was observed for all drug and non-drug treatments. Reported adverse events were in line with the literature. Pain intensity at 2 years was comparable for patients in the replacement group, supporting the long-term stability and effectiveness of SCS. CONCLUSION: Real-world evaluation of the use of spinal cord stimulation under the recommendations of the French Health Authority shows that two years after the first implantation of an SCS device close to 60% of the patients retain a significant pain reduction and 74% show improvement in pain scores [of at least 30%] with significant decreases in drug and non-drug pain treatments. SIGNIFICANCE: This observational, prospective study in a real-life setting followed a large cohort of patients suffering from chronic pain and implanted with SCS devices in France. The study assessed the long-term effectiveness and safety of SCS therapy in a representative sample of implanting sites in France.

Refractory Chronic Pain Screening Tool (RCPST): a feasibility study to assess practicality and validity of identifying potential neurostimulation candidates.

OBJECTIVE: An international panel of pain specialists (anesthesiology, neurology, neurosurgery, and psychology) and research methodologists developed a screening tool to identify patients who may be suitable for spinal cord stimulation (SCS)--the Refractory Chronic Pain Screening Tool (RCPST) prototype. We describe a feasibility study to explore practicality and validity of this prototype. DESIGN: Consecutive outpatients were screened in two centers (United Kingdom and United States). Sixty chronic pain adults without satisfactory pain relief despite treatment were assessed using RCPST (by pain specialist without expertise in neurostimulation) and then evaluated by two pain specialists experienced in SCS implantation and management to determine whether the patient should be referred for SCS. To maintain blinding, the participating physicians did not inform each other or the patient of assessment outcome. Sensitivity and specificity of the RCPST prototype were calculated using implanters' judgment as "gold standard." RESULTS: The average age of patients was 47.7 years; 53% were female. Fifty-seven patients completed the study (one withdrew consent, two lost to follow-up). The pain specialists agreed the prototype was easy to use and took <10 minutes to complete. Implanter agreement was moderate (Kappa: 0.63, 95% confidence interval: 0.35-0.91). The prototype had low sensitivity (40%, 19-61%) and moderate specificity (78%, 65-92%). Using the same questionnaire with a modified decision algorithm, new prototypes were generated with range of high sensitivity (80-100%) and specificity (89-97%) values. CONCLUSIONS: The RCPST aims to identify patients that should be referred for consideration for neurostimulation. The final implant decision requires appropriate neurological diagnostic workup, psychological assessment, and trial stimulation. RCPST was considered practical for routine clinical practice and contained appropriate questions. Sensitivity needs to be improved. A future study should select and validate the ideal RCPST prototype.

Spinal cord stimulation for predominant low back pain in failed back surgery syndrome: study protocol for an international multicenter randomized controlled trial (PROMISE study).

BACKGROUND: Although results of case series support the use of spinal cord stimulation in failed back surgery syndrome patients with predominant low back pain, no confirmatory randomized controlled trial has been undertaken in this patient group to date. PROMISE is a multicenter, prospective, randomized, open-label, parallel-group study designed to compare the clinical effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation plus optimal medical management with optimal medical management alone in patients with failed back surgery syndrome and predominant low back pain. METHOD/DESIGN: Patients will be recruited in approximately 30 centers across Canada, Europe, and the United States. Eligible patients with low back pain exceeding leg pain and an average Numeric Pain Rating Scale score ≥5 for low back pain will be randomized 1:1 to spinal cord stimulation plus optimal medical management or to optimal medical management alone. The investigators will tailor individual optimal medical management treatment plans to their patients. Excluded from study treatments are intrathecal drug delivery, peripheral nerve stimulation, back surgery related to the original back pain complaint, and experimental therapies. Patients randomized to the spinal cord stimulation group will undergo trial stimulation, and if they achieve adequate low back pain relief a neurostimulation system using the Specify® 5-6-5 multi-column lead (Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA) will be implanted to capture low back pain preferentially in these patients. Outcome assessment will occur at baseline (pre-randomization) and at 1, 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, and 24 months post randomization. After the 6-month visit, patients can change treatment to that received by the other randomized group. The primary outcome is the proportion of patients with ≥50% reduction in low back pain at the 6-month visit. Additional outcomes include changes in low back and leg pain, functional disability, health-related quality of life, return to work, healthcare utilization including medication usage, and patient satisfaction. Data on adverse events will be collected. The primary analysis will follow the intention-to-treat principle. Healthcare use data will be used to assess costs and long-term cost-effectiveness. DISCUSSION: Recruitment began in January 2013 and will continue until 2016. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01697358 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Spinal Cord Stimulation vs. Conventional Medical Management: A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled, Multicenter Study of Patients with Failed Back Surgery Syndrome (PROCESS Study).

Introduction. Since its first application in 1967, numerous case series indicate that spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an effective treatment for the management of failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS). However, only one randomized controlled trial has demonstrated that SCS provides more effective pain relief than re-operation and conventional medical management. The PROCESS randomized, controlled, multicenter trial aims to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of SCS when added to conventional medical management compared to conventional medical management alone in patients with FBSS. Methods/Design. A total of 100 FBSS patients with predominantly neuropathic leg pain will be recruited from 12 centers and randomized to receive either conventional medical management alone or in combination with SCS for a period of 24 months. Patients will be evaluated at 1, 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, and 24 months. At the 6-month visit, patients will be classified as successful (≥  50% pain relief in the legs) or unsuccessful (< 50% pain relief in the legs). If the results of the randomized treatment are unsuccessful, patients can cross over to the alternative treatment arm. Discussion. This paper highlights the rationale, design, methods, and challenges of an ongoing prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter clinical trial that has been undertaken to obtain conclusive evidence of the clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of an SCS system in patients with FBSS.