Cargando…

Burst Spinal Cord Stimulation: A Systematic Review and Pooled Analysis of Real-World Evidence and Outcomes Data

OBJECTIVE: This review provides a comprehensive assessment of the effectiveness of burst spinal cord stimulation (SCS). Ratings of pain intensity (visual analog scale or numeric rating scale) and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) on functional/psychometric domains such as depression (Beck Depression...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Chakravarthy, Krishnan, Malayil, Rudy, Kirketeig, Terje, Deer, Timothy
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6544549/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31152177
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/pm/pnz046
_version_ 1783423267204235264
author Chakravarthy, Krishnan
Malayil, Rudy
Kirketeig, Terje
Deer, Timothy
author_facet Chakravarthy, Krishnan
Malayil, Rudy
Kirketeig, Terje
Deer, Timothy
author_sort Chakravarthy, Krishnan
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: This review provides a comprehensive assessment of the effectiveness of burst spinal cord stimulation (SCS). Ratings of pain intensity (visual analog scale or numeric rating scale) and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) on functional/psychometric domains such as depression (Beck Depression Index), catastrophizing (Pain Catastrophizing Scale), surveillance (Pain Vigilance and Attention Questionnaire), and others are addressed. DESIGN: Articles were identified and selected from the literature according to prospective, replicable methods. Effectiveness data—pain scores and PRO ratings—were weighted by study sample sizes and pooled. The effects of burst SCS were compared against values at baseline and with tonic SCS. For PROs, published population norms were used for comparison. RESULTS: Fifteen articles, with a combined sample size of 427, were included. Follow-up ranged from a few hours to two years. A variety of prospective designs were employed, including crossover studies, single-arm cohorts, and a randomized controlled trial, as well as retrospective case reports. The weighted pooled mean pain rating across articles at baseline was 76.7 (±27.4). With tonic SCS, this was reduced to 49.2 (±12.9), and with burst SCS it was further reduced to 36.7 (±11.6), a 12.5-point difference between tonic and burst values. Psychometric analyses of PROs noted preferential improvement with burst SCS. In addition, 65% of subjects stated a preference for burst SCS. CONCLUSIONS: In pooled analyses that incorporated all available published evidence, the improvement over baseline for burst SCS was shown to have a clinically important incremental benefit over tonic SCS. In addition, burst SCS may support resolution of the emotional or cognitive aspects of pain that are mediated by medial thalamo-cortical pathways. This study highlights the value in considering the entire knowledge base in therapeutic assessments as well as adopting a consistent set of outcome variables within neuromodulation. Burst SCS is a valuable intervention, providing both analgesia and psychometric benefits that warrant further thoughtful applications.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6544549
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-65445492019-06-12 Burst Spinal Cord Stimulation: A Systematic Review and Pooled Analysis of Real-World Evidence and Outcomes Data Chakravarthy, Krishnan Malayil, Rudy Kirketeig, Terje Deer, Timothy Pain Med Review Articles OBJECTIVE: This review provides a comprehensive assessment of the effectiveness of burst spinal cord stimulation (SCS). Ratings of pain intensity (visual analog scale or numeric rating scale) and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) on functional/psychometric domains such as depression (Beck Depression Index), catastrophizing (Pain Catastrophizing Scale), surveillance (Pain Vigilance and Attention Questionnaire), and others are addressed. DESIGN: Articles were identified and selected from the literature according to prospective, replicable methods. Effectiveness data—pain scores and PRO ratings—were weighted by study sample sizes and pooled. The effects of burst SCS were compared against values at baseline and with tonic SCS. For PROs, published population norms were used for comparison. RESULTS: Fifteen articles, with a combined sample size of 427, were included. Follow-up ranged from a few hours to two years. A variety of prospective designs were employed, including crossover studies, single-arm cohorts, and a randomized controlled trial, as well as retrospective case reports. The weighted pooled mean pain rating across articles at baseline was 76.7 (±27.4). With tonic SCS, this was reduced to 49.2 (±12.9), and with burst SCS it was further reduced to 36.7 (±11.6), a 12.5-point difference between tonic and burst values. Psychometric analyses of PROs noted preferential improvement with burst SCS. In addition, 65% of subjects stated a preference for burst SCS. CONCLUSIONS: In pooled analyses that incorporated all available published evidence, the improvement over baseline for burst SCS was shown to have a clinically important incremental benefit over tonic SCS. In addition, burst SCS may support resolution of the emotional or cognitive aspects of pain that are mediated by medial thalamo-cortical pathways. This study highlights the value in considering the entire knowledge base in therapeutic assessments as well as adopting a consistent set of outcome variables within neuromodulation. Burst SCS is a valuable intervention, providing both analgesia and psychometric benefits that warrant further thoughtful applications. Oxford University Press 2019-06 2019-06-01 /pmc/articles/PMC6544549/ /pubmed/31152177 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/pm/pnz046 Text en © 2019 American Academy of Pain Medicine. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contactjournals.permissions@oup.com
spellingShingle Review Articles
Chakravarthy, Krishnan
Malayil, Rudy
Kirketeig, Terje
Deer, Timothy
Burst Spinal Cord Stimulation: A Systematic Review and Pooled Analysis of Real-World Evidence and Outcomes Data
title Burst Spinal Cord Stimulation: A Systematic Review and Pooled Analysis of Real-World Evidence and Outcomes Data
title_full Burst Spinal Cord Stimulation: A Systematic Review and Pooled Analysis of Real-World Evidence and Outcomes Data
title_fullStr Burst Spinal Cord Stimulation: A Systematic Review and Pooled Analysis of Real-World Evidence and Outcomes Data
title_full_unstemmed Burst Spinal Cord Stimulation: A Systematic Review and Pooled Analysis of Real-World Evidence and Outcomes Data
title_short Burst Spinal Cord Stimulation: A Systematic Review and Pooled Analysis of Real-World Evidence and Outcomes Data
title_sort burst spinal cord stimulation: a systematic review and pooled analysis of real-world evidence and outcomes data
topic Review Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6544549/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31152177
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/pm/pnz046
work_keys_str_mv AT chakravarthykrishnan burstspinalcordstimulationasystematicreviewandpooledanalysisofrealworldevidenceandoutcomesdata
AT malayilrudy burstspinalcordstimulationasystematicreviewandpooledanalysisofrealworldevidenceandoutcomesdata
AT kirketeigterje burstspinalcordstimulationasystematicreviewandpooledanalysisofrealworldevidenceandoutcomesdata
AT deertimothy burstspinalcordstimulationasystematicreviewandpooledanalysisofrealworldevidenceandoutcomesdata