Spinal cord stimulation: a real-world data analysis on outcomes and differences between rechargeable and non-rechargeable implantable pulse generators

OBJECTIVE: In this analysis, we examined differences between rechargeable and non-rechargeable spinal cord stimulation (SCS) devices in patients with pain. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, longitudinal claims data analysis using a German research database comprising 5 million statutory insured patients (2012–2017). Outcomes of demographics, patient pathways, and health care resource utilization (HCRU) in patients with initial SCS were collected. RESULTS: Of 150 patients in the database, 73 (49%) received a rechargeable device and 77 (51%) a non-rechargeable device. The average age was 62.5 years (51% female and 49% male patients). A significant decrease over a 3-year follow-up was observed in analgesic prescriptions (−18%), number of patient visits to a physician, and number of patients who were hospitalized. HCRU-related figures for patients with non-rechargeable neurostimulators increased in the last follow-up year whereas the group receiving rechargeable neurostimulators showed a steady decrease. CONCLUSIONS: SCS seems to be an effective way for patients with chronic pain to decrease pain and improve quality of life. Rechargeable devices seem to be superior to non-rechargeable devices owing to greater longevity and were found to be associated with continuous reduction of pain diagnoses, hospitalization, physician visits, and use of pain medication in our study.