Cargando…

Sex-specific differences in the efficacy of traditional low frequency versus high frequency spinal cord stimulation for chronic pain

INTRODUCTION: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS), an FDA-approved therapy for chronic pain, uses paresthesia (low frequency SCS (LF-SCS)) or paresthesia-free (such as high-frequency SCS (HF-SCS)) systems, providing analgesia through partially-elucidated mechanisms, with recent studies indicating a sexual...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Conic, Rosalynn R. Z., Caylor, Jacob, Cui, Christina L., Reyes, Zabrina, Nelson, Eric, Yin, Sopyda, Lerman, Imanuel
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9052649/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35484578
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s42234-022-00090-2
_version_ 1784696826731954176
author Conic, Rosalynn R. Z.
Caylor, Jacob
Cui, Christina L.
Reyes, Zabrina
Nelson, Eric
Yin, Sopyda
Lerman, Imanuel
author_facet Conic, Rosalynn R. Z.
Caylor, Jacob
Cui, Christina L.
Reyes, Zabrina
Nelson, Eric
Yin, Sopyda
Lerman, Imanuel
author_sort Conic, Rosalynn R. Z.
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS), an FDA-approved therapy for chronic pain, uses paresthesia (low frequency SCS (LF-SCS)) or paresthesia-free (such as high-frequency SCS (HF-SCS)) systems, providing analgesia through partially-elucidated mechanisms, with recent studies indicating a sexual dimorphism in pain pathogenesis (Bretherton et al., Neuromodulation, 2021; Paller et al., Pain Med 10:289–299, 2009; Slyer et al., Neuromodulation, 2019; Van Buyten et al., Neuromodulation 20:642–649, 2017; Mekhail et al., Pain Pract, 2021). We aim to evaluate SCS therapy sex effects based on paradigm, utilizing visual analog scores (VAS), perceived pain reduction (PPR), and opioid use. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of SCS patients implanted between 2004 and 2020 (n = 237) was conducted. Descriptive statistics and linear mixed methods analyses were used. RESULTS: HF-SCS (10 kHz) was implanted in 94 patients (40 females, 54 males), and LF-SCS in 143 (70 females, 73 males). At 3 months and 6 months, HF-SCS (p < 0.001) and LF-SCS (p < 0.005) had lower VAS scores compared to baseline (p < 0.005), with no differences across groups. PPR improved in both post-implantation (p < 0.006) and at 3 months (p < 0.004 respectively), compared to baseline persisting to 6 (p < 0.003) and 12 months (p < 0.01) for HF-SCS, with significantly better PPR for HF-SCS at 3 (p < 0.008) and 6 (p < 0.001) months compared to LF-SCS. There were no differences in opioid use from baseline for either modality; however LF-SCS patients used more opioids at every time point (p < 0.05) compared to HF-SCS. VAS was improved for all modalities in both sexes at 3 months (p = 0.001), which persisted to 6 months (p < 0.05) for HF-SCS males and females, and LF-SCS females. Female HF-SCS had improved PPR at 3 (p = 0.016) and 6 (p = 0.022) months compared to baseline, and at 6 (p = 0.004) months compared to LF-SCS. Male HF-SCS and LF-SCS had improved PPR post-implantation (p < 0.05) and at 3 months (p < 0.05), with HF-SCS having greater benefit at 3 (p < 0.05) and 6 (p < 0.05) months. LF-SCS males but not females used less opioids at 6 months (p = 0.017) compared to baseline; however this effect did not persist. On linear mixed model analyses, including age, sex and stimulator type, VAS decreased with age, at each timepoint, and had a trend towards increasing with female sex, while PPR increased at 3 and 6 months and lastly HF-SCS was associated with decreased opioid use. DISCUSSION: PPR at 3 and 6 months improved to a greater extent in HF-SCS. HF-SCS females had improved PPR at 3 and 6 months, and only LF-SCS males used less opioids at 6 months, potentially indicating sex-based pathway. Future studies should further elucidate differences in sex-based pathways and identify optimal SCS opioid-sparing paradigms for chronic pain patients. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s42234-022-00090-2.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9052649
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-90526492022-04-30 Sex-specific differences in the efficacy of traditional low frequency versus high frequency spinal cord stimulation for chronic pain Conic, Rosalynn R. Z. Caylor, Jacob Cui, Christina L. Reyes, Zabrina Nelson, Eric Yin, Sopyda Lerman, Imanuel Bioelectron Med Research Article INTRODUCTION: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS), an FDA-approved therapy for chronic pain, uses paresthesia (low frequency SCS (LF-SCS)) or paresthesia-free (such as high-frequency SCS (HF-SCS)) systems, providing analgesia through partially-elucidated mechanisms, with recent studies indicating a sexual dimorphism in pain pathogenesis (Bretherton et al., Neuromodulation, 2021; Paller et al., Pain Med 10:289–299, 2009; Slyer et al., Neuromodulation, 2019; Van Buyten et al., Neuromodulation 20:642–649, 2017; Mekhail et al., Pain Pract, 2021). We aim to evaluate SCS therapy sex effects based on paradigm, utilizing visual analog scores (VAS), perceived pain reduction (PPR), and opioid use. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of SCS patients implanted between 2004 and 2020 (n = 237) was conducted. Descriptive statistics and linear mixed methods analyses were used. RESULTS: HF-SCS (10 kHz) was implanted in 94 patients (40 females, 54 males), and LF-SCS in 143 (70 females, 73 males). At 3 months and 6 months, HF-SCS (p < 0.001) and LF-SCS (p < 0.005) had lower VAS scores compared to baseline (p < 0.005), with no differences across groups. PPR improved in both post-implantation (p < 0.006) and at 3 months (p < 0.004 respectively), compared to baseline persisting to 6 (p < 0.003) and 12 months (p < 0.01) for HF-SCS, with significantly better PPR for HF-SCS at 3 (p < 0.008) and 6 (p < 0.001) months compared to LF-SCS. There were no differences in opioid use from baseline for either modality; however LF-SCS patients used more opioids at every time point (p < 0.05) compared to HF-SCS. VAS was improved for all modalities in both sexes at 3 months (p = 0.001), which persisted to 6 months (p < 0.05) for HF-SCS males and females, and LF-SCS females. Female HF-SCS had improved PPR at 3 (p = 0.016) and 6 (p = 0.022) months compared to baseline, and at 6 (p = 0.004) months compared to LF-SCS. Male HF-SCS and LF-SCS had improved PPR post-implantation (p < 0.05) and at 3 months (p < 0.05), with HF-SCS having greater benefit at 3 (p < 0.05) and 6 (p < 0.05) months. LF-SCS males but not females used less opioids at 6 months (p = 0.017) compared to baseline; however this effect did not persist. On linear mixed model analyses, including age, sex and stimulator type, VAS decreased with age, at each timepoint, and had a trend towards increasing with female sex, while PPR increased at 3 and 6 months and lastly HF-SCS was associated with decreased opioid use. DISCUSSION: PPR at 3 and 6 months improved to a greater extent in HF-SCS. HF-SCS females had improved PPR at 3 and 6 months, and only LF-SCS males used less opioids at 6 months, potentially indicating sex-based pathway. Future studies should further elucidate differences in sex-based pathways and identify optimal SCS opioid-sparing paradigms for chronic pain patients. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s42234-022-00090-2. BioMed Central 2022-04-28 /pmc/articles/PMC9052649/ /pubmed/35484578 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s42234-022-00090-2 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Research Article
Conic, Rosalynn R. Z.
Caylor, Jacob
Cui, Christina L.
Reyes, Zabrina
Nelson, Eric
Yin, Sopyda
Lerman, Imanuel
Sex-specific differences in the efficacy of traditional low frequency versus high frequency spinal cord stimulation for chronic pain
title Sex-specific differences in the efficacy of traditional low frequency versus high frequency spinal cord stimulation for chronic pain
title_full Sex-specific differences in the efficacy of traditional low frequency versus high frequency spinal cord stimulation for chronic pain
title_fullStr Sex-specific differences in the efficacy of traditional low frequency versus high frequency spinal cord stimulation for chronic pain
title_full_unstemmed Sex-specific differences in the efficacy of traditional low frequency versus high frequency spinal cord stimulation for chronic pain
title_short Sex-specific differences in the efficacy of traditional low frequency versus high frequency spinal cord stimulation for chronic pain
title_sort sex-specific differences in the efficacy of traditional low frequency versus high frequency spinal cord stimulation for chronic pain
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9052649/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35484578
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s42234-022-00090-2
work_keys_str_mv AT conicrosalynnrz sexspecificdifferencesintheefficacyoftraditionallowfrequencyversushighfrequencyspinalcordstimulationforchronicpain
AT caylorjacob sexspecificdifferencesintheefficacyoftraditionallowfrequencyversushighfrequencyspinalcordstimulationforchronicpain
AT cuichristinal sexspecificdifferencesintheefficacyoftraditionallowfrequencyversushighfrequencyspinalcordstimulationforchronicpain
AT reyeszabrina sexspecificdifferencesintheefficacyoftraditionallowfrequencyversushighfrequencyspinalcordstimulationforchronicpain
AT nelsoneric sexspecificdifferencesintheefficacyoftraditionallowfrequencyversushighfrequencyspinalcordstimulationforchronicpain
AT yinsopyda sexspecificdifferencesintheefficacyoftraditionallowfrequencyversushighfrequencyspinalcordstimulationforchronicpain
AT lermanimanuel sexspecificdifferencesintheefficacyoftraditionallowfrequencyversushighfrequencyspinalcordstimulationforchronicpain