- ICH GCP
- US Clinical Trials Registry
- Clinical Trial NCT03318172
High-Density Spinal Cord Stimulation for the Treatment of Chronic Intractable Pain Patients
High-Density Spinal Cord Stimulation for the Treatment of Chronic Intractable Pain Patients: A Prospective Multicenter Randomized Controlled, Double-blind, Crossover Exploratory Study With 6-m Open Follow-up
Study Overview
Status
Conditions
Intervention / Treatment
Detailed Description
Study Type
Enrollment (Actual)
Phase
- Not Applicable
Contacts and Locations
Study Locations
-
-
-
Seoul, Korea, Republic of, 110-744
- Seoul National University Hospital
-
-
Participation Criteria
Eligibility Criteria
Ages Eligible for Study
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
Genders Eligible for Study
Description
Inclusion Criteria:
Patients with chronic intractable pain who meets the Korean SCS Reimbursement Guideline as follows:
(Korea SCS Reimbursement Guideline)
- An ineffective patient with sustainable severe intractable pain (VAS or NRS pain score over 7 grade) who has been treated by a conservative therapy (medication and nerve block, etc.) for 6 months. cf.) CRPS is available after the conservative therapy for 3 months
- An ineffective cancer pain patient with over 1-year life expectancy and VAS (or NRS pain score) over 7 grade who takes active pain treatment for 6 months such as medication, nerve block, epidural morphine injection, etc.
- Age > 18
- Patients who have been informed of the study procedures and has given written informed consent.
- Patients who are willing to comply with study protocol including attending the study visits
Exclusion Criteria:
- Expected inability of patients to receive or properly operate the SCS system
- Active malignancy
- Addiction to any of the following drugs, alcohol, and/or medication
- Evidence of an active disruptive psychiatric disorder or other known condition significant enough to impact perception of pain, compliance to intervention and/or ability to evaluate treatment outcome as determined by investigator
- Local infection or other skin disorder at site of incision
- Pregnancy
- Other implanted active medical device
- Life expectancy < 1 year
- Coagulation deficiency (Platelet count < 100,000, PT INR > 1.4)
- Immune deficiency (HIV positive, immunosuppressive, etc.)
Study Plan
How is the study designed?
Design Details
- Primary Purpose: Treatment
- Allocation: Randomized
- Interventional Model: Crossover Assignment
- Masking: Triple
Arms and Interventions
Participant Group / Arm |
Intervention / Treatment |
---|---|
Experimental: Group C spinal cord stimulator
Spinal cord stimulator (SCS) implantation with conventional stimulation mode therapy during 2 weeks followed by 2 weeks with high-density stimulation mode therapy.
|
Implantation of spinal cord stimulator in patients included in the study and divided in conventional and high density stimulation groups
Other Names:
|
Active Comparator: Group H spinal cord stimulator
Spinal cord stimulator (SCS) implantation with high-density stimulation mode therapy during 2 weeks followed by 2 weeks with conventional stimulation mode therapy.
|
Implantation of spinal cord stimulator in patients included in the study and divided in conventional and high density stimulation groups
Other Names:
|
What is the study measuring?
Primary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
---|---|---|
Percentage of high density SCS mode selected by participants
Time Frame: Four weeks after randomization
|
Patients will be questioned about the more effective mode of pain relief between conventional and high density stimulation.
|
Four weeks after randomization
|
Secondary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
---|---|---|
Difference of pain intensity between the baseline screening and the evaluation at each visit
Time Frame: Six month from baseline screening
|
Pain intensity will be evaluated using NRS (0-10) pain score
|
Six month from baseline screening
|
Change of pain characteristics between the baseline screening and the evaluation at each visit
Time Frame: Six month from baseline screening
|
The pain characteristics will be evaluated using PainDETECT
|
Six month from baseline screening
|
The ability in daily living
Time Frame: Screening and follow up at 1 month, 3 months and 6 months
|
Measured by the Korean version of the Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (K-IADL) scale. The IADL require complex thinking skills, including organizational skills and they measure the ability of the person to live independently without the assistance of another person. The IADL scale includes 8 categories labeled from A to H (A. Ability to Use Telephone, B. Shopping, C. Food preparation, D. Housekeeping, E. Laundry, F. Mode of transportation, G. Responsibility for Own Medication and H. Ability to Handle Finances). For each category, the patient should mark the description that resembles the highest functional level (either 0 or 1). A summary score ranges from 0 (low function, dependent) to 8 (high function, independent) for women and 0 through 5 for men to avoid potential gender bias. |
Screening and follow up at 1 month, 3 months and 6 months
|
The current pain intensity and interference status
Time Frame: Screening and follow up at 1 month, 3 months and 6 months
|
The Brief Pain Inventory Short-Form (BPI-SF) scale measures the pain intensity (severity) and the impact of pain on functioning (interference).
Includes a screening question about the pain on the day, pain drawing diagrams, four items about pain intensity (worst pain, least pain, average pain, pain right now), two items on pain relief treatment or medication, and one item on pain interference, with seven sub-items (general activity, mood, walking ability, normal walk, relations with other people, sleep, and enjoyment of life).
Each item for pain severity is rated from 0, no pain, to 10, pain as bad as you can imagine, and contributes with the same weight to the final score (0 to 40).
The seven subitems of pain interference are rated from 0, does not interfere, to 10, completely interferes, and contributes with the same weight to the final score (0 to 70).
The first item, pain drawing diagrams and the items on pain relief treatment or medication do not contribute to the scoring.
|
Screening and follow up at 1 month, 3 months and 6 months
|
Subjective sleep quality
Time Frame: Screening and follow up at 1 month, 3 months and 6 months
|
The difference of Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) between the baseline screening and the evaluation at 1 month, 3 months and 6 months follow up visits
|
Screening and follow up at 1 month, 3 months and 6 months
|
Oswestry Disability Index
Time Frame: Screening and follow up at 1 month, 3 months and 6 months
|
The difference of Oswestry Disability Index between the baseline screening and the evaluation at 1 month, 3 months and 6 months follow up visits
|
Screening and follow up at 1 month, 3 months and 6 months
|
Beck Depression Inventory
Time Frame: Screening and follow up at 1 month, 3 months and 6 months
|
The difference of Beck Depression Inventory between the baseline screening and the evaluation at 1 month, 3 months and 6 months follow up visits
|
Screening and follow up at 1 month, 3 months and 6 months
|
Pain Catastrophizing scale
Time Frame: Screening and follow up at 1 month, 3 months and 6 months
|
Pain catastrophizing is characterized by the tendency to magnify the threat value of a pain stimulus and to feel helpless in the presence of pain, as well as by a relative inability to prevent or inhibit pain-related thoughts in anticipation of, during, or following a painful event. The Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) is a 13-item instrument derived from definitions of catastrophizing described in the literature. The PCS ask participants to reflect on past painful experiences, and to indicate the degree to which they experienced each of 13 thoughts or feelings when experiencing pain, on 5-point scales from (0) not at all and (4) all the time. The PCS total score is computed by summing responses to all 13 items, total scores range from 0 - 52. The PCS subscales are computed as follows: Rumination: Sum of items 8, 9, 10, 11 Magnification: Sum of items 6, 7, 13 Helplessness: Sum of items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 12 Total score <30= Negative and ≥30= Positive for catastrophizing |
Screening and follow up at 1 month, 3 months and 6 months
|
The Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC)
Time Frame: Screening and follow up at 1 month, 3 months and 6 months
|
Resilience embodies the personal qualities that enable one to thrive in the face of adversity. The Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) contains 25 items, all of which carry a 5-point range of responses, as follows: not true at all (0), rarely true (1), sometimes true (2), often true (3), and true nearly all the time (4). The scale is rated based on how the subject has felt over the past month. The total score ranges from 0-100, with higher scores reflecting greater resilience. |
Screening and follow up at 1 month, 3 months and 6 months
|
Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC)
Time Frame: Follow up visits 1 month, 3 months and 6 months
|
The overall change in patient's pain for 6 months after the study unblinding, during the follow up visits
|
Follow up visits 1 month, 3 months and 6 months
|
Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement (CGI-I)
Time Frame: Follow up visits 1 month, 3 months and 6 months
|
The overall change in patient's improvement for 6 months after the study unblinding, during the follow up visits
|
Follow up visits 1 month, 3 months and 6 months
|
Patient's satisfaction with the stimulation mode
Time Frame: Follow up visits 1 month, 3 months and 6 months
|
The difference in the patient's satisfaction evaluated during the follow-up visits using a 5-point Likert scale (5: very satisfied, 4: somewhat satisfied, 3: Dissatisfied, 1: very unsatisfied)
|
Follow up visits 1 month, 3 months and 6 months
|
Any change of pain medication
Time Frame: Six month from baseline screening
|
The difference between the baseline screening and the evaluation at each visit
|
Six month from baseline screening
|
Pain area coverage by the SCS
Time Frame: Crossover and follow-up visits 1 month, 3 months and 6 months
|
The difference between crossover and follow-up visits (total of 5 times evaluation) by the patient drawing the area of pain coverage.
The ideal treatment with SCS will be a total coverage of the pain area, however, sometimes the covered area does not perfectly match with the stimulated area (less or more area).
Therefore, a simple drawing of a human body will be presented to the patients who will draw the area of pain and then the coverage of the SCS to compare and analyze the changes throughout the study.
|
Crossover and follow-up visits 1 month, 3 months and 6 months
|
Paresthesia threshold
Time Frame: Randomization, crossover and follow-up visits 1 month, 3 months and 6 months
|
The difference between the randomization, crossover and follow-up visits (total of 6 evaluation) by asking patient to indicate the threshold at which he or she experiences paresthesia.
The SCS transmitter allows several intensity levels which are tested before setting the SCS mode.
Usually, the intensity level is tested from lowest and slowly increased until the patient experience paresthesia.
Paresthesia threshold is different from patient to patient and it might change along time.
Therefore, the intensity level marked by the SCS transmitter where the patient experienced the paresthesia will be recorded to evaluate the changes during the study period.
|
Randomization, crossover and follow-up visits 1 month, 3 months and 6 months
|
Change in the overall SCS stimulation parameters
Time Frame: From week 1 (randomization) to 6 months follow-up visit
|
SCS stimulation parameters (active electrodes, frequency, pulse duration, amplitude and battery consumption) each visit after implantation.
All parameters of SCS will be recorded in the same item as they are measured based on the SCS transmitter records and reflect the overall SCS status.
|
From week 1 (randomization) to 6 months follow-up visit
|
Battery efficiency of the neuro-stimulator
Time Frame: Follow up visits 1 month, 3 months and 6 months
|
The battery usage will be measured by frequencies to recharge the battery during the follow-up visits.
|
Follow up visits 1 month, 3 months and 6 months
|
Adaptive Stim use
Time Frame: Follow up visits 1 month, 3 months and 6 months
|
Acquire information on activity from the internal diary; amount of times that patients need to fit the ideal parameters themselves) during the follow-up visits
|
Follow up visits 1 month, 3 months and 6 months
|
Measurement of adverse events
Time Frame: Six month from baseline screening
|
Any related adverse events throughout the whole study period (e.g.
infection, hematoma, seroma, lead breakage, lead migration, SCS removal, etc).
|
Six month from baseline screening
|
Collaborators and Investigators
Sponsor
Investigators
- Principal Investigator: Jee Y Moon, PhD, Clinical Associate Professor
Publications and helpful links
General Publications
- Shealy CN, Mortimer JT, Reswick JB. Electrical inhibition of pain by stimulation of the dorsal columns: preliminary clinical report. Anesth Analg. 1967 Jul-Aug;46(4):489-91. No abstract available.
- Al-Kaisy A, Van Buyten JP, Smet I, Palmisani S, Pang D, Smith T. Sustained effectiveness of 10 kHz high-frequency spinal cord stimulation for patients with chronic, low back pain: 24-month results of a prospective multicenter study. Pain Med. 2014 Mar;15(3):347-54. doi: 10.1111/pme.12294. Epub 2013 Dec 5.
- North RB, Kidd DH, Farrokhi F, Piantadosi SA. Spinal cord stimulation versus repeated lumbosacral spine surgery for chronic pain: a randomized, controlled trial. Neurosurgery. 2005;56(1):98-106; discussion 106-7. doi: 10.1227/01.neu.0000144839.65524.e0.
- Kumar K, Buchser E, Linderoth B, Meglio M, Van Buyten JP. Avoiding complications from spinal cord stimulation: practical recommendations from an international panel of experts. Neuromodulation. 2007 Jan;10(1):24-33. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1403.2007.00084.x.
- Cruccu G, Aziz TZ, Garcia-Larrea L, Hansson P, Jensen TS, Lefaucheur JP, Simpson BA, Taylor RS. EFNS guidelines on neurostimulation therapy for neuropathic pain. Eur J Neurol. 2007 Sep;14(9):952-70. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-1331.2007.01916.x.
- Schu S, Slotty PJ, Bara G, von Knop M, Edgar D, Vesper J. A prospective, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to examine the effectiveness of burst spinal cord stimulation patterns for the treatment of failed back surgery syndrome. Neuromodulation. 2014 Jul;17(5):443-50. doi: 10.1111/ner.12197. Epub 2014 Jun 19.
- Meyerson BA, Linderoth B. Mechanisms of spinal cord stimulation in neuropathic pain. Neurol Res. 2000 Apr;22(3):285-92. doi: 10.1080/01616412.2000.11740672.
- Wolter T. Spinal cord stimulation for neuropathic pain: current perspectives. J Pain Res. 2014 Nov 18;7:651-63. doi: 10.2147/JPR.S37589. eCollection 2014.
- Kuechmann C, Valine T,Wolfe D. Could automatic position-adaptive stimulation be useful in spinal cord stimulation? Eur J Pain 2009;13:S243.
- De Ridder D, Vanneste S, Plazier M, van der Loo E, Menovsky T. Burst spinal cord stimulation: toward paresthesia-free pain suppression. Neurosurgery. 2010 May;66(5):986-90. doi: 10.1227/01.NEU.0000368153.44883.B3.
- Perruchoud C, Eldabe S, Batterham AM, Madzinga G, Brookes M, Durrer A, Rosato M, Bovet N, West S, Bovy M, Rutschmann B, Gulve A, Garner F, Buchser E. Analgesic efficacy of high-frequency spinal cord stimulation: a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study. Neuromodulation. 2013 Jul-Aug;16(4):363-9; discussion 369. doi: 10.1111/ner.12027. Epub 2013 Feb 20.
Study record dates
Study Major Dates
Study Start (Actual)
Primary Completion (Actual)
Study Completion (Actual)
Study Registration Dates
First Submitted
First Submitted That Met QC Criteria
First Posted (Actual)
Study Record Updates
Last Update Posted (Actual)
Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria
Last Verified
More Information
Terms related to this study
Additional Relevant MeSH Terms
Other Study ID Numbers
- 1703-133-841
Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)
Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?
Drug and device information, study documents
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product
product manufactured in and exported from the U.S.
This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.
Clinical Trials on Pain, Intractable
-
MedtronicNeuroTerminatedChronic Intractable PainUnited States
-
Abbott Medical DevicesWithdrawnChronic Intractable PainUnited Kingdom, Canada
-
Flowonix MedicalCompleted
-
Universitaire Ziekenhuizen KU LeuvenUnknownStudying Spinal Cord Evoked Potentials in Patients With Intractable Pain.Belgium
-
Institut Cancerologie de l'OuestCompletedAdvanced Cancer | Intractable PainFrance
-
Abbott Medical DevicesCompletedChronic Pain | Intractable PainSpain, Canada, United States, Finland, Germany, Italy, Switzerland
-
Flowonix MedicalApproved for marketingBack Pain | Leg Pain | Trunk Pain | Intractable Pain | Arm Pain
-
University of Wisconsin, MadisonCompleted
-
Abbott Medical DevicesCompletedChronic, Intractable Pain of the Trunk and/or Lower LimbsUnited States, Australia, Netherlands, Sweden, Germany, Italy, Austria
-
Abbott Medical DevicesTerminated
Clinical Trials on Spinal Cord Stimulator
-
Stimwave TechnologiesAZ Delta; GZA Ziekenhuizen Campus Sint-AugustinusActive, not recruiting
-
Kristin Zhao, PhDWithdrawnParaplegia, Spinal | Paraplegia, Complete | Paraplegia; Traumatic
-
Ashwin ViswanathanBoston Scientific CorporationNot yet recruitingChronic Pain | Neuropathic Pain | Pain, NeuropathicUnited States
-
The Center for Clinical Research, Winston-Salem...UnknownChronic PainUnited States
-
University of California, DavisCompletedPost-laminectomy Syndrome | Axial Back PainUnited States
-
University Hospitals Cleveland Medical CenterRecruitingLow Back Pain | LipomatosisUnited States
-
Lee Fisher, PhDNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS)RecruitingPhantom Limb Pain | Traumatic Amputation of Lower ExtremityUnited States
-
Nevro CorpUnknown
-
Prisma Health-UpstateCompletedChemotherapy-induced Peripheral NeuropathyUnited States
-
University of PittsburghNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS)CompletedPhantom Limb Pain | Traumatic Amputation of Lower ExtremityUnited States