Effects of Rate on Analgesia in Kilohertz Frequency Spinal Cord Stimulation: Results of the PROCO Randomized Controlled Trial

Simon J Thomson, Moein Tavakkolizadeh, Sarah Love-Jones, Nikunj K Patel, Jianwen Wendy Gu, Amarpreet Bains, Que Doan, Michael Moffitt, Simon J Thomson, Moein Tavakkolizadeh, Sarah Love-Jones, Nikunj K Patel, Jianwen Wendy Gu, Amarpreet Bains, Que Doan, Michael Moffitt

Abstract

Objective: The PROCO RCT is a multicenter, double-blind, crossover, randomized controlled trial (RCT) that investigated the effects of rate on analgesia in kilohertz frequency (1-10 kHz) spinal cord stimulation (SCS).

Materials and methods: Patients were implanted with SCS systems and underwent an eight-week search to identify the best location ("sweet spot") of stimulation at 10 kHz within the searched region (T8-T11). An electronic diary (e-diary) prompted patients for pain scores three times per day. Patients who responded to 10 kHz per e-diary numeric rating scale (ED-NRS) pain scores proceeded to double-blind rate randomization. Patients received 1, 4, 7, and 10 kHz SCS at the same sweet spot found for 10 kHz in randomized order (four weeks at each frequency). For each frequency, pulse width and amplitude were titrated to optimize therapy.

Results: All frequencies provided equivalent pain relief as measured by ED-NRS (p ≤ 0.002). However, mean charge per second differed across frequencies, with 1 kHz SCS requiring 60-70% less charge than higher frequencies (p ≤ 0.0002).

Conclusions: The PROCO RCT provides Level I evidence for equivalent pain relief from 1 to 10 kHz with appropriate titration of pulse width and amplitude. 1 kHz required significantly less charge than higher frequencies.

Keywords: Chronic pain; PROCO; double-blind; high frequency; high frequency SCS; kilohertz SCS; randomized controlled trial; sub-perception SCS.

© 2017 The Authors. Neuromodulation: Technology at the Neural Interface published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of International Neuromodulation Society.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Study design. Patients followed standard of care (green) until rate randomization when they experienced four different frequencies. After rate randomization, the best rate was selected for three month follow‐up.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Patient flowchart.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Pain relief and charge required across frequencies. Error bars denote standard error. a. Back pain. b. Leg pain. c. Overall pain. d. Mean charge per second. ***p ≤ 0.001, ***** p ≤ 0.00001.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Quality of life metrics across frequencies. Error bars denote SEM. a. ODI summary score. b. EQ‐5D‐5L summary score. c. PSQI total score. d. PGIC.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Pain relief three months after completion of rate randomization and rate selected for three month follow‐up. a. Back pain. b. Leg pain. c. Overall pain. d. Distribution of rates selected for three month follow‐up.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Comparison of variance in ED‐NRS during titration and three month follow‐up. Each symbol represents one patient's variance during titration (ED‐NRS Vartitration) divided by variance during the three month follow‐up (ED‐NRS Var3 month follow‐up). The patients are ordered in increasing ratio of ED‐NRS Vartitration to ED‐NRS Var3 month follow‐up. Seventeen of 20 patients had larger variance in ED‐NRS during titration, indicating that ED‐NRS was more stable on the optimal setting used during three month follow‐up.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Comparison of responder rate during trial using in‐clinic assessment and ED‐NRS. While the responder rate based on in‐clinic verbal report was 97% (33/34), the responder rate for the same patients based on ED‐NRS was 62% (21/34).

References

    1. Kapural L, Yu C, Doust MW et al. Novel 10‐kHz high‐frequency therapy (HF10 Therapy) is superior to traditional low‐frequency spinal cord stimulation for the treatment of chronic back and leg pain: the SENZA‐RCT randomized controlled trial. Anesthesiology 2015;123:851–860.
    1. Deer T, Slavin KV, Amirdelfan K et al. Success using neuromodulation with BURST (SUNBURST) study: results from a prospective, randomized controlled trial using a novel burst waveform. Neuromodulation 2018;21:56–66.
    1. Melzack R, Wall PD. Pain mechanisms: a new theory. Science 1965;150:970–979.
    1. Zhang TC, Janik JJ, Peters RV et al. Spinal sensory projection neuron responses to spinal cord stimulation are mediated by circuits beyond gate control. J Neurophysiol 2015;114:284–300.
    1. Lempka SF, McIntyre CC, Kilgore KL et al. Computational analysis of kilohertz frequency spinal cord stimulation for chronic pain management. Anesthesiology 2015;122:1362–1376.
    1. Rauck R. Differential mechanisms of action between paresthesia and paresthesia‐free SCS: a PET study. NANS 19th Annual Meeting, December 10–13, 2015, Las Vegas, NV.
    1. De Ridder D, Plazier M, Kamerling N et al. Burst spinal cord stimulation for limb and back pain. World Neurosurg 2013;80:642–649.e1.
    1. Stiller CO, Cui JG, O'Connor WT, Brodin E, Meyerson BA, Linderoth B. Release of [gamma]‐aminobutyric acid in the dorsal horn and suppression of tactile allodynia by spinal cord stimulation in mononeuropathic rats. Neurosurgery 1996;39:367–375.
    1. Cui JG, Linderoth B, Meyerson BA. Effects of spinal cord stimulation on touch‐evoked allodynia involve GABAergic mechanisms. An experimental study in the mononeuropathic rat. Pain 1996;66:287–295.
    1. Crosby ND, Weisshaar CL, Smith JR, Zeeman ME, Goodman‐Keiser MD, Winkelstein BA. Burst and tonic spinal cord stimulation differentially activate GABAergic mechanisms to attenuate pain in a rat model of cervical radiculopathy. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 2015;62:1604–1613.
    1. Crosby ND, Janik JJ, Grill WM. Modulation of activity and conduction in single dorsal column axons by kilohertz‐frequency spinal cord stimulation. J Neurophysiol 2017;117:136–147.
    1. Linderoth B, Foreman RD. Conventional and novel spinal stimulation algorithms: hypothetical mechanisms of action and comments on outcomes. Neuromodulation 2017;20:525–533.
    1. Prescott SA. Electrophysiological artifacts during high‐frequency SCS and optical methods to circumvent them. INS 13th Annual Meeting, 2017, Edinburgh, Scotland.
    1. Al‐Kaisy A, Van Buyten J‐P, 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;15:347–354.
    1. Russo M, Verrills P, Mitchell B, Salmon J, Barnard A, Santarelli D. High frequency spinal cord stimulation at 10 kHz for the treatment of chronic pain: 6‐month Australian clinical experience. Pain Phys 2016;19:267–280.
    1. North JM, Hong KSJ, Cho PY. Clinical outcomes of 1 kHz subperception spinal cord stimulation in implanted patients with failed paresthesia‐based stimulation: results of a prospective randomized controlled trial. Neuromodulation 2016;19:731–737.
    1. Kriek N, Groeneweg JG, Stronks DL, de Ridder D, Huygen FJPM. Preferred frequencies and waveforms for spinal cord stimulation in patients with complex regional pain syndrome: a multicentre, double‐blind, randomized and placebo‐controlled crossover trial. Eur J Pain 2017;21:507–519.
    1. Haider N, Miller N, Gilmore C. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) trial outcomes after conversion to a multiple waveform SCS System. NANS 20th Annual Meeting, 2017, Las Vegas, NV.
    1. Pyles S, Lechleiter K, Huynh D et al. Improved spinal cord stimulation outcomes associated with percutaneous lead placement and multiple waveform programming technique. NANS 20th Annual Meeting, 2017, Las Vegas, NV.
    1. Shechter R, Yang F, Xu Q et al. Conventional and kilohertz‐frequency spinal cord stimulation produces intensity‐ and frequency‐dependent inhibition of mechanical hypersensitivity in a rat model of neuropathic pain. Anesthesiology 2013;119:422–432.
    1. Song Z, Viisanen H, Meyerson BA et al. Efficacy of kilohertz‐frequency and conventional spinal cord stimulation in rat models of different pain conditions. Neuromodulation 2014;17:226–235.
    1. Cuellar JM, Alataris K, Walker A et al. Effect of high‐frequency alternating current on spinal afferent nociceptive transmission. Neuromodulation 2013;16:318–327.
    1. Blight AR, Someya S. Depolarizing afterpotentials in myelinated axons of mammalian spinal cord. Neuroscience 1985;15:1–12.
    1. Kiernan MC, Bostock H. Depolarizing afterpotentials in myelinated axons of mammalian spinal cord. Brain 2000;123:2542–2551.
    1. Woolf CJ, Salter M. Neuronal plasticity: increasing the gain in pain. Science 2000;288:1765–1768.
    1. Farrar JT, Portenoy RK, Berlin JA et al. Defining the clinically important difference in pain outcome measures. Pain 2000;88:287–294.
    1. West B, Welch K, Galecki A. Linear mixed models: a practical guide using statistical software. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall/CRC, 2007.
    1. Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination . The periodic health examination. CMA J 1979;121:1193–1254.
    1. Tavel E, Amirdelfan K, Phillips G et al. Programming optimization strategies for burst may improve outcomes. NANS 20th Annual Meeting, 2017, Las Vegas, NV.
    1. Jennings J, Bourke C, Baranidharan G. Burst spinal column stimulation, Leeds experience in optimisation of programming to enhance patient outcome and satisfaction. NANS 20th Annual Meeting, 2017, Las Vegas, NV.
    1. Meuwissen KPV, Gu JW, Zhang TC, Joosten EAJ. Conventional versus burst spinal cord stimulation on mechanical hypersensitivity in a rat model of chronic neuropathic pain: effect of amplitude. Neuromodulation 2018;21:19–30.
    1. Colagiuri B. Participant expectancies in double‐blind randomized placebo‐controlled trials: potential limitations to trial validity. Clin Trials 2010;7:246–255.
    1. Enck P, Klosterhalfen S, Weimer K et al. The placebo response in clinical trials: more questions than answers. Phil Trans R Soc B 2011;366:1889–1895.
    1. Tracey I. Getting the pain you expect: mechanisms of placebo, nocebo and reappraisal effects in humans. Nat Med 2010;16:1277–1283.
    1. Quessy SN, Rowbotham MC. Placebo response in neuropathic pain trials. Pain 2008;138:479–483.
    1. Rief W, Bingel U, Schedlowski M et al. Mechanisms involved in placebo and nocebo responses and implications for drug trials. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2011;90:722–726.
    1. Vase L, Vollert J, Finnerup NB et al. Predictors of the placebo analgesia response in randomized controlled trials of chronic pain: a meta‐analysis of the individual data from nine industrially sponsored trials. Pain 2015;156:1795–1802.
    1. Broderick JE, Schwartz JE, Vikingstad G et al. The accuracy of pain and fatigue items across different reporting periods. Pain 2008;139:146–157.
    1. Redelmeier DA, Kahneman D. Patients' memories of painful medical treatments: real‐time and retrospective evaluations of two minimally invasive procedures. Pain 1996;66:3–8.
    1. Eich E, Reeves J, Jaeger B et al. Memory for pain: relation between past and present pain intensity. Pain 1985;23:375–379.
    1. Stone AA, Broderick JE, Schwartz JE et al. Intensive momentary reporting of pain with an electronic diary: reactivity, compliance, and patient satisfaction. Pain 2003;104:343–351.
    1. Affleck G, Tennen H, Urrows S et al. Person and contextual features of daily stress reactivity: individual differences in relations of undesirable daily events with mood disturbance and chronic pain intensity. J Pers Soc Psychol 1994;66:329–340.
    1. Stone A, Broderick J, Porter L et al. The experience of rheumatoid arthritis pain and fatigue: examining momentary reports and correlates over one week. Arthritis Care Res 1997;10:185–193.
    1. Affleck G, Tennen H, Keefe F et al. Everyday life with osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis: independent effects of disease and gender on daily pain, mood, and coping. Pain 1999;83:601–609.
    1. Folkard S, Glynn CJ, Lloyd JW. Diurnal variation and individual differences in the perception of intractable pain. J Psychosom Res 1976;20:289–301.
    1. Kállai I, Barke A, Voss U. The effects of experimenter characteristics on pain reports in women and men. Pain 2004;112:142–147.
    1. Levine FM, De Simone LL. The effects of experimenter gender on pain report in male and female subjects. Pain 1991;44:69–72.
    1. Koulousakis A, Matis G, Bara G et al. 10 kHz and 1.2 kHz Comparison concerning clinical outcomes and charge burden. NANS 20th Annual Meeting, 2017, Las Vegas, NV.
    1. Ibrahim R, Sackerer D. Comparative analysis of patient preference for 10 kHz and 2 kHz SCS in patients with chronic neuropathic back and leg pain. INS 13th Annual Meeting, 2017, Edinburgh, Scotland.
    1. FDA Summary of Safety and Effectiveness Data, Senza Spinal Cord Stimulation System, PMA P130022, page 44.
    1. Perruchoud C, Eldabe S, Batterham AM et al. Analgesic efficacy of high‐frequency spinal cord stimulation: a randomized double‐blind placebo‐controlled study. Neuromodulation 2013;16:363–369.
    1. Al‐Kaisy A, Palmisani S, Sanderson K et al. SCS frequency study: subject therapy preference post randomized phase in a spinal cord stimulation study using higher frequencies. NANS 20th Annual Meeting, 2017, Las Vegas, NV.
    1. Kam‐Hansen S, Jakubowski M, Kelley JM et al. Labeling of medication and placebo alters the outcome of episodic migraine attacks. Sci Transl Med 2014;6:218ra5.
    1. Rutherford BR, Roose SP. A model of placebo response in antidepressant clinical trials. Am J Psychiatry 2013;170:723–733.
    1. Schedlowski M, Enck P, Rief W et al. Neuro‐bio‐behavioral mechanisms of placebo and nocebo responses: implications for clinical trials and clinical practice. Pharmacol Rev 2015;67:697–730.
    1. Weimer K, Colloca L, Enck P. Placebo effects in psychiatry: mediators and moderators. Lancet Psychiatry 2015;2:246–257.
    1. Veizi E, Hayek SM, North J et al. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) with anatomically guided (3D) neural targeting shows superior chronic axial low back pain relief compared to traditional SCS‐LUMINA study. Pain Med 2017;18:1534–1548.

Source: PubMed

Sponsor e collaboratori

Condizioni mediche

Interventi farmacologici

3
Sottoscrivi