Description
Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) delivers low-voltage electrical stimulation to the dorsal columns of the spinal cord to block the sensation of pain; this is achieved through a surgically implanted SCS device, which comes equipped with a radio frequency receiver. The neurostimulator device is also issued with a standard power source (battery) that can be implanted or worn externally. Other neurostimulators target the dorsal root ganglion.
Summary of Evidence
Treatment-Refractory Chronic Pain
For individuals who have treatment-refractory chronic pain of the trunk or limbs who receive standard spinal cord stimulation, the evidence includes systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Relevant outcomes are symptoms, functional outcomes, quality of life, medication use, and treatment-related morbidity. Available RCTs are heterogeneous regarding underlying diagnoses in select individual populations. However, the trials including individuals with underlying neuropathic pain processes have shown a significant benefit with spinal cord stimulation. Systematic reviews have supported the use of spinal cord stimulation to treat refractory trunk or limb pain, and individuals who have failed all other treatment modalities have few options. The evidence is sufficient to determine that the technology results in an improvement in the net health outcome.
For individuals who have treatment-refractory chronic pain of the trunk or limbs who receive high-frequency spinal cord stimulation, the evidence includes a systematic review and four (4) RCTs. Relevant outcomes are symptoms, functional outcomes, quality of life, medication use, and treatment-related morbidity. Two (2) RCTs that enrolled participants not previously treated with spinal cord stimulation reported clinically and statistically significant benefits associated with high-frequency spinal cord stimulation. Another RCT in individuals who had chronic pain despite previous treatment with standard spinal cord stimulation found no benefit for those receiving high-frequency stimulation compared with sham-control; however, it is difficult to compare these findings with other trials of spinal cord stimulation due to the different individual populations, short treatment periods, and the crossover period effect. The evidence is sufficient to determine that the technology results in an improvement in the net health outcome.
For individuals who have treatment-refractory chronic pain of the trunk or limbs who receive dorsal root ganglion neurostimulation, the evidence includes a systematic review, an RCT, and case series. Relevant outcomes are symptoms, functional outcomes, quality of life, medication use, and treatment-related morbidity. The unblinded RCT found that individuals receiving dorsal root ganglion neurostimulation had significantly higher rates of treatment success (physical functioning score and quality of life measures), at three (3) and 12 months compared with those receiving standard spinal cord stimulation devices. Dorsal root ganglion neurostimulation was found to be noninferior to spinal cord stimulation in the percentage achieving greater than or equal to 50 percent pain reduction, emotional functioning score, and 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey scores. Both groups experienced paresthesias but individuals in the dorsal root ganglion group reported less postural variation in paresthesia and reduced extraneous stimulation in nonpainful areas. Rates of serious adverse events were similar between the two (2) study arms. The evidence is sufficient to determine that the technology results in an improvement in the net health outcome.
Critical Limb Ischemia
For individuals who have critical limb ischemia who receive spinal cord stimulation, the evidence includes systematic reviews of several small RCTs. Relevant outcomes are overall survival, symptoms, functional outcomes, quality of life, morbid events, hospitalizations, and treatment-related morbidity. In pooled analyses, spinal cord stimulation was associated with a lower risk of amputation versus control, but results were not consistently statistically significant due to differences in methodologies. The evidence is insufficient to determine that the technology results in an improvement in the net health outcome.
Treatment-Refractory Angina Pectoris
For individuals who have treatment-refractory angina pectoris who receive spinal cord stimulation, the evidence includes systematic reviews and RCTs. Relevant outcomes are overall survival, symptoms, functional outcomes, quality of life, morbid events, hospitalizations, and treatment-related morbidity. Numerous small RCTs have evaluated spinal cord stimulation as a treatment for refractory angina. While some have reported benefits, most have not. In two (2) recent RCTs, there was no significant benefit in the primary outcomes. The evidence is insufficient to determine that the technology results in an improvement in the net health outcome.
Heart Failure
For individuals who have heart failure who receive spinal cord stimulation, the evidence includes RCTs. Relevant outcomes are overall survival, symptoms, functional outcomes, quality of life, morbid events, hospitalizations, and treatment-related morbidity. An RCT (N=66) comparing spinal cord stimulation using active stimulation with sham-control in individuals who had New York Heart Association functional class III heart failure and a left ventricular ejection fraction of 35 percent or less did not find significant differences between groups but might have been underpowered to do so. The evidence is insufficient to determine that the technology results in an improvement in the net health outcome.
Cancer-Related Pain
For individuals who have cancer-related pain who receive spinal cord stimulation, the evidence includes case series. Relevant outcomes are symptoms, functional outcomes, medication use, and treatment-related morbidity. No RCTs evaluating spinal cord stimulation in this population were identified. The evidence is insufficient to determine that the technology results in an improvement in the net health outcome.
