Lack of electrical interference between spinal cord stimulators and other implanted electrical pulse devices

Spinal cord stimulation in a patient with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator for managing chronic chest pain: a case report and literature review

The simultaneous use of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) and an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is safe and effective in selected patients with refractory chest pain. Our case highlights successful pain management with SCS without compromising ICD function. Careful patient selection, low device settings, and ongoing monitoring are crucial for achieving optimal outcomes.

Feasibility of Spinal Cord Stimulation in Patients With Refractory Angina Pectoris and a Cardiac Implanted Electronic Device

OBJECTIVES

Five to 10% of patients with stable coronary artery disease have refractory angina pectoris (RAP). These patients are restricted in performing daily activities due to angina pectoris. Spinal cord stimulation is a last resort treatment option. A number of this patient population also has an indication for a cardiac implanted electronic device (CIED) (pacemaker or implantable cardiac defibrillator). Manufacturers of spinal cord stimulators have stated a warning that interference can occur between the spinal cord stimulator and the CIED. Consequently, only a limited number of patients with RAP and a CIED have received a spinal cord stimulator. The aim of this retrospective cohort study is to determine whether spinal cord stimulation can be safely used in patients with RAP and a CIED.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All patients with RAP referred to our center were screened and included if 1) the patient received a spinal cord stimulator as treatment for RAP and if 2) the patient received a CIED either prior to or after spinal cord stimulator implantation. A transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) treadmill test was used as a screening tool to determine whether the patient was eligible for implantation of a spinal cord stimulator. Interference between the spinal cord stimulator and CIED was checked 1) after TENS treadmill test, 2) during implantation of spinal cord stimulator or CIED, 3) during mode switches of the SCS, and 4) during regular out patient follow-up.

RESULTS

In total, 22 patients had both a spinal cord stimulator and a CIED with an average follow-up duration of 44.5 months. No interference between the spinal cord stimulator and CIED was found.

CONCLUSION

Spinal cord stimulation can be safely applied in patients with a CIED provided that the CIED is checked for interference during implantation, if mode switches of the SCS occurred and once yearly after implantation according to routine follow-up.

Use of Spinal Cord Stimulators in Patients With Pacemakers or Implantable Cardiac Defibrillators: A Review of Documented Accounts of Interference

OBJECTIVES

To assess the currently available evidence regarding associations between spinal cord stimulator (SCS) lead type, clinical indications for device placement, and interference between SCSs and cardiac pacemakers (CPMs)/implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs).

STUDY DESIGN

Review of case reports and original research studies assessing the interference between SCS and CPM/ICD.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PubMed and Cochrane databases were searched for articles commenting on the interference between SCS and CPM/ICD. The search criteria which generated the greatest number of relevant studies was (spinal cord stimulator AND [pacemaker OR implantable cardioverter defibrillator]). Additional, empiric review was conducted using JSTOR, ScienceDirect, and EBSCOhost databases; however, no additional eligible studies were identified. Data were extracted, summarized into tables, and quantitatively analyzed using LibreTexts and MedCalc software.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant interference observed between SCS and CPM/ICD devices in patients regardless of indication for SCS placement and SCS lead polarity.

LIMITATIONS

Limited by variability of patient cases and variability in maximum frequency and amplitude of SCS devices tried in individual cases. Also limited by small sample size and the absence of a standard definition for device interference across studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Interference between cardiac devices and SCSs is a rare occurrence. As there are currently no published guidelines, devices should be interrogated on a case-by-case basis in the SCS trial period (if implanted after cardiac device), during permanent implantation, and during scheduled follow-up visits. Peri-operative testing should include increasing the SCS settings to maximally tolerated levels with cardiac device set at its maximum sensitivity.