Fiber Threshold Accommodation as a Mechanism of Burst and High-Frequency Spinal Cord Stimulation

History and Future of Spinal Cord Stimulation

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a surgical treatment for chronic neuropathic pain refractory to medical management. An SCS system comprised one or more leads implanted in the epidural space, typically connected to an implantable pulse generator. This review discusses the history, indications, surgical technique, technological advances, and future directions of SCS.

Ninety-Hz Spinal Cord Stimulation-Induced Analgesia Is Dependent on Active Charge Balance and Is Nonlinearly Related to Amplitude: A Sham-Controlled Behavioral Study in a Rodent Model of Chronic Neuropathic Pain

BACKGROUND

Ninety-Hz active-recharge spinal cord stimulation (SCS) applied at below sensory-threshold intensity, as used with fast-acting subperception therapy spinal cord stimulation, has been shown clinically to produce significant analgesia, but additional characterization is required to better understand the therapy. This preclinical study investigates the behavioral effect of multiple 90-Hz SCS variants in a rodent model of neuropathic pain, focusing on charge balance and the relationship between 90-Hz efficacy and stimulation intensity.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Rats (n = 24) received a unilateral partial sciatic nerve ligation to induce neuropathic pain and were implanted with a quadripolar lead at T13. Mechanical hypersensitivity was assessed before, during, and after 60 minutes of SCS. After a prescreen with 50-Hz SCS 67% motor threshold ([MT], the positive control), rats underwent a randomized-crossover study including sham SCS and several 90-Hz SCS paradigms (at 40% MT or 60% MT, either using active or pseudopassive recharge) (experiment 1, n = 16). A second, identical experiment (experiment 2) was performed to supplement data with 90-Hz SCS at 20% and 80% MT (experiment 2, n = 8).

RESULTS

Experiment 1: At 40% MT, 90-Hz active-recharge SCS produced a significantly larger recovery to baseline than did 90-Hz pseudopassive SCS at both tested intensities and sham SCS. Experiment 2: Only the 90-Hz SCS active recharge at 40% MT and 50-Hz SCS positive control caused mean recovery to baseline that was statistically better than that of sham SCS.

CONCLUSIONS

The degree to which 90-Hz SCS reduced mechanical hypersensitivity during stimulation depended on the nature of charge balance, with 90-Hz active-recharge SCS generating better responses than did 90-Hz pseudopassive recharge SCS. In addition, our findings suggest that the amplitude of 90-Hz active-recharge SCS must be carefully configured for efficacy.

Neurotechnology for Pain

Neurotechnologies for treating pain rely on electrical stimulation of the central or peripheral nervous system to disrupt or block pain signaling and have been commercialized to treat a variety of pain conditions. While their adoption is accelerating, neurotechnologies are still frequently viewed as a last resort, after many other treatment options have been explored. We review the pain conditions commonly treated with electrical stimulation, as well as the specific neurotechnologies used for treating those conditions. We identify barriers to adoption, including a limited understanding of mechanisms of action, inconsistent efficacy across patients, and challenges related to selectivity of stimulation and off-target side effects. We describe design improvements that have recently been implemented, as well as some cutting-edge technologies that may address the limitations of existing neurotechnologies. Addressing these challenges will accelerate adoption and change neurotechnologies from last-line to first-line treatments for people living with chronic pain.

Combination therapy with simultaneous delivery of spinal cord stimulation modalities: COMBO randomized controlled trial

Aim: The Combining Mechanisms for Better Outcomes randomized controlled trial assessed the effectiveness of various spinal cord stimulation (SCS) modalities for chronic pain. Specifically, combination therapy (simultaneous use of customized sub-perception field and paresthesia-based SCS) versus monotherapy (paresthesia-based SCS) was evaluated. Methods: Participants were prospectively enrolled (key inclusion criterion: chronic pain for ≥6 months). Primary end point was the proportion with ≥50% pain reduction without increased opioids at the 3-month follow-up. Patients were followed for 2 years. Results: The primary end point was met (n = 89; p < 0.0001) in 88% of patients in the combination-therapy arm (n = 36/41) and 71% in the monotherapy arm (n = 34/48). Responder rates at 1 and 2 years (with available SCS modalities) were 84% and 85%, respectively. Sustained functional outcomes improvement was observed out to 2 years. Conclusion: SCS-based combination therapy can improve outcomes in patients with chronic pain. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03689920 (ClinicalTrials.gov), Combining Mechanisms for Better Outcomes (COMBO).

Comparison of the Interference Effects on Somatosensory Evoked Potential from Tonic, Burst, and High-dose Spinal Cord Stimulations

Spinal cord stimulations have been used widely to treat intractable neuropathic pain. The conventional spinal cord stimulation paradigm, the “tonic” type, suppresses excessive activation of wide dynamic range neurons in the dorsal horn via the collateral branch from the dorsal column. Therefore, preserved dorsal column function is an important prerequisite for tonic spinal cord stimulations. A tonic spinal cord stimulation requires eliciting paresthesia in the painful area due to stimulation of the dorsal column and dorsal root. Recent spinal cord stimulation paradigms, including burst and high-dose, are set below the paresthesia threshold and are proposed to have different pain reduction mechanisms. We conducted an interference study of these different stimulation paradigms on the somatosensory evoked potential (SEP) to investigate differences in the sites of action between tonic and new spinal cord stimulations. We recorded posterior tibial nerve-stimulated SEP in seven patients with neuropathic pain during tonic, burst, and high-dose stimulations. The total electrical energy delivered was calculated during SEP-spinal cord stimulation interference studies. High-dose stimulations could not reduce the SEP amplitude despite higher energy delivery than tonic stimulation. Burst stimulation with an energy similar to the tonic stimulation could not reduce SEP amplitude as tonic stimulation. The study results suggested different sites of action and effects on the spinal cord between the conventional tonic and burst or high-dose spinal cord stimulations.

A New Direction for Closed-Loop Spinal Cord Stimulation: Combining Contemporary Therapy Paradigms with Evoked Compound Action Potential Sensing

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) utilizes the delivery of mild electrical pulses via epidural electrodes placed on the dorsal side of the spinal cord, typically to treat chronic pain. The first clinical use of SCS involved the delivery of paresthesia inducing, low-frequency waveforms to the neural targets corresponding to the painful areas. Contemporary SCS therapies now leverage novel therapeutic pathways to limit paresthesia and deliver superior clinical outcomes. Historically, SCS has largely been delivered with fixed stimulation parameters. This approach, referred to as open-loop (OL) SCS, does not account for the fluctuations in spacing—driven by postural changes and activity—between the electrodes and the cord. These fluctuations result in variability in the delivered dose and the volume of tissue activation (VTA) that manifests with each stimulation pulse. Inconsistent dosing may lead to suboptimal therapeutic efficacy and durability. To address this clinical need, closed-loop (CL) SCS systems have been developed to automatically adjust stimulation parameters to compensate for this variability. The evoked compound action potential (ECAP), a biopotential generated by the synchronous activation of dorsal column fibers, is indicative of the VTA resulting from the stimulation pulse. The ECAP may be utilized as a control signal in CL SCS systems to adjust stimulation parameters to reduce variability in the ECAP, and in turn, variability in the VTA. While investigational CL SCS systems with ECAP sensing have so far focused solely on managing paresthesia-based SCS, such systems must also incorporate the stimulation approaches that now define the contemporary clinical practice of SCS. Accordingly, we describe here a flexible, next-generation framework for neural responsive SCS that blends science-based methodologies for pain management with real-time CL control for biophysical variation. We conclude with a clinical example of such a system and the associated performance characteristics.

Tonic, Burst, and Burst-Cycle Spinal Cord Stimulation Lead to Differential Brain Activation Patterns as Detected by Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this preclinical study was to examine the responses of the brain to noxious stimulation in the presence and absence of different modes of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) using blood-oxygen-level-dependent functional magnetic resonance imaging (BOLD-fMRI).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sprague-Dawley rats were randomized to groups based on the mode of SCS delivered which included tonic stimulation (n = 27), burst stimulation (n = 30), and burst-cycle stimulation (n = 29). The control (sham) group (n = 28) received no SCS. The SCS electrode was inserted between T10 and T12 spinal levels prior to fMRI session. The experimental protocol for fMRI acquisition consisted of an initial noxious stimulation phase, a treatment phase wherein the SCS was turned on concurrently with noxious stimulation, and a residual effect phase wherein the noxious stimulation alone was turned on. The responses were statistically analyzed through paired t-test and the results were presented as z-scores for the quantitative analysis of the fMRI data.

RESULTS

The treatment with different SCS modes attenuated the BOLD brain responses to noxious hindlimb stimulation. The tonic, burst, and burst-cycle SCS treatment attenuated BOLD responses in the caudate putamen (CPu), insula (In), and secondary somatosensory cortex (S2). There was little to no corresponding change in sham control in these three regions. The burst and burst-cycle SCS demonstrated greater attenuation of BOLD signals in CPu, In, and S2 compared to tonic stimulation.

CONCLUSION

The high-resolution fMRI study using a rat model demonstrated the potential of different SCS modes to act on several pain-matrix-related regions of the brain in response to noxious stimulation. The burst and burst-cycle SCS exhibited greater brain activity reduction in response to noxious hindlimb stimulation in the caudate putamen, insula, and secondary somatosensory cortex compared to tonic stimulation.

Management of Chronic and Neuropathic Pain with 10 kHz Spinal Cord Stimulation Technology: Summary of Findings from Preclinical and Clinical Studies

Since the inception of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in 1967, the technology has evolved dramatically with important advancements in waveforms and frequencies. One such advancement is Nevro’s Senza^® SCS System for HF10, which received Food and Drug and Administration (FDA) approval in 2015. Low-frequency SCS works by activating large-diameter Aβ fibers in the lateral discriminatory pathway (pain location, intensity, quality) at the dorsal column (DC), creating paresthesia-based stimulation at lower-frequencies (30–120 Hz), high-amplitude (3.5–8.5 mA), and longer-duration/pulse-width (100–500 μs). In contrast, high-frequency 10 kHz SCS works with a proposed different mechanism of action that is paresthesia-free with programming at a frequency of 10,000 Hz, low amplitude (1–5 mA), and short-duration/pulse-width (30 μS). This stimulation pattern selectively activates inhibitory interneurons in the dorsal horn (DH) at low stimulation intensities, which do not activate the dorsal column fibers. This ostensibly leads to suppression of hyperexcitable wide dynamic range neurons (WDR), which are sensitized and hyperactive in chronic pain states. It has also been reported to act on the medial pathway (drives attention and pain perception), in addition to the lateral pathways. Other theories include a reversible depolarization blockade, desynchronization of neural signals, membrane integration, glial–neuronal interaction, and induced temporal summation. The body of clinical evidence regarding 10 kHz SCS treatment for chronic back pain and neuropathic pain continues to grow. There is high-quality evidence supporting its use in patients with persistent back and radicular pain, particularly after spinal surgery. High-frequency 10 kHz SCS studies have demonstrated robust statistically and clinically significant superiority in pain control, compared to paresthesia-based SCS, supported by level I clinical evidence. Yet, as the field continues to grow with the technological advancements of multiple waveforms and programming stimulation algorithms, we encourage further research to focus on the ability to modulate pain with precision and efficacy, as the field of neuromodulation continues to adapt to the modern healthcare era.

A Regions of Interest Voxel-Based Morphometry Study of the Human Brain During High-Frequency Spinal Cord Stimulation in Patients With Failed Back Surgery Syndrome

INTRODUCTION

The effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) as pain-relieving treatment for failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) has already been demonstrated. However, potential structural and functional brain alterations resulting from subsensory SCS are less clear. The aim of this study was to test structural volumetric changes in a priori chosen regions of interest related to chronic pain after 1 month and 3 months of high-frequency SCS in patients with FBSS.

METHODS

Eleven patients with FBSS who were scheduled for SCS device implantation were included in this study. All patients underwent a magnetic resonance imaging protocol before SCS device implantation 1 and 3 months after high-frequency SCS. Pain intensity, pain catastrophizing, and sleep quality were also measured. Regions-of-interest voxel-based morphometry was used to explore grey matter volumetric changes over time. Additionally, volumetric changes were correlated with changes in pain intensity, catastrophizing, and sleep quality.

RESULTS

Significant decreases were found in volume in the left and right hippocampus over time. More specifically, a significant difference was revealed between volumes before SCS implantation and after 3 months of SCS. Repeated-measures correlations revealed a significant positive correlation between volumetric changes in the left hippocampus and changes in back pain score over time and between volumetric changes in the right hippocampus and changes in back pain score over time.

CONCLUSION

In patients with FBSS, high-frequency SCS influences structural brain regions over time. The volume of the hippocampus was decreased bilaterally after 3 months of high-frequency SCS with a positive correlation with back pain intensity.