TY - JOUR
T1 - Anatomic Lead Placement Without Paresthesia Mapping Provides Effective and Predictable Therapy During the Trial Evaluation Period
T2 - Results From the Prospective, Multicenter, Randomized, DELIVERY Study
AU - Pope, Jason E.
AU - Schu, Stefan
AU - Sayed, Dawood
AU - Raslan, Ahmed M.
AU - Baranidharan, Ganesan
AU - Heros, Robert D.
AU - Blomme, Bram
AU - Capobianco, Robyn A.
AU - Deer, Timothy R.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2019 International Neuromodulation Society
PY - 2020/1/1
Y1 - 2020/1/1
N2 - Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the trial success rate between anatomic lead placement (AP) and paresthesia-mapped (PM) lead placement techniques for spinal cord stimulation (SCS) using a nonlinear burst stimulation pattern. Materials and Methods: Eligible patients with back and/or leg pain with a Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) score of ≥6 who had not undergone previous SCS were enrolled in the study. A total of 270 patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to each treatment arm. In the AP group, one lead tip was placed at the mid-body of T8, and the other at the superior endplate of T9. In the PM group, physicians confirmed coverage of the patient's primary pain location. Trial success was a composite of the following: ≥50% patient-reported pain relief at the end of the minimum three-day trial period, physician's recommendation, and patient's interest in a permanent implant. Results: Trial success for AP vs. PM groups was equivalent to 84.4% and 82.3%, respectively. Physicians who performed both techniques preferred AP technique (70% vs. 30%). Procedure times for placement of two leads were 31% shorter in the AP group (p < 0.0001). Decrease in the mean NRS pain score was similar between groups (53.2%, AP group; 53.8%, PM group, p = 0.79). Trial success for patients who went on to an extended trial with tonic stimulation was 50% (5/10) vs. 79% (11/14) for AP group and PM group, respectively (p = 0.2). A total of 13 adverse events were observed (4.5%), most commonly lead migrations and pain around implant site, with no difference between groups. Conclusions: When using a nonlinear burst stimulation pattern, anatomic or PM lead placement technique may be used. Nonresponders to subthreshold stimulation had a higher conversion rate when a PM technique was used. AP resulted in shorter procedure times with a similar safety profile and was strongly preferred by trialing physicians.
AB - Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the trial success rate between anatomic lead placement (AP) and paresthesia-mapped (PM) lead placement techniques for spinal cord stimulation (SCS) using a nonlinear burst stimulation pattern. Materials and Methods: Eligible patients with back and/or leg pain with a Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) score of ≥6 who had not undergone previous SCS were enrolled in the study. A total of 270 patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to each treatment arm. In the AP group, one lead tip was placed at the mid-body of T8, and the other at the superior endplate of T9. In the PM group, physicians confirmed coverage of the patient's primary pain location. Trial success was a composite of the following: ≥50% patient-reported pain relief at the end of the minimum three-day trial period, physician's recommendation, and patient's interest in a permanent implant. Results: Trial success for AP vs. PM groups was equivalent to 84.4% and 82.3%, respectively. Physicians who performed both techniques preferred AP technique (70% vs. 30%). Procedure times for placement of two leads were 31% shorter in the AP group (p < 0.0001). Decrease in the mean NRS pain score was similar between groups (53.2%, AP group; 53.8%, PM group, p = 0.79). Trial success for patients who went on to an extended trial with tonic stimulation was 50% (5/10) vs. 79% (11/14) for AP group and PM group, respectively (p = 0.2). A total of 13 adverse events were observed (4.5%), most commonly lead migrations and pain around implant site, with no difference between groups. Conclusions: When using a nonlinear burst stimulation pattern, anatomic or PM lead placement technique may be used. Nonresponders to subthreshold stimulation had a higher conversion rate when a PM technique was used. AP resulted in shorter procedure times with a similar safety profile and was strongly preferred by trialing physicians.
KW - Burst stimulation therapy
KW - chronic pain
KW - intraoperative paresthesia testing
KW - lead placement
KW - spinal cord stimulation
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85069899751&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85069899751&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1111/ner.13019
DO - 10.1111/ner.13019
M3 - Article
C2 - 31323175
AN - SCOPUS:85069899751
SN - 1094-7159
VL - 23
SP - 109
EP - 117
JO - Neuromodulation
JF - Neuromodulation
IS - 1
ER -