Hypothesis for the mechanism of action of ECAP-controlled closed-loop systems for spinal cord stimulation.
ECAP-controlled closed-loop systems
bioelectric potentials
biomedical electrodes
clinical research
closed loop systems
closed-loop control adjusts
closed-loop operational modes
evoked compound action potential recording
improved pain relief
improving therapeutic systems
measured neural recruitment
medical computing
nervous system
neural activity
neuromodulation applications
neuromuscular stimulation
neurophysiology
patient treatment
relates more consistent neural recruitment
spinal cord stimulation
spinal cord stimulators
stimulation parameters
therapeutic benefit
Journal
Healthcare technology letters
ISSN: 2053-3713
Titre abrégé: Healthc Technol Lett
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101646459
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jun 2020
Jun 2020
Historique:
received:
01
12
2019
revised:
06
05
2020
accepted:
15
05
2020
entrez:
6
8
2020
pubmed:
6
8
2020
medline:
6
8
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Advances in technology and improvement of efficacy for many neuromodulation applications have been achieved without understanding the relationship between the stimulation parameters and the neural activity which is generated in the nervous system. It is the neural activity that ultimately drives the therapeutic benefit and the advent of evoked compound action potential recording allows this activity to be directly measured and quantified. Closed-loop control adjusts the stimulation parameters to maintain a predetermined level of neural recruitment and has been shown to provide improved pain relief in individuals with spinal cord stimulators. However, no mechanism that relates more consistent neural recruitment to patient outcomes has been proposed. The authors propose a hypothesis that may explain the difference in efficacy between open- and closed-loop operational modes by considering the relationship between measured neural recruitment with hypothetical dose and side effect response curves. This provides a rational basis for directing clinical research and improving therapeutic systems.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32754341
doi: 10.1049/htl.2019.0110
pii: HTL.2019.0110
pmc: PMC7353820
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
76-80Références
Nature. 2003 Aug 21;424(6951):938-42
pubmed: 12931188
Lancet Neurol. 2020 Feb;19(2):123-134
pubmed: 31870766
Annu Rev Neurosci. 2009;32:1-32
pubmed: 19400724
Pain. 2000 Apr;85(3):503-21
pubmed: 10781925
Eur J Pain. 2004 Apr;8(2):135-43
pubmed: 14987623
Brain Res Bull. 2011 Nov 25;86(5-6):454-9
pubmed: 21864655
Neuromodulation. 2016 Jun;19(4):373-84
pubmed: 27150431
Exp Brain Res. 2009 Jun;196(1):115-28
pubmed: 19242687
J Neurophysiol. 2014 Aug 1;112(3):552-67
pubmed: 24790169
Pain. 2015 Jun;156(6):1008-17
pubmed: 25974163
Pain Pract. 2013 Feb;13(2):154-68
pubmed: 22780956
Brain Res. 2014 Jun 20;1569:19-31
pubmed: 24802658
Int J Mol Sci. 2018 Jul 24;19(8):
pubmed: 30042373
Neuroscience. 2011 Dec 29;199:470-80
pubmed: 22001681
Eur J Pain. 2008 Jan;12(1):132-6
pubmed: 17475522
Brain Res Brain Res Rev. 2004 Oct;46(2):131-45
pubmed: 15464202
Eur J Pain. 2004 Aug;8(4):377-83
pubmed: 15207519
Neuromodulation. 2018 Jan;21(1):38-47
pubmed: 28922517
Anesthesiology. 2015 Oct;123(4):851-60
pubmed: 26218762
J Pain. 2006 Jan;7(1 Suppl 1):S3-S12
pubmed: 16426998
J Physiol. 2009 Mar 1;587(Pt 5):1013-32
pubmed: 19124536
Nature. 2005 Dec 15;438(7070):1017-21
pubmed: 16355225
J Peripher Nerv Syst. 2009 Dec;14(4):279-84
pubmed: 20021569
J Neurosci. 2013 Nov 6;33(45):17691-709
pubmed: 24198362
Pain. 2012 Mar;153(3):593-601
pubmed: 22188868
Neuromodulation. 2017 Aug;20(6):543-552
pubmed: 28714533
Cell Mol Neurobiol. 2011 Apr;31(3):459-67
pubmed: 21259048