Methods and system for recording human physiological signals from implantable leads during spinal cord stimulation.

epidural spinal cord stimulation evoked compound potential neural signal processing neuromodulation stimulation artifact removal

Journal

Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland)
ISSN: 2673-561X
Titre abrégé: Front Pain Res (Lausanne)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 9918227269806676

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
2023
Historique:
received: 17 10 2022
accepted: 23 01 2023
entrez: 20 3 2023
pubmed: 21 3 2023
medline: 21 3 2023
Statut: epublish

Résumé

This article presents a method-including hardware configuration, sampling rate, filtering settings, and other data analysis techniques-to measure evoked compound action potentials (ECAPs) during spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in humans with externalized percutaneous electrodes. The goal is to provide a robust and standardized protocol for measuring ECAPs on the non-stimulation contacts and to demonstrate how measured signals depend on hardware and processing decisions. Two participants were implanted with percutaneous leads for the treatment of chronic pain with externalized leads during a trial period for stimulation and recording. The leads were connected to a Neuralynx ATLAS system allowing us to simultaneously stimulate and record through selected electrodes. We examined different hardware settings, such as online filters and sampling rate, as well as processing techniques, such as stimulation artifact removal and offline filters, and measured the effects on the ECAPs metrics: the first negative peak (N1) time and peak-valley amplitude. For accurate measurements of ECAPs, the hardware sampling rate should be least at 8 kHz and should use a high pass filter with a low cutoff frequency, such as 0.1 Hz, to eliminate baseline drift and saturation (railing). Stimulation artifact removal can use a double exponential or a second-order polynomial. The polynomial fit is 6.4 times faster on average in computation time than the double exponential, while the resulting ECAPs' N1 time and peak-valley amplitude are similar between the two. If the baseline raw measurement drifts with stimulation, a median filter with a 100-ms window or a high pass filter with an 80-Hz cutoff frequency preserves the ECAPs. This work is the first comprehensive analysis of hardware and processing variations on the observed ECAPs from SCS leads. It sets recommendations to properly record and process ECAPs from the non-stimulation contacts on the implantable leads.

Identifiants

pubmed: 36937564
doi: 10.3389/fpain.2023.1072786
pmc: PMC10020336
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

1072786

Informations de copyright

© 2023 Ramadan, König, Zhang, Ross, Herman, Netoff and Darrow.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

TN and DD hold equity in and serve as officers for Stim Sherpa, which has licensed optimization IP from the University of Minnesota. This study was funded by Abbott Neuromodulation. The funder had the following involvement in the study: authors MZ and ER are employed by Abbott Neuromodulation, and contributed to data analysis and writing (MZ) as well as contributing to the design of the experiment and the manuscript review (MZ and ER).

Références

Neuromodulation. 2022 Jan;25(1):75-84
pubmed: 35041590
Neuromodulation. 2022 Jul;25(5):724-730
pubmed: 35088735
N Engl J Med. 2000 Aug 31;343(9):618-24
pubmed: 10965008
Comput Intell Neurosci. 2011;2011:156869
pubmed: 21253357
J Neurosurg. 2004 Mar;100(3 Suppl Spine):254-67
pubmed: 15029914
Front Neurosci. 2021 Jan 21;15:625835
pubmed: 33551738
J Pain Res. 2020 Dec 04;13:3269-3279
pubmed: 33328760
Front Neurosci. 2021 Jul 12;15:673998
pubmed: 34335157
Pain. 2012 Mar;153(3):593-601
pubmed: 22188868
J Neurosci Methods. 2010 Aug 15;191(1):45-59
pubmed: 20542059
Stereotact Funct Neurosurg. 1991;56(4):220-33
pubmed: 1808647
Bioelectron Med. 2023 Feb 28;9(1):5
pubmed: 36855060
J Neural Eng. 2020 Apr 23;17(2):026033
pubmed: 32209741
J Pain. 2020 Mar - Apr;21(3-4):399-408
pubmed: 31494275
Neuromodulation. 2013 Jul-Aug;16(4):295-303; discussion 303
pubmed: 23844589
Pain Pract. 2021 Jul;21(6):680-691
pubmed: 33768664
Neuromodulation. 2019 Apr;22(3):269-279
pubmed: 30586207
Comput Biomed Res. 1991 Apr;24(2):183-95
pubmed: 2036783
Lancet Neurol. 2020 Feb;19(2):123-134
pubmed: 31870766
Neuromodulation. 2020 Jan;23(1):64-73
pubmed: 31215720
J Neurosci Methods. 2020 Feb 15;332:108549
pubmed: 31837345
Handb Clin Neurol. 2013;116:3-18
pubmed: 24112880
J Neurosurg. 2019 Apr 19;132(5):1385-1391
pubmed: 31003217
Neuromodulation. 2022 May 9;:
pubmed: 35551869
Neuromodulation. 2022 Jul;25(5):731-737
pubmed: 35803679

Auteurs

Ahmed Ramadan (A)

Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States.

Seth D König (SD)

Department of Neurosurgery, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States.
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States.

Mingming Zhang (M)

Clinical and Applied Research, Abbott Neuromodulation, Plano, TX, United States.

Erika K Ross (EK)

Clinical and Applied Research, Abbott Neuromodulation, Plano, TX, United States.

Alexander Herman (A)

Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States.

Theoden I Netoff (TI)

Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States.

David P Darrow (DP)

Department of Neurosurgery, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States.

Classifications MeSH