Surgical treatment of refractory low back pain using implanted BurstDR spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in a cohort of patients without options for corrective surgery: Findings and results from the DISTINCT study, a prospective randomized multi-center-controlled trial.

BurstDR Chronic low back pain burst DISTINCT RCT Nonsurgical Low back pain Passive recharge burst SCS

Journal

North American Spine Society journal
ISSN: 2666-5484
Titre abrégé: N Am Spine Soc J
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9918335076906676

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Sep 2024
Historique:
received: 05 04 2024
revised: 08 06 2024
accepted: 11 06 2024
medline: 14 8 2024
pubmed: 14 8 2024
entrez: 14 8 2024
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Low back pain (LBP) is a highly prevalent, disabling condition affecting millions of people. Patients with an identifiable anatomic pain generator and resulting neuropathic lower extremity symptoms often undergo spine surgery, but many patients lack identifiable and/or surgically corrective pathology. Nonoperative treatment options often fail to provide sustained relief. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is sometimes used to treat these patients, but the lack of level 1 evidence limits its widespread use and insurance coverage. The DISTINCT RCT study evaluates the efficacy of passive recharge burst SCS compared to conventional medical treatment (CMM) in alleviating chronic, refractory axial low back pain. This prospective, multicenter, randomized, study with an optional 6-month crossover involved patients who were not candidates for lumbar spine surgery. The primary and secondary endpoints evaluated improvements in low back pain intensity (NRS), back pain-related disability (ODI), pain catastrophizing (PCS), and healthcare utilization. Patients were randomized to SCS therapy or CMM at 30 US study sites. The SCS arm reported an 85.3% NRS responder rate (≥ 50% reduction) compared to 6.2% (5/81) in the CMM arm. After the 6M primary endpoint, SCS patients elected to remain on assigned therapy and 66.2% (49/74) of CMM patients chose to trial SCS (crossover). At the 12M follow-up, SCS and crossover patients reported 78.6% and 71.4% NRS responder rates. Secondary outcomes indicated significant improvements in ODI, PCS, and reduced healthcare utilization. Six serious adverse events were reported and resolved without sequelae. DISTINCT chronic low back pain patients with no indication for corrective surgery experienced a significant and sustained response to burst SCS therapy for up to 12 months. CMM patients who crossed over to the SCS arm reported profound improvements after 6 months. This data advocates for a timely consideration of SCS therapy in patients unresponsive to conservative therapy.

Sections du résumé

Background UNASSIGNED
Low back pain (LBP) is a highly prevalent, disabling condition affecting millions of people. Patients with an identifiable anatomic pain generator and resulting neuropathic lower extremity symptoms often undergo spine surgery, but many patients lack identifiable and/or surgically corrective pathology. Nonoperative treatment options often fail to provide sustained relief. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is sometimes used to treat these patients, but the lack of level 1 evidence limits its widespread use and insurance coverage. The DISTINCT RCT study evaluates the efficacy of passive recharge burst SCS compared to conventional medical treatment (CMM) in alleviating chronic, refractory axial low back pain.
Methods UNASSIGNED
This prospective, multicenter, randomized, study with an optional 6-month crossover involved patients who were not candidates for lumbar spine surgery. The primary and secondary endpoints evaluated improvements in low back pain intensity (NRS), back pain-related disability (ODI), pain catastrophizing (PCS), and healthcare utilization. Patients were randomized to SCS therapy or CMM at 30 US study sites.
Results UNASSIGNED
The SCS arm reported an 85.3% NRS responder rate (≥ 50% reduction) compared to 6.2% (5/81) in the CMM arm. After the 6M primary endpoint, SCS patients elected to remain on assigned therapy and 66.2% (49/74) of CMM patients chose to trial SCS (crossover). At the 12M follow-up, SCS and crossover patients reported 78.6% and 71.4% NRS responder rates. Secondary outcomes indicated significant improvements in ODI, PCS, and reduced healthcare utilization. Six serious adverse events were reported and resolved without sequelae.
Conclusion UNASSIGNED
DISTINCT chronic low back pain patients with no indication for corrective surgery experienced a significant and sustained response to burst SCS therapy for up to 12 months. CMM patients who crossed over to the SCS arm reported profound improvements after 6 months. This data advocates for a timely consideration of SCS therapy in patients unresponsive to conservative therapy.

Identifiants

pubmed: 39139617
doi: 10.1016/j.xnsj.2024.100508
pii: S2666-5484(24)00201-4
pmc: PMC11321325
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

100508

Informations de copyright

© 2024 The Author(s).

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

One or more of the authors declare financial or professional relationships on ICMJE-NASSJ disclosure forms.

Auteurs

James J Yue (JJ)

Connecticut Orthopaedics, Hamden, CT, United States.

Christopher J Gilligan (CJ)

Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, United States.

Steven Falowski (S)

Center for Interventional Pain and Spine, Lancaster, PA, United States.

Jessica Jameson (J)

Axis Spine Center, Coeur d'Alene, ID, United States.

Mehul J Desai (MJ)

International Spine, Pain and Performance Center, Washington, DC, United States.

Susan Moeschler (S)

Mayo Clinic, Rochester, NY, United States.

Julie Pilitsis (J)

Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL, United States.

Robert Heros (R)

Spinal Diagnostics, Tualatin, OR, United States.

Edward Tavel (E)

Clinical Trials of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, United States.

Sayed Wahezi (S)

Montefiore Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, NY, United States.

Robert Funk (R)

Indiana Spine Group, Indianapolis, IN United States.

Patrick Buchanan (P)

Spanish Hills Interventional Pain Specialists, Camarillo, CA United States.

Anne Christopher (A)

Saint Louis Pain Consultants, Chesterfield, MO United States.

Jacqueline Weisbein (J)

Napa Valley Orthopedic Medical Group, Napa, CA United States.

Denis Patterson (D)

Nevada Advanced Pain Specialists, Reno, NV United States.

Robert Levy (R)

Anesthesia Pain Care Consultants, Tamarac, FL United States.

Ajay Antony (A)

The Orthopaedic Institute, Gainesville, FL United States.

Nathan Miller (N)

Coastal Pain & Spinal Diagnostics Medical Group, Carlsbad, CA United States.

Keith Scarfo (K)

Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, RI United States.

Scott Kreiner (S)

Barrow Brain and Spine-Ahwatukee, Phoenix, AZ United States.

Derron Wilson (D)

Goodman Campbell Brain and Spine, Greenwood, IN United States.

Chi Lim (C)

Carolina Orthopaedic and Neurosurgical Associates, Spartanburg, SC United States.

Edward Braun (E)

Kansas University Medical Center, Kansas City, KS United States.

David Dickerson (D)

Endeavor Health, Chicago, IL United States.

Jonathan Duncan (J)

Burkhart Research Institute for Orthopaedics, San Antonio, TX United States.

Jijun Xu (J)

The Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH United States.

Kenneth Candido (K)

Chicago Anesthesia Associates, SC, Chicago, IL United States.

Ibrahim Mohab (I)

Banner University Medical Center, Tucson, AZ United States.

Fishell Michael (F)

Advanced Pain Care, Henderson, NV United States.

Bram Blomme (B)

Abbott Labs, Austin, TX United States.

Udoka Okaro (U)

Abbott Labs, Austin, TX United States.

Timothy Deer (T)

The Spine and Nerve Center of the Virginias, Charleston, WV United States.

Classifications MeSH