A Call to Action Toward Optimizing the Electrical Dose Received by Neural Targets in Spinal Cord Stimulation Therapy for Neuropathic Pain
Krishnan Chakravarthy,Rajiv Reddy,Adnan Al-Kaisy,Thomas Yearwood,Jay Grider
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/JPR.S323372
IF: 2.8319
2021-09-07
Journal of Pain Research
Abstract:Krishnan Chakravarthy, 1, 2 Rajiv Reddy, 1 Adnan Al-Kaisy, 3 Thomas Yearwood, 3 Jay Grider 4 1 Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, University of California San Diego Health Sciences, San Diego, CA, USA; 2 VA San Diego Healthcare System, San Diego, Ca, USA; 3 Pain Management and Neuromodulation Centre at Guy's and St. Thomas' NHS Trust, London, UK; 4 Division of Pain Medicine, Department of Anesthesiology, University of Kentucky College of Medicine, Lexington, KY, 40536, USA Correspondence: Krishnan Chakravarthy Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, University of California San Diego Health Sciences, 3350 La Jolla Village Drive, San Diego, CA 92161, USA Tel +1 858-246-2392 Email Spinal cord stimulation has seen unprecedented growth in new technology in the 50 years since the first subdural implant. As we continue to grow our understanding of spinal cord stimulation and relevant mechanisms of action, novel questions arise as to electrical dosing optimization. Programming adjustment — dose titration — is often a process of trial and error that can be time-consuming and frustrating for both patient and clinician. In this report, we review the current preclinical and clinical knowledge base in order to provide insights that may be helpful in developing more rational approaches to spinal cord stimulation dosing. We also provide key conclusions that may help in directing future research into electrical dosing, given the advent of newer waveforms outside traditional programming parameters. Keywords: neural dosing, pharmacology, neuromodulation, spinal cord stimulation, electrical dosing For pain medicine, optimizing the dosage of pharmaceuticals means that the medication choice and amount, route of administration, and frequency are carefully titrated to maximize efficacy while minimizing side effects. 1–3 Generally, this means using the lowest effective dose. In intrathecal drug delivery, this concept has gained traction in that an equivalent or perhaps superior clinical outcome can be achieved with a substantially lower daily dose of drug. 4 Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a medical option within interventional pain medicine. Although used clinically for more than 50 years, SCS has gained a great deal of interest in recent years, as it represents a drug-free option for ongoing management of chronic pain, such as back pain, radicular pain, complex regional pain syndrome (which includes causalgia), peripheral neuropathies, and other neuropathic pain conditions. 5–7 Traditionally, for SCS therapy, electrodes are implanted in the epidural space overlying the portions of the dorsal column of the spinal cord that somatotopically correspond to the painful dermatomes of the body. An electrical current is then delivered to the electrodes by means of an implanted pulse generator that often includes an implanted battery. The electricity induces changes in the electrical potential of the cell membranes of axons in the spinal cord, in many cases generating action potentials that propagate anti- and orthodromically to modulate neurons in the gray matter of the spinal cord, as well as brain sites. On a basic level, this is thought to modulate neural function within pain pathways in various ways depending on the pattern of stimulation to help mask or relieve pain. SCS is often considered successful when pain is reduced by 50% or more. Importantly, SCS can reduce pain severity sufficiently to allow some pain patients to reduce their use of medications and break free of opioid dependence. 8,9 A landmark randomized controlled trial comparing SCS with conventional medical management showed that the former provided better leg pain relief, quality of life, and functional capacity and could be sustained through 24 months. 10 In the last decade, innovations in SCS have led to the development of new electrical waveforms. Where SCS was once limited to square pulses delivered in a consistent stream at a set frequency (2–1,200 Hz), pulse width (1–1,000 microseconds), and amplitude (0–20 mA), these programming parameters are still commonly used today, but are now often referred to as "traditional tonic stimulation." New stimulation patterns and frequencies now include burst SCS (pulsatile packets of stimulation with different charge recovery strategies) and high-frequency SCS, the definition of which is contentious: some claim it to have a low range of 1kHz, while others claim it needs to be >1.2 kHz, the traditional upper limit of most commercially available implantable pulse generators, yet others claim it refers only to stimulation of 5–10kHz. Examples are shown in Figure 1. High-density or high-dose SCS, in which longer pulse widths and/or highe -Abstract Truncated-
clinical neurology