Literature DB >> 21084162

Spinal cord stimulation for the treatment of refractory angina pectoris: a multicenter randomized single-blind study (the SCS-ITA trial).

Gaetano A Lanza1, Roberto Grimaldi, Salvatore Greco, Stefano Ghio, Filippo Sarullo, Guerrino Zuin, Anna De Luca, Massimo Allegri, Francesco Di Pede, Davide Castagno, Annalisa Turco, Monica Sapio, Giampaolo Pinato, Beatrice Cioni, Giampaolo Trevi, Filippo Crea.   

Abstract

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is believed to be effective in treating refractory angina. The need for SCS-related chest paresthesia, however, has hitherto made impossible placebo-controlled trials. Subliminal (non paresthesic) SCS, however, might be also effective on anginal pain. In this trial we compared subliminal SCS with paresthesic SCS and with sham SCS. Twenty-five refractory angina patients, who had never received SCS before, underwent SCS device implantation and were randomized to three groups: paresthesic SCS (group PS; n=10), subliminal SCS (group SS; n=7) or "sham" SCS (group NS; n=8). After 1month group NS patients were randomized to either group PS or SS. After 1month, changes in angina episodes (p=0.016), nitroglycerin use (p=0.015), angina class (p=0.02), quality of life score (p=0.05), and items 2 (p=0.008) and 3 (p=0.009) of Seattle angina questionnaire differed significantly among groups. Group PS showed significant improvement in outcomes compared to group NS, whereas there were no significant differences between groups SS and NS; furthermore, only nitroglycerin use differed significantly between groups PS and SS. At 3months, a significant difference between groups PS and SS was observed in angina attacks (p=0.002), but not in other variables. Thus, in this study, paresthesic, but not subliminal SCS was superior to sham SCS in improving clinical status in refractory angina patients. The lack of significant differences between PS and SS groups in this small study suggests that a possible role for subliminal SCS in individual patients deserves to be assessed in larger trials with appropriate statistical power.
Copyright © 2010 International Association for the Study of Pain. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21084162     DOI: 10.1016/j.pain.2010.08.044

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pain        ISSN: 0304-3959            Impact factor:   6.961


  10 in total

Review 1.  Spinal cord stimulation: a review.

Authors:  Aaron K Compton; Binit Shah; Salim M Hayek
Journal:  Curr Pain Headache Rep       Date:  2012-02

2.  Long-term quality of life improvement for chronic intractable back and leg pain patients using spinal cord stimulation: 12-month results from the SENZA-RCT.

Authors:  Kasra Amirdelfan; Cong Yu; Matthew W Doust; Bradford E Gliner; Donna M Morgan; Leonardo Kapural; Ricardo Vallejo; B Todd Sitzman; Thomas L Yearwood; Richard Bundschu; Thomas Yang; Ramsin Benyamin; Abram H Burgher; Elizabeth S Brooks; Ashley A Powell; Jeyakumar Subbaroyan
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2018-06-01       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 3.  Neural mechanisms of atrial arrhythmias.

Authors:  Mark J Shen; Eue-Keun Choi; Alex Y Tan; Shien-Fong Lin; Michael C Fishbein; Lan S Chen; Peng-Sheng Chen
Journal:  Nat Rev Cardiol       Date:  2011-09-27       Impact factor: 32.419

4.  The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation for refractory angina (RASCAL study): study protocol for a pilot randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Sam Eldabe; John Raphael; Simon Thomson; Andrea Manca; Mark de Belder; Rajesh Aggarwal; Matthew Banks; Morag Brookes; Susan Merotra; Rashidat Adeniba; Ed Davies; Rod S Taylor
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2013-02-22       Impact factor: 2.279

Review 5.  Treatment of refractory angina in patients not suitable for revascularization.

Authors:  Timothy D Henry; Daniel Satran; E Marc Jolicoeur
Journal:  Nat Rev Cardiol       Date:  2013-12-24       Impact factor: 32.419

6.  Spinal cord stimulation versus other therapies in patients with Refractory Angina: A meta-analysis.

Authors:  Shaocheng Wang; Qixian Li; Hongwei Fang; Hao Yang; Diansan Su; Yuan-Xiang Tao; Zhankui Wang; Xiangrui Wang; Zhongwei Yang
Journal:  Transl Perioper Pain Med       Date:  2017

7.  The Impact of Electrical Charge Delivery on Inhibition of Mechanical Hypersensitivity in Nerve-Injured Rats by Sub-Sensory Threshold Spinal Cord Stimulation.

Authors:  Zhiyong Chen; Qian Huang; Fei Yang; Christine Shi; Eellan Sivanesan; Shuguang Liu; Xueming Chen; Sridevi V Sarma; Louis P Vera-Portocarrero; Bengt Linderoth; Srinivasa N Raja; Yun Guan
Journal:  Neuromodulation       Date:  2018-12-17

Review 8.  Spinal Cord Stimulation for Refractory Angina Pectoris: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Xiaoxiao Pan; Hongguang Bao; Yanna Si; Chenjie Xu; Hao Chen; Xianzhong Gao; Xinyi Xie; Yajie Xu; Fan Sun; Lingqing Zeng
Journal:  Clin J Pain       Date:  2017-06       Impact factor: 3.442

9.  Randomized Placebo-/Sham-Controlled Trials of Spinal Cord Stimulation: A Systematic Review and Methodological Appraisal.

Authors:  Rui V Duarte; Ewan McNicol; Luana Colloca; Rod S Taylor; Richard B North; Sam Eldabe
Journal:  Neuromodulation       Date:  2019-07-15

10.  Spinal cord stimulation reduces cardiac pain through microglial deactivation in rats with chronic myocardial ischemia.

Authors:  Jian Wang; Xiao-Chen Wu; Ming-Ming Zhang; Jia-Hao Ren; Yi Sun; Jing-Zhen Liu; Xi-Qiang Wu; Si-Yi He; Yun-Qing Li; Jin-Bao Zhang
Journal:  Mol Med Rep       Date:  2021-10-05       Impact factor: 2.952

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.