Literature DB >> 24930992

A national survey of spinal cord stimulation trial-to-permanent conversion rates.

Kevin T Huang1, Joel Martin, Andrew Marky, Gustavo Chagoya, Jeff Hatef, Matthew A Hazzard, Steven M Thomas, Yuliya Lokhnygina, Shivanand P Lad.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Conversion rates from trial leads to permanent spinal cord stimulation (SCS) systems have recently come under scrutiny. Our goal was to examine the rate of conversion from trial lead to permanent system placement as well as identify factors associated with successful SCS conversion.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We designed a large retrospective analysis using the Thomson Reuters MarketScan database. We included all patients who underwent a percutaneous trial of neurostimulatory electrodes from the years 2000 to 2009 who were aged 18 and older. Patients were then tracked to see if they went on to receive a permanent SCS system. Patients were also analyzed in univariate and multivariate models to identify factors associated with successful conversion.
RESULTS: A total of 21,672 unique instances of percutaneous trials were identified. Overall, 41.4% of those receiving trials went on to have a permanent SCS system installed within the subsequent three months. Factors associated with increased likelihood of successful conversion included having commercial insurance (43% vs. 37%, p < 0.0001), younger age (43% for those aged 35-44 vs. 39% for those aged 65 and older, p < 0.0001), and never having had a previous percutaneous trial attempt (44% for first-time trials vs. 27% for those on their second trial vs. 14% for those on their third or later trial, p < 0.0001). In multivariate analysis, we found significant variation in conversion rate by geographic area (patients in the North Central region vs. Northeast region: odds ratio 1.48, 95% confidence interval [1.31, 1.66]; p < 0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS: In this study of a national cohort of patients, we identified specific factors associated with higher conversion rates, along with significant geographical variation. In general, there is a need for better patient selection by physicians who practice neuromodulation.
© 2014 International Neuromodulation Society.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Conversion rate; national rate; percutaneous lead trial

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24930992     DOI: 10.1111/ner.12199

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neuromodulation        ISSN: 1094-7159


  10 in total

Review 1.  A Review of Clinical Data on Salvage Therapy in Spinal Cord Stimulation.

Authors:  Rajiv D Reddy; Roya Moheimani; Gregory G Yu; Krishnan V Chakravarthy
Journal:  Neuromodulation       Date:  2019-11-07

2.  Sustained Long-Term Outcomes With Closed-Loop Spinal Cord Stimulation: 12-Month Results of the Prospective, Multicenter, Open-Label Avalon Study.

Authors:  Marc Russo; Charles Brooker; Michael J Cousins; Nathan Taylor; Tillman Boesel; Richard Sullivan; Lewis Holford; Erin Hanson; Gerrit Eduard Gmel; Nastaran Hesam Shariati; Lawrence Poree; John Parker
Journal:  Neurosurgery       Date:  2020-09-15       Impact factor: 4.654

3.  Research design considerations for randomized controlled trials of spinal cord stimulation for pain: Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials/Institute of Neuromodulation/International Neuromodulation Society recommendations.

Authors:  Nathaniel Katz; Robert H Dworkin; Richard North; Simon Thomson; Sam Eldabe; Salim M Hayek; Brian H Kopell; John Markman; Ali Rezai; Rod S Taylor; Dennis C Turk; Eric Buchser; Howard Fields; Gregory Fiore; McKenzie Ferguson; Jennifer Gewandter; Chris Hilker; Roshini Jain; Angela Leitner; John Loeser; Ewan McNicol; Turo Nurmikko; Jane Shipley; Rahul Singh; Andrea Trescot; Robert van Dongen; Lalit Venkatesan
Journal:  Pain       Date:  2021-07-01       Impact factor: 6.961

4.  Trial Versus No Trial of Spinal Cord Stimulation for Chronic Neuropathic Pain: Cost Analysis in United Kingdom National Health Service.

Authors:  Rui V Duarte; Simon Thomson
Journal:  Neuromodulation       Date:  2018-12-10

5.  60-Day PNS Treatment May Improve Identification of Delayed Responders and Delayed Non-Responders to Neurostimulation for Pain Relief.

Authors:  Ramana Naidu; Sean Li; Mehul J Desai; Samir Sheth; Nathan D Crosby; Joseph W Boggs
Journal:  J Pain Res       Date:  2022-03-14       Impact factor: 3.133

6.  Screening trials of spinal cord stimulation for neuropathic pain in England-A budget impact analysis.

Authors:  Rui V Duarte; Rachel Houten; Sarah Nevitt; Morag Brookes; Jill Bell; Jenny Earle; Ashish Gulve; Simon Thomson; Ganesan Baranidharan; Richard B North; Rod S Taylor; Sam Eldabe
Journal:  Front Pain Res (Lausanne)       Date:  2022-09-06

7.  10-kHz High-Frequency Spinal Cord Stimulation for Adults With Chronic Noncancer Pain: A Health Technology Assessment.

Authors: 
Journal:  Ont Health Technol Assess Ser       Date:  2020-03-06

8.  Specialty-Based Variations in Spinal Cord Stimulation Success Rates for Treatment of Chronic Pain.

Authors:  Syed Mohammed Qasim Hussaini; Kelly Ryan Murphy; Jing L Han; Aladine A Elsamadicy; Siyun Yang; Alykhan Premji; Beth Parente; Jichun Xie; Promila Pagadala; Shivanand P Lad
Journal:  Neuromodulation       Date:  2017-04-02

9.  The Volume-Outcome Effect: Impact on Trial-to-Permanent Conversion Rates in Spinal Cord Stimulation.

Authors:  Kelly Ryan Murphy; Jing L Han; Syed Mohammed Qasim Hussaini; Siyun Yang; Beth Parente; Jichun Xie; Shivanand P Lad
Journal:  Neuromodulation       Date:  2016-10-03

10.  Permanent Paddle-lead Trial for Spinal Cord Stimulation.

Authors:  Jonathan J Lee; Richard K Simpson; Brian Dalm
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2018-05-18
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.