Literature DB >> 27696607

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

Kelly Ryan Murphy1, Jing L Han1, Syed Mohammed Qasim Hussaini1, Siyun Yang2, Beth Parente1, Jichun Xie2, Shivanand P Lad1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Conversion rates from trial leads to permanent spinal cord stimulation (SCS) systems have important implications for healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and pain management. We hypothesized that there is a volume-outcome effect, with chronic pain patients who visit high volume SCS implanters will have higher trial-to-permanent conversion rates.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We designed a large, retrospective analysis using the Truven MarketScan database analyzing adult SCS patients with provider information available, with or without IPG implantation from the years 2007 to 2012 was designed. Patients were divided into three provider-based groups: high (>25), medium (9-24), and low (3-8) volume providers. Univariate and multivariate models identified factors associated with successful conversion.
RESULTS: A total of 17,850 unique trial implants were performed by 3028 providers. Of 13,879 patients with baseline data available, 8981 (64.7%) progressed to permanent SCS. Higher volume providers were associated with slightly higher conversion rates (65.9% vs. 63.3% low volume, p = 0.029), explant rates (9.2% vs. 7.7% medium volume, p = 0.026), younger age (52.0 ± 13.4 years vs. 53.0 ± 13.4 years, p = 0.0026), Medicare/Medicaid (47.8% vs. 35.0% low volume, p < 0.0001), Southern region (53.5% vs. 38.9% low volume, p < 0.0001), and higher Charlson comorbidity scores (1.0 [SD = 1.4], p = 0.0002). Multivariate regression results showed female gender (1.13 [95% CI: 1.05-1.22], p < 0.001) and high volume providers associated with higher odds of successful trial conversion (1.12 [95% CI: 1.02-1.22], p = 0.014).
CONCLUSIONS: In this nationwide analysis, high volume providers achieved higher trial-to-permanent SCS conversion rates than lower volume providers. The study has implications for both training requirements and referral patterns to delineate minimum implant experience necessary for provider proficiency. Future studies may be useful to understand HCRU differences.
© 2016 International Neuromodulation Society.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Chronic pain; outcomes; spinal cord stimulator (SCS); trial conversion; volume-outcome effect

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27696607      PMCID: PMC5378689          DOI: 10.1111/ner.12526

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


  46 in total

1.  Spinal cord stimulation versus repeated lumbosacral spine surgery for chronic pain: a randomized, controlled trial.

Authors:  Richard B North; David H Kidd; Farrokh Farrokhi; Steven A Piantadosi
Journal:  Neurosurgery       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 4.654

2.  Factors affecting spinal cord stimulation outcome in chronic benign pain with suggestions to improve success rate.

Authors:  K Kumar; J R Wilson
Journal:  Acta Neurochir Suppl       Date:  2007

3.  Short test-period spinal cord stimulation for failed back surgery syndrome.

Authors:  N G Rainov; V Heidecke; W Burkert
Journal:  Minim Invasive Neurosurg       Date:  1996-06

4.  Effect of provider volume on resource utilization for surgical procedures of the knee.

Authors:  Nitin Jain; Ricardo Pietrobon; Ulrich Guller; Anoop Shankar; Ajit S Ahluwalia; Laurence D Higgins
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2004-08-04       Impact factor: 4.342

Review 5.  Volume-outcome relationships in neurosurgery.

Authors:  Jason M Davies; Alp Ozpinar; Michael T Lawton
Journal:  Neurosurg Clin N Am       Date:  2014-12-15       Impact factor: 2.509

6.  Epidural spinal cord stimulation for treatment of chronic pain--some predictors of success. A 15-year experience.

Authors:  K Kumar; C Toth; R K Nath; P Laing
Journal:  Surg Neurol       Date:  1998-08

7.  Surgeon volume as an indicator of outcomes after carotid endarterectomy: an effect independent of specialty practice and hospital volume.

Authors:  John A Cowan; Justin B Dimick; B Gregory Thompson; James C Stanley; Gilbert R Upchurch
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 6.113

8.  State of the field survey: spinal cord stimulator use by academic pain medicine practices.

Authors:  Christopher Gharibo; Gary Laux; Brian R Forzani; Christopher Sellars; Eric Kim; Shengping Zou
Journal:  Pain Med       Date:  2013-10-18       Impact factor: 3.750

9.  Impact of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance on medical technology uptake: analysis of the uptake of spinal cord stimulation in England 2008-2012.

Authors:  Bharati Vyawahare; Natalie Hallas; Morag Brookes; Rod S Taylor; Sam Eldabe
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2014-01-07       Impact factor: 2.692

10.  Factors associated with the success of trial spinal cord stimulation in patients with chronic pain from failed back surgery syndrome.

Authors:  Byung-Chul Son; Deok-Ryeong Kim; Sang-Won Lee; Chung-Kee Chough
Journal:  J Korean Neurosurg Soc       Date:  2013-12-31
View more
  6 in total

1.  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

2.  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

3.  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

4.  User Engagement and Assessment of Treatment Effectiveness in Patients Using a Novel Digital mHealth App During Spinal Cord Stimulation Screening Trials.

Authors:  Jennifer M Lee; Rex Woon; Mandy Ramsum; Daniel S Halperin; Roshini Jain
Journal:  JMIR Hum Factors       Date:  2022-03-23

5.  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

6.  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
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.