Population Reference No. 3

Dorsal Root Ganglion Stimulation for Refractory Chronic Trunk or Limb Pain

Clinical Context and Therapy Purpose

The purpose of dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRGS) in individuals who have treatment-refractory chronic trunk or limb pain is to provide a treatment option that is an alternative to or an improvement on existing therapies.

The following PICO was used to select literature to inform this review.

Populations

The relevant population of interest is individuals with treatment-refractory chronic pain of the trunk or limbs. Examples of treatment-refractory chronic pain include FBSS, CRPS (ie, reflex sympathetic dystrophy), arachnoiditis, radiculopathies, phantom limb/stump pain, peripheral neuropathy, and painful diabetic neuropathy.

Interventions

The therapy being considered is DRGS. Dorsal root ganglion uses the same epidural approach technique as SCS but targets a different anatomical target, the dorsal root ganglion. Dorsal root ganglia consist of sensory cell bodies that transmit input from the peripheral nervous system to the central nervous system and play a role in neuropathic pain perception. Dorsal root ganglia are located in the epidural space between spinal nerves and the spinal cord on the posterior root in a minimal amount of cerebrospinal fluid, amenable to epidural access.

Comparators

The following practice is currently being used to treat patients with treatment-refractory chronic pain of the trunk or limbs: standard SCS, medical therapy, or surgical therapy.

Outcomes

The IMMPACT group has provided recommendations for 4 core chronic pain outcome domains that should be included when selecting outcome measures for clinical trials of treatments for chronic pain: (1) pain intensity; (2) physical functioning; (3) emotional functioning; and (4) participant ratings of overall improvement.^2, The IMMPACT has also suggested specific outcome measures to address these core domains and has proposed provisional benchmarks for identifying clinically important changes in these specific outcome measures (Table 2).^3,4,

Study Selection Criteria

Methodologically credible studies were selected using the following principles:

• To assess efficacy outcomes, comparative controlled prospective trials were sought, with a preference for RCTs;

• In the absence of such trials, comparative observational studies were sought, with a preference for prospective studies.

• To assess long-term outcomes and adverse events, single-arm studies that capture longer periods of follow-up and/or larger populations were sought.

• Studies with duplicative or overlapping populations were excluded.

Review of Evidence

Dorsal Root Ganglion Implanted Device

Systematic Reviews

Campos-Fajardo et al (2024) conducted a qualitative systematic review to evaluate the efficacy of DRGS in the management of chronic pain.^65, The review included 29 articles published between 2018 and 2024, covering a range of patient diagnoses extending beyond CRPS. The majority of these studies were observational (21), supplemented by 5 clinical trials, 1 secondary analysis, and 2 pilot studies. This systematic review confirmed the effectiveness of DRGS therapy in managing various chronic pain conditions. It highlighted significant improvements in patients' quality of life, functionality, and mood states, positioning DRGS as a viable alternative for those who have not responded to traditional treatments.

Mattie et al (2024) conducted a qualitative systematic review of 6 RCTs that showed significant pain reduction in CRPS patients treated with SCS and DRGS.^66,Preference for specific SCS settings varied among patients, with no clear superiority of one setting over another. Innovations in SCS technology, including novel waveforms and frequencies, demonstrated potential for enhanced efficacy and patient comfort.

Several systematic reviews of DRGS devices have been published: Vuka et al (2019)^67,, Deer et al (2020)^68,, Monan et al (2021)^69,, and D'Souza et al (2022).^70, The reviews all include one RCT (ACCURATE) and several observational studies. The RCT is described in the following section.

Randomized Controlled Trial

The ACCURATE study (NCT01923285) compared DRGS with standard SCS.^71,72, As reported by Deer et al (2017), eligibility criteria for this multicenter, unblinded, noninferiority trial included chronic (≥6 months) intractable (failed ≥2 drugs from different classes) neuropathic pain of the lower limbs associated with a diagnosis of CRPS or causalgia and no previous neurostimulation. Patients were randomized to DRGS with the Axium device or standard SCS. Patients first underwent a temporary trial of stimulation lasting 3 to 30 days, depending on the protocol at each site. Patients who had a 50% or greater reduction in lower limb pain after the temporary trial were eligible for permanent stimulation. Those who failed temporary stimulation exited the trial but were included in the analysis as treatment failures. Trial characteristics are shown in Table 6.

A total of 152 patients were randomized, and 115 (n=61 DRGS , n=54 SCS ) had a successful temporary trial and continued to permanent implantation. The primary outcome was a composite measure of treatment success. Success was defined as (1) a 50% or greater reduction in VAS score and (2) no stimulation-related neurologic deficits. The noninferiority margin was set at 10%. Results are shown in Table 7. No patients experienced neurologic deficits in either group. Regarding paresthesias, at 3 months and 12 months, SCS patients were significantly more likely to report paresthesias in nonpainful areas than DRGS patients. At 3 months, 84.7% of DRGS patients and 65% of SCS patients reported paresthesias only in their painful areas; at 12 months, these percentages were 94.5% and 61.2%, respectively. Limitations in study relevance, design, and conduct are shown in Tables 8 and 9.

Mekhail et al (2019) conducted a sub-analysis on the patients receiving DRGS in the ACCURATE study, to evaluate the occurrence and risk factors for paresthesia.^73, Among the 61 patients with dorsal root ganglion implants, the rates of paresthesia at 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, 9 months, and 12 months were 84%, 84%, 66%, 62%, and 62%, respectively. The patients who were paresthesia-free reported similar or better outcomes for pain and quality of life. Risk factors for paresthesia occurrence included higher stimulation amplitudes and frequencies, number of implanted leads, and younger age.

Table 6. RCT Characteristics of DRG Implanted Devices

    ACCURATE: A Prospective, Randomized, Multi-Center, Controlled Clinical Trial to Assess the Safety and Efficacy of the Spinal Modulation™ AXIUM™ Neurostimulator System in the Treatment of Chronic Pain; CRPS: complex regional pain syndrome; DRG: dorsal root ganglion; RCT: randomized controlled trial; SCS: spinal cord stimulation. 

Table 7. RCT Results of DRG Implanted Devices

    BPI: Brief Pain Inventory; CI: confidence interval; DRG: dorsal root ganglion; MCS: Mental Component Summary; NR: not reported; POMS: Profile of Mood States; PCS: Physical Component Summary; RCT: randomized controlled trial; SAE: serious adverse event; SCS: spinal cord stimulation; SF-36: 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey; TE: treatment effect; VAS: visual analog scale.

Table 8. Study Relevance Limitations for RCTs of DRG Implanted Devices

    DRG: dorsal root ganglion; RCT: randomized controlled trial.

    The study limitations stated in this table are those notable in the current review; this is not a comprehensive gaps assessment.  a Population key: 1. Intended use population unclear; 2. Clinical context is unclear; 3. Study population is unclear; 4. Study population not representative of intended use; 5. Enrolled study populations do not reflect relevant diversity b Intervention key: 1. Not clearly defined; 2. Version used unclear; 3. Delivery not similar intensity as comparator; 4.Not the intervention of interest. c Comparator key: 1. Not clearly defined; 2. Not standard or optimal; 3. Delivery not similar intensity as intervention; 4. Not delivered effectively. d Outcomes key: 1. Key health outcomes not addressed; 2. Physiologic measures, not validated surrogates; 3. No CONSORT reporting of harms; 4. Not establish and validated measurements; 5. Clinical significant difference not prespecified; 6. Clinical significant difference not supported. e Follow-Up key: 1. Not sufficient duration for benefit; 2. Not sufficient duration for harms.

Table 9. Study Design and Conduct Limitations for RCTs of DRG Implanted Devices

    DRG: dorsal root ganglion; RCT: randomized controlled trial; SCS: spinal cord stimulation.

    The study limitations stated in this table are those notable in the current review; this is not a comprehensive gaps assessment. a Allocation key: 1. Participants not randomly allocated; 2. Allocation not concealed; 3. Allocation concealment unclear; 4. Inadequate control for selection bias. b Blinding key: 1. Not blinded to treatment assignment; 2. Not blinded outcome assessment; 3. Outcome assessed by treating physician. c Selective Reporting key: 1. Not registered; 2. Evidence of selective reporting; 3. Evidence of selective publication. d Data Completeness key: 1. High loss to follow-up or missing data; 2. Inadequate handling of missing data; 3. High number of crossovers; 4. Inadequate handling of crossovers; 5. Inappropriate exclusions; 6. Not intent to treat analysis (per protocol for noninferiority trials). e Power key: 1. Power calculations not reported; 2. Power not calculated for primary outcome; 3. Power not based on clinically important difference. f Statistical key: 1. Analysis is not appropriate for outcome type: (a) continuous; (b) binary; (c) time to event; 2. Analysis is not appropriate for multiple observations per patient; 3. Confidence intervals and/or p values not reported; 4. Comparative treatment effects not calculated.

Observational Studies

Because RCT data are available for DRGS, observational studies are discussed if they add information not available from the RCTs (eg, longer follow-up including adverse events, data on an important subgroup, etc). Deer et al (2019) compared the safety and complaint records from the manufacturers of DRGS (n=500+) and SCS (n=2000+) devices, from April 2016 through March 2018.^74, The overall safety event rate for the study timeframe was 3.2% for DRGS and 3.1% for SCS. Persistent pain was reported at a rate of 0.2% by patients with dorsal root ganglion implants and 0.6% by patients with SCS implants. Infection rates were 1.1% in both groups of patients. Cerebrospinal leaks were reported in 0.5% of patients with DRGS implants and in 0.3% of patients with SCS implants.

A retrospective analysis of the FDA's Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database provided information on complications related to the use of DRGS.^75, The MAUDE database was queried for DRGS reports through 2017, identifying 979 episodes. Complications were predominantly device-related (47%; lead migration and lead damage), with the remaining comprised of procedural complications (28%; infection, new neurologic symptoms, and dural puncture), patient complaints (12%; site pain and unwanted stimulation), serious adverse events (2.4%), and "other" complications (4.6%). The prevalence of complications cannot be estimated using the MAUDE database; while facilities are mandated to report events, patients and health care providers may report events, but are not mandated to do so.

Dorsal Root Ganglion Wireless Injectable Device

Case Series

A case series, which included 11 patients, was published by Weiner et al (2016).^76, This study included patients with FBSS who had chronic intractable neuropathic pain of the trunk and/or lower limbs. Five patients participated in phase 1 of the study (device not anchored), and 6 additional patients participated in phase 2 (device anchored). During phase 1, the device migrated more than was recommended and thus it was anchored in the remaining patients. Baseline VAS scores were 5 or higher in all patients. Seven (63%) of the 11 patients reported good to excellent overall pain relief (VAS score reduction, ≥50%), 2 patients reported fair overall intensity pain relief (25% to 50% reduction), and 2 patients reported poor or no overall pain relief (0% to 25%). No adverse events were reported.

Section Summary: Dorsal Root Ganglion Stimulators for Refractory Chronic Trunk or Limb Pain

Systematic reviews, 1 unblinded RCT, and case series have evaluated DRGS in patients with chronic trunk and/or limb pain. The RCT (N=152) found that patients receiving DRGS had significantly higher rates of treatment success (physical functioning score and quality of life measures) at 3 and 12 months compared with those receiving standard SCS devices. In addition, DRGS was found to be noninferior to SCS in the percentage achieving >50% pain reduction, emotional functioning score, and 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey scores. Both groups experienced paresthesias but patients in the DRGS group reported less postural variation in paresthesia and reduced extraneous stimulation in nonpainful areas. Patients in the DRGS group also reported more improvement in interference with physical functioning and mood states. Rates of serious adverse events were similar.

Summary of Evidence

For individuals who have treatment-refractory chronic pain of the trunk or limbs who receive dorsal root ganglion neurostimulation, the evidence includes a systematic reviews, a RCT, and case series. Relevant outcomes are symptoms, functional outcomes, quality of life, medication use, and treatment-related morbidity. The unblinded RCT found that patients receiving dorsal root ganglion neurostimulation had significantly higher rates of treatment success (physical functioning score and quality of life measures), at 3 and 12 months compared with those receiving standard spinal cord stimulation devices. Dorsal root ganglion neurostimulation was found to be noninferior to spinal cord stimulation in the percentage achieving >50% pain reduction, emotional functioning score, and 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey scores. Both groups experienced paresthesias but patients in the dorsal root ganglion group reported less postural variation in paresthesia and reduced extraneous stimulation in nonpainful areas. Rates of serious adverse events were similar between the 2 study arms. The evidence is sufficient to determine that the technology results in an improvement in the net health outcome.

Population Reference No. 4

Spinal Cord Stimulation for Critical Limb Ischemia

Clinical Context and Therapy Purpose

The purpose of SCS in individuals who have critical limb ischemia is to provide a treatment option that is an alternative to or an improvement on existing therapies.

The following PICO was used to select literature to inform this review.

Populations

The relevant population of interest is individuals with critical limb ischemia. Critical limb ischemia is described as pain at rest or the presence of ischemic limb lesions.

Interventions

The therapy being considered is SCS. SCS uses low-level epidural electrical stimulation of the spinal cord dorsal columns. Its mechanism of action is uncertain but may be related to either activation of an inhibitory system or blockage of facilitative circuits. SCS devices consist of several components: (1) the lead delivering electrical stimulation to the spinal cord; (2) an extension wire that conducts the electrical stimulation from the power source to the lead; and (3) a power source. The lead may incorporate 4 to 8 electrodes, depending on the complexity of the pain pattern. A trial period in which the electrode is temporarily implanted in the epidural space is recommended, prior to the permanent implantation. Most SCS devices operate under a frequency of 100 to 1000 Hz.

If patients are not suitable candidates for limb revascularization (typically due to insufficient distal runoff), amputation may be required. SCS has been investigated in this subset of patients as a technique to relieve pain and decrease the incidence of amputation.

Comparators

The following practice is currently being used to treat patients with critical limb ischemia: medical therapy or surgical therapy (revascularization surgery or amputation).

Outcomes

The IMMPACT group has provided recommendations for 4 core chronic pain outcome domains that should be included when selecting outcome measures for clinical trials of treatments for chronic pain: (1) pain intensity; (2) physical functioning; (3) emotional functioning; and (4) participant ratings of overall improvement.^2, The IMMPACT has also suggested specific outcome measures to address these core domains and has proposed provisional benchmarks for identifying clinically important changes in these specific outcome measures (Table 2).^3,4,

Study Selection Criteria

Methodologically credible studies were selected using the following principles:

• To assess efficacy outcomes, comparative controlled prospective trials were sought, with a preference for RCTs;

• In the absence of such trials, comparative observational studies were sought, with a preference for prospective studies.

• To assess long-term outcomes and adverse events, single-arm studies that capture longer periods of follow-up and/or larger populations were sought.

• Studies with duplicative or overlapping populations were excluded.

Review of Evidence

Systematic Reviews

An updated Cochrane review by Ubbink and Vermeulen (2013) assessed the use of SCS in peripheral vascular diseases.^77, Reviewers included RCTs and non-RCTs evaluating the efficacy of SCS in adults with non-reconstructable, chronic critical leg ischemia. Six trials were identified; all were conducted in Europe and 5 were single-country studies. SCS was compared with other nonsurgical interventions. One study was not randomized, and none were blinded. In a pooled analysis of data from all 6 studies, there was a significantly higher rate of limb survival in the spinal cord stimulation group than in the control group at 12 months (relative risk [RR], 0.75; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.95;absolute risk difference, -0.11; 95% CI, -0.20 to -0.02). The 11% difference in the rate of limb salvage means that 9 patients would need to be treated to prevent 1 additional amputation (95% CI, 5 to 50 patients). However, when the nonrandomized study was excluded, the difference in the rate of amputation no longer differed significantly between groups (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.58 to 1.04; absolute risk difference, -0.09; 95% CI, -0.19 to 0.01). The SCS patients required significantly fewer analgesics, and more patients reached Fontaine stage II (intermittent claudication) than in the control group. There was no difference in ulcer healing (but only 2 studies were included in this analysis). In the 6 trials, 31 (15%) of 210 patients had a change in stimulation requiring intervention, 8 (4%) experienced the end of battery life, and 6 (3%) infections required device removal.

Previously, Klomp et al (2009) published a meta-analysis of RCTs that used SCS to treat patients with critical limb ischemia.^78, The same 5 RCTs identified in the Cochrane review were included. Reviewers did not find a statistically significant difference in the rate of amputation in the treatment or control groups. The RR of amputation was 0.79 (95% CI, 0.59 to 1.06), with a risk difference of -0.07 ( 95% CI, -0.17 to 0.03). Reviewers also conducted additional analyses of data from their 1999 RCT to identify factors associated with better or worse prognoses.^79, They found that patients with ischemic skin lesions had a higher risk of amputation than patients with other risk factors. There were no significant interactions between this and any other prognostic factor. The analyses did not identify subgroups of patients who might benefit from SCS.

A systematic review of non-revascularization-based treatments by Abu Dabrh et al (2015) for patients with critical limb ischemia included SCS as 1 of the treatments. The review identified 5 RCTs for inclusion.^80, In the pooled analysis, reviewers found that SCS was associated with reduced risk of amputation (odds ratio [OR], 0.53; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.79); risk difference was not reported.

Section Summary: Critical Limb Ischemia

Five relatively small RCTs comparing SCS with usual care have assessed patients with critical limb ischemia. In pooled analyses from 3 systematic reviews, SCS was associated with a lower risk of amputation versus control, but results were not consistently statistically significant due to differences in methodologies. This evidence is not sufficient to determine whether SCS would improve outcomes for patients with critical limb ischemia.

Summary of Evidence

For individuals who have critical limb ischemia who receive spinal cord stimulation, the evidence includes systematic reviews of several small RCTs. Relevant outcomes are overall survival, symptoms, functional outcomes, quality of life, morbid events, hospitalizations, and treatment-related morbidity. In some pooled analyses of these RCTs, spinal cord stimulation did not result in a significantly lower rate of amputation, although 1 meta-analysis that included a nonrandomized study reported a significant difference. The evidence is insufficient to determine that the technology results in an improvement in the net health outcome.

Population Reference No. 5

Spinal Cord Stimulation for Selected Other Medical Conditions

Clinical Context and Therapy Purpose

The purpose of SCS in individuals who have other medical conditions (eg, angina pectoris, heart failure, or cancer-related pain) is to provide a treatment option that is an alternative to or an improvement on existing therapies.

The following PICO was used to select literature to inform this review.

Populations

The relevant populations of interest are individuals with treatment-refractory angina pectoris, heart failure, or cancer-related pain.

Interventions

The therapy being considered is SCS. SCS uses low-level epidural electrical stimulation of the spinal cord dorsal columns. Its mechanism of action is uncertain but may be related to either activation of an inhibitory system or blockage of facilitative circuits. SCS devices consist of several components: (1) the lead delivering electrical stimulation to the spinal cord; (2) an extension wire that conducts the electrical stimulation from the power source to the lead; and (3) a power source. The lead may incorporate 4 to 8 electrodes, depending on the complexity of the pain pattern. A trial period in which the electrode is temporarily implanted in the epidural space is recommended, prior to the permanent implantation. Most SCS devices operate under a frequency of 100 to 1000 Hz.

Comparators

The following practice is currently being used to treat patients with

• refractory angina pectoris: medical therapy or coronary revascularization.

• heart failure: medical therapy or coronary revascularization.

• cancer-related pain: medical therapy.

Outcomes

The IMMPACT group has provided recommendations for 4 core chronic pain outcome domains that should be included when selecting outcome measures for clinical trials of treatments for chronic pain: (1) pain intensity; (2) physical functioning; (3) emotional functioning; and (4) participant ratings of overall improvement.^2, The IMMPACT has also suggested specific outcome measures to address these core domains and has proposed provisional benchmarks for identifying clinically important changes in these specific outcome measures (Table 2).^3,4,

Study Selection Criteria

Methodologically credible studies were selected using the following principles:

• To assess efficacy outcomes, comparative controlled prospective trials were sought, with a preference for RCTs;

• In the absence of such trials, comparative observational studies were sought, with a preference for prospective studies.

• To assess long-term outcomes and adverse events, single-arm studies that capture longer periods of follow-up and/or larger populations were sought.

• Studies with duplicative or overlapping populations were excluded.

Review of Evidence

Refractory Angina Pectoris

Systematic Reviews

Pan et al (2017) identified 12 RCTs that evaluated SCS versus control in patients with refractory angina pectoris.^81, Most studies had small sample sizes (i.e., <50 patients; N=476). Follow-up ranged widely from 2 weeks to 12 months, and control interventions were not well described in the systematic review. The included studies were generally assessed to have low risk of bias.. Pooled analyses favored the spinal cord stimulation group for most outcomes (e.g., for exercise time after the intervention, pain level [VAS score], angina frequency), but there were no significant differences between intervention and control groups for physical limitation or angina stability.

Another systematic review was published by Tsigaridas et al (2015).^82, It included 9 RCTs evaluating SCS for refractory angina: 7 compared SCS with low or no stimulation and 2 compared SCS with alternative medical or surgical therapy for angina. Reviewers found that most RCTs were small and variable in quality based on modified Jadad criteria. Reviewers reported: "2 of the RCTs were of high quality (Jadad score 4); 2 were of low quality (Jadad score 1), and the remaining ones were of intermediate quality (Jadad score 2 to 3)." Most trials comparing SCS with low or no stimulation found improvements in outcomes with SCS; however, given limitations in the evidence base, reviewers concluded that larger multicenter RCTs would be needed to assess the efficacy of SCS for angina.

Randomized Controlled Trials

Two of the largest RCTs included in the systematic reviews were Zipes et al (2012)^83, and Lanza et al (2011).^84,

Zipes et al (2012) published an industry-sponsored, single-blind, multicenter trial with sites in the US and Canada.^83, This trial was terminated early because interim analysis by the data and safety monitoring board found the treatment futile. A total of 118 patients with severe angina, despite maximal medical treatment, were enrolled. Of the 118 patients, 71 (60%) underwent SCS implantation with the Intrel III neurostimulator (Medtronic). The remaining 47 patients did not meet eligibility criteria post-enrollment or had other issues (eg, withdrew consent). The investigators had originally been planning to randomize up to 310 patients but enrollment was slow. Implantation was successful in 68 patients; this group was randomized to high-stimulation (n=32) or a low-stimulation control (n=36). The low-stimulation control was designed so that patients would feel paresthesia but the effect of stimulation would be subtherapeutic. The primary outcome was a composite of major adverse cardiac events, which included death from any cause, acute myocardial infarction, or revascularization through 6 months. Fifty-eight (85%) of 68 patients contributed data to the 6-month analysis; analysis was by intention-to-treat. The proportion of patients experiencing major adverse cardiac events at 6 months did not differ significantly between groups (12.6% in the high-stimulation group vs. 14.6% in the low-stimulation group; p=.81). The trial sample size was small, and it might have been underpowered for clinically meaningful differences.

A controlled trial from Italy by Lanza et al (2011) randomized 25 patients to 1 of 3 treatment groups: SCS with standard stimulation (n=10), SCS with low-level stimulation (75% to 80% of the sensory threshold) (n=7), or very low-intensity SCS (n=8).^84, Thus, patients in groups 2 and 3 were unable to feel sensation during stimulation. After a protocol adjustment at 1 month, patients in the very low-intensity group were re-randomized to 1 of the other groups of which there were 13 patients in the standard stimulation group and 12 patients in the low-level stimulation group. At the 3-month follow-up (2 months after re-randomization), there were statistically significant between-group differences in 1 of 12 outcome variables. There was a median of 22 angina episodes in the standard stimulation group and 10 in the low-level stimulation group (p=.002). Nonsignificant variables included the use of nitroglycerin, quality of life, VAS score, Canadian Cardiovascular Society angina class, exercise-induced angina, and scores on 5 subscales of the Seattle Angina Questionnaire.

Uncontrolled studies

Because RCT data are available for SCS, uncontrolled studies are discussed if they add information not available from the RCTs (eg, longer follow-up including adverse events, data on an important subgroup, etc). Lanza et al (2012) reviewed observational studies on SCS in patients with refractory angina pectoris.^85, They identified 16 studies (N=1204 patients) but noted that patients might have been included in more than 1 report. The most frequently reported complications were lead issues (ie, electrode dislodgement or fracture requiring repositioning) or internal programmable generator failure during substitution. Lead issues were reported by 10 studies (N=450 patients). In these studies, 55 cases of lead or internal programmable generator failure were reported. No fatalities related to SCS treatment were reported.

Section Summary: Refractory Angina Pectoris

Numerous small RCTs have evaluated SCS as a treatment for refractory angina. While some studies have reported benefits, most have not. In 2 more recent RCTs, there were no significant benefits for the primary outcomes. Overall, this evidence is mixed and insufficient to permit conclusions on whether health outcomes are improved.

Summary of Evidence

For individuals who have treatment-refractory angina pectoris who receive spinal cord stimulation, the evidence includes systematic reviews and RCTs. Relevant outcomes are overall survival, symptoms, functional outcomes, quality of life, morbid events, hospitalizations, and treatment-related morbidity. Numerous small RCTs have evaluated spinal cord stimulation as a treatment for refractory angina. While some have reported benefits, most have not. In 2 recent RCTs, there was no significant benefit in the primary outcomes. The evidence is insufficient to determine that the technology results in an improvement in the net health outcome.

Population Reference No. 6

Heart Failure

Systematic Reviews

Ashrafpour (2024) conducted a systematic review to investigate the efficacy of SCS as an adjunctive therapy in heart failure. 4 studies (2 RCTs and 2 pilot studies) with a total of 125 patients were selected.^86,Participants had heart failure with NYHA classification ranging from 2 to 3. Primary endpoints included heart failure-related symptoms, left ventricular ejection function, VO2 max, and NT-proBNP (N-terminal Pro-Brain Natriuretic Peptide). The studies demonstrated the safety and feasibility of SCS therapy, although outcomes varied. Two studies reported improvements in New York Heart Association classification, Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ), and quality of life parameters, while only one study showed positive changes in Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction and VO2 max. No studies found significant changes in NT-proBNP following SCS therapy. Discrepancies in results could be due to methodological variations and induction technique diversity. Further studies are needed to develop a solid approach for employing SCS in heart failure patients.

Section Summary: Heart Failure

A 2024 systematic review was conducted to investigate the efficacy of SCS as an adjunctive therapy in heart failure. Four studies (including 2 RCTs) with a total of 125 patients were selected. Two studies reported improvements in New York Heart Association classification, and quality of life parameters, while only one study showed positive changes in left ventricular ejection function and VO2 max. No studies found significant changes in NT-proBNP (N-terminal Pro-Brain Natriuretic Peptide) following SCS therapy. Discrepancies in results could be due to methodological variations and induction technique diversity. Further studies are needed to develop a solid approach for employing SCS in heart failure patients.

Summary of Evidence

For individuals who have heart failure who receive spinal cord stimulation, the evidence includes RCTs. Relevant outcomes are overall survival, symptoms, functional outcomes, quality of life, morbid events, hospitalizations, and treatment (n=66) did not find significant differences between groups but might have been underpowered to do so. The evidence is insufficient to determine the effects of the technology on health outcomes.

Population Reference No. 7

Cancer-Related Pain

Systematic Reviews

A Cochrane review by Lihua et al (2013) assessed SCS for the treatment of cancer-related pain in adults.^87, Reviewers did not identify any RCTs evaluating the efficacy of SCS in this population. Four case series using a before-after design (N=92 patients) were identified. Peng et al (2015) updated this review, finding no new studies meeting inclusion criteria identified.^88, They concluded: "Current evidence is insufficient to establish the role of spinal cord stimulation in treating refractory cancer-related pain."

Section Summary: Cancer-Related Pain

A Cochrane review did not identify any RCTs evaluating SCS for the treatment of cancer-related pain.

Summary of Evidence

For individuals who have cancer-related pain who receive spinal cord stimulation, the evidence includes case series. Relevant outcomes are symptoms, functional outcomes, medication use, and treatment-related morbidity. No RCTs evaluating spinal cord stimulation in this population were identified. The evidence is insufficient to determine the effects of the technology on health outcomes.

Supplemental Information

The purpose of the following information is to provide reference material. Inclusion does not imply endorsement or alignment with the evidence review conclusions.

Practice Guidelines and Position Statements

Guidelines or position statements will be considered for inclusion in ‘Supplemental Information’ if they were issued by, or jointly by, a US professional society, an international society with US representation, or National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Priority will be given to guidelines that are informed by a systematic review, include strength of evidence ratings, and include a description of management of conflict of interest.

American Association of Clinical Endocrinology

In 2022, the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology published evidence-based recommendations for the care of individuals with diabetes mellitus.^89,. The guidelines state that 'Neuromodulatory techniques such as HFSCS [high-frequency SCS] and combining pharmacological with nonpharmacological approaches should be considered in those with refractory painful DPN [diabetic peripheral neuropathy]'. The evidence for the statement was rated as Grade B [Strong]; BEL[best evidence level] 1 [Randomized controlled trial; Meta-analysis of only randomized controlled trials].

American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine

In 2023, American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine published evidence-based consensus guidelines on patient selection and trial stimulation for SCS therapy for chronic non-cancer pain.^90,Recommendations included that SCS trial should be performed before a definitive SCS implant except in anginal pain (grade B). All patients must be screened with an objective validated instrument for psychosocial factors, and this must include depression (grade B). Despite some limitations, a trial helps patient selection and provides patients with an opportunity to experience the therapy. These recommendations are expected to guide practicing physicians and other stakeholders and should not be mistaken as practice standards. Physicians should continue to make their best judgment based on individual patient considerations and preferences.

American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians

In 2013, the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians updated its evidence-based guidelines on interventional techniques for the management of chronic spinal pain.^91, The guidelines included a statement that there is fair evidence for the following recommendation for SCS: "spinal cord stimulation is indicated in chronic low back pain with lower extremity pain secondary to failed back surgery syndrome, after exhausting multiple conservative and interventional modalities". No updates have been made since the original publication.

American Society of Pain and Neuroscience

The American Society of Pain and Neuroscience issued a comprehensive guideline in 2021 on the management of cancer-related pain.^92, The guideline found that SCS may be considered for 1) treatment of refractory cancer pain (level II-3-C evidence: multiple series compared over time, with or without intervention, and surprising results in noncontrolled experience; treatment is neither recommendable nor inadvisable), and 2) on a case-by-case basis for "pain that is related to cancer treatment such as chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy" (level III-C evidence: clinical experiences-based opinions, descriptive studies, clinical observations, or reports of expert committee; treatment is neither recommendable nor inadvisable).

The American Society of Pain and Neuroscience published consensus guidelines on interventional therapies for knee pain in 2022.^93, The guidelines state that "Chronic pain that is refractory to acute treatment is managed by progressing to spinal cord stimulator, dorsal root ganglion stimulator, or botulinum toxin (Botox) injection." They also include the statement that "DRG [Dorsal Root Ganglion Stimulation] is a safe and effective treatment option for chronic post-surgical and focal neuropathic pain of the knee (ie, complex regional pain syndrome [CRPS]); Level I, Grade A, Consensus Strong."

The American Society of Pain and Neuroscience published consensus guidelines on interventional therapies for back pain in 2022. ^94, The guidelines recommendations for SCS are summarized in Table 10.

Table 10. American Society of Pain and Neuroscience Recommendations for Spinal Cord Stimulation for Back Pain

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence

In 2008, NICE issued guidance on spinal cord stimulation for chronic pain of neuropathic or ischemic origin, which was reaffirmed in 2014.^95, The NICE recommended SCS as a treatment option for adults with chronic pain of neuropathic origin (measuring at least 50 mm on a 0 to 100 mm visual analog scale) that continues for at least 6 months despite appropriate conventional medical management, and who have had a successful trial of stimulation as part of an assessment by a specialist team.

In the same guidance, the NICE stated that SCS was not recommended for chronic pain of ischemic origin except in the context of research.

U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendations

Not applicable.

Medicare National Coverage

According to Medicare policy (Effective Date: 08/07/1995; Manual Section Number: 160.7) the implantation of central nervous system stimulators may be covered as therapies for the relief of chronic intractable pain, subject to the following conditions:

• "The implantation of the stimulator is used only as a late resort (if not a last resort) for patients with chronic intractable pain;

• With respect to item a, other treatment modalities (pharmacological, surgical, physical, or psychological therapies) have been tried and did not prove satisfactory, or are judged to be unsuitable or contraindicated for the given patient;

• Patients have undergone careful screening, evaluation, and diagnosis by a multidisciplinary team prior to implantation. (Such screening must include psychological, as well as physical evaluation);

• All the facilities, equipment, and professional and support personnel required for the proper diagnosis, treatment training, and follow-up of the patient (including that required to satisfy item c) must be available; and

• Demonstration of pain relief with a temporarily implanted electrode precedes permanent implantation."^96,

Ongoing and Unpublished Clinical Trials

Some currently ongoing and unpublished trials that might influence this review are listed in Table 11.

Table 11. Summary of Key Trials

    NCT: national clinical trial. a Denotes industry-sponsored or cosponsored trial.

References

1. Food and Drug Administration. Cordis Programmable Neural Stimulator: Premarket Approval. Accessed March 10, 2025.
2. Turk DC, Dworkin RH, Allen RR, et al. Core outcome domains for chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. Pain. Dec 2003; 106(3): 337-345. PMID 14659516
3. Dworkin RH, Turk DC, Farrar JT, et al. Core outcome measures for chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. Pain. Jan 2005; 113(1-2): 9-19. PMID 15621359
4. Dworkin RH, Turk DC, Wyrwich KW, et al. Interpreting the clinical importance of treatment outcomes in chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. J Pain. Feb 2008; 9(2): 105-21. PMID 18055266
5. Kerns RD, Turk DC, Rudy TE. The West Haven-Yale Multidimensional Pain Inventory (WHYMPI). Pain. Dec 1985; 23(4): 345-356. PMID 4088697
6. Cleeland CS, Ryan KM. Pain assessment: global use of the Brief Pain Inventory. Ann Acad Med Singap. Mar 1994; 23(2): 129-38. PMID 8080219
7. Fairbank JC, Pynsent PB. The Oswestry Disability Index. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). Nov 15 2000; 25(22): 2940-52; discussion 2952. PMID 11074683
8. Ostelo RW, Deyo RA, Stratford P, et al. Interpreting change scores for pain and functional status in low back pain: towards international consensus regarding minimal important change. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). Jan 01 2008; 33(1): 90-4. PMID 18165753
9. Wells GA, Tugwell P, Kraag GR, et al. Minimum important difference between patients with rheumatoid arthritis: the patient's perspective. J Rheumatol. Mar 1993; 20(3): 557-60. PMID 8478873
10. Kosinski M, Zhao SZ, Dedhiya S, et al. Determining minimally important changes in generic and disease-specific health-related quality of life questionnaires in clinical trials of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. Jul 2000; 43(7): 1478-87. PMID 10902749
11. Angst F, Aeschlimann A, Stucki G. Smallest detectable and minimal clinically important differences of rehabilitation intervention with their implications for required sample sizes using WOMAC and SF-36 quality of life measurement instruments in patients with osteoarthritis of the lower extremities. Arthritis Rheum. Aug 2001; 45(4): 384-91. PMID 11501727
12. Beck ATS, R.A. Beck Depression Inventory. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation; 1993.
13. Curran SL, Andrykowski MA, Studts JL. Short Form of the Profile of Mood States (POMS-SF): Psychometric information. Psychol Assess 1995;7:80-83.
14. Visnjevac O, Costandi S, Patel BA, et al. A Comprehensive Outcome-Specific Review of the Use of Spinal Cord Stimulation for Complex Regional Pain Syndrome. Pain Pract. Apr 2017; 17(4): 533-545. PMID 27739179
15. O'Connell NE, Wand BM, McAuley J, et al. Interventions for treating pain and disability in adults with complex regional pain syndrome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. Apr 30 2013; 2013(4): CD009416. PMID 23633371
16. Grider JS, Manchikanti L, Carayannopoulos A, et al. Effectiveness of Spinal Cord Stimulation in Chronic Spinal Pain: A Systematic Review. Pain Physician. Jan 2016; 19(1): E33-54. PMID 26752493
17. Traeger AC, Gilbert SE, Harris IA, et al. Spinal cord stimulation for low back pain. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. Mar 07 2023; 3(3): CD014789. PMID 36878313
18. Head J, Mazza J, Sabourin V, et al. Waves of Pain Relief: A Systematic Review of Clinical Trials in Spinal Cord Stimulation Waveforms for the Treatment of Chronic Neuropathic Low Back and Leg Pain. World Neurosurg. Nov 2019; 131: 264-274.e3. PMID 31369885
19. Duarte RV, Nevitt S, Maden M, et al. Spinal cord stimulation for the management of painful diabetic neuropathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient and aggregate data. Pain. Nov 01 2021; 162(11): 2635-2643. PMID 33872236
20. Henson JV, Varhabhatla NC, Bebic Z, et al. Spinal Cord Stimulation for Painful Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy: A Systematic Review. Pain Ther. Dec 2021; 10(2): 895-908. PMID 34244979
21. Raghu ALB, Parker T, Aziz TZ, et al. Invasive Electrical Neuromodulation for the Treatment of Painful Diabetic Neuropathy: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Neuromodulation. Jan 2021; 24(1): 13-21. PMID 32588933
22. Strand NH, Burkey AR. Neuromodulation in the Treatment of Painful Diabetic Neuropathy: A Review of Evidence for Spinal Cord Stimulation. J Diabetes Sci Technol. Mar 2022; 16(2): 332-340. PMID 34842478
23. Hoelzer BC, Edgar D, Lu SP, et al. Indirect Comparison of 10 kHz Spinal Cord Stimulation (SCS) versus Traditional Low-Frequency SCS for the Treatment of Painful Diabetic Neuropathy: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials. Biomedicines. Oct 19 2022; 10(10). PMID 36289892
24. O'Connell NE, Ferraro MC, Gibson W, et al. Implanted spinal neuromodulation interventions for chronic pain in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. Dec 02 2021; 12(12): CD013756. PMID 34854473
25. Zhou M, Zhong H, Xing C, et al. Comparison of clinical outcomes associated with spinal cord stimulation (SCS) or conventional medical management (CMM) for chronic pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Spine J. Jun 2023; 32(6): 2029-2041. PMID 37067600
26. Huygen FJPM, Soulanis K, Rtveladze K, et al. Spinal Cord Stimulation vs Medical Management for Chronic Back and Leg Pain: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis. JAMA Netw Open. Nov 04 2024; 7(11): e2444608. PMID 39541119
27. North RB, Kidd DH, Farrokhi F, et al. Spinal cord stimulation versus repeated lumbosacral spine surgery for chronic pain: a randomized, controlled trial. Neurosurgery. 2005; 56(1): 98-106; discussion 106-7. PMID 15617591
28. Kumar K, Taylor RS, Jacques L, et al. Spinal cord stimulation versus conventional medical management for neuropathic pain: a multicentre randomised controlled trial in patients with failed back surgery syndrome. Pain. Nov 2007; 132(1-2): 179-88. PMID 17845835
29. Kumar K, Taylor RS, Jacques L, et al. The effects of spinal cord stimulation in neuropathic pain are sustained: a 24-month follow-up of the prospective randomized controlled multicenter trial of the effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation. Neurosurgery. Oct 2008; 63(4): 762-70; discussion 770. PMID 18981888
30. Kemler MA, Barendse GA, van Kleef M, et al. Spinal cord stimulation in patients with chronic reflex sympathetic dystrophy. N Engl J Med. Aug 31 2000; 343(9): 618-24. PMID 10965008
31. Kemler MA, De Vet HC, Barendse GA, et al. The effect of spinal cord stimulation in patients with chronic reflex sympathetic dystrophy: two years' follow-up of the randomized controlled trial. Ann Neurol. Jan 2004; 55(1): 13-8. PMID 14705107
32. Kemler MA, de Vet HC, Barendse GA, et al. Effect of spinal cord stimulation for chronic complex regional pain syndrome Type I: five-year final follow-up of patients in a randomized controlled trial. J Neurosurg. Feb 2008; 108(2): 292-8. PMID 18240925
33. Slangen R, Schaper NC, Faber CG, et al. Spinal cord stimulation and pain relief in painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy: a prospective two-center randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Care. Nov 2014; 37(11): 3016-24. PMID 25216508
34. de Vos CC, Meier K, Zaalberg PB, et al. Spinal cord stimulation in patients with painful diabetic neuropathy: a multicentre randomized clinical trial. Pain. Nov 2014; 155(11): 2426-31. PMID 25180016
35. Duarte RV, Andronis L, Lenders MW, et al. Quality of life increases in patients with painful diabetic neuropathy following treatment with spinal cord stimulation. Qual Life Res. Jul 2016; 25(7): 1771-7. PMID 26694963
36. Rigoard P, Basu S, Desai M, et al. Multicolumn spinal cord stimulation for predominant back pain in failed back surgery syndrome patients: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Pain. Jun 2019; 160(6): 1410-1420. PMID 30720582
37. Zuidema X, van Daal E, van Geel I, et al. Long-Term Evaluation of Spinal Cord Stimulation in Patients With Painful Diabetic Polyneuropathy: An Eight-to-Ten-Year Prospective Cohort Study. Neuromodulation. Jul 2023; 26(5): 1074-1080. PMID 36587999
38. Mekhail N, Levy RM, Deer TR, et al. Long-term safety and efficacy of closed-loop spinal cord stimulation to treat chronic back and leg pain (Evoke): a double-blind, randomised, controlled trial. Lancet Neurol. Feb 2020; 19(2): 123-134. PMID 31870766
39. Mekhail NA, Levy RM, Deer TR, et al. ECAP-controlled closed-loop versus open-loop SCS for the treatment of chronic pain: 36-month results of the EVOKE blinded randomized clinical trial. Reg Anesth Pain Med. May 07 2024; 49(5): 346-354. PMID 37640452
40. Rauck RL, Loudermilk E, Thomson SJ, et al. Long-term safety of spinal cord stimulation systems in a prospective, global registry of patients with chronic pain. Pain Manag. Feb 2023; 13(2): 115-127. PMID 36691862
41. Mekhail NA, Mathews M, Nageeb F, et al. Retrospective review of 707 cases of spinal cord stimulation: indications and complications. Pain Pract. 2011; 11(2): 148-53. PMID 21371254
42. Hou S, Kemp K, Grabois M. A Systematic Evaluation of Burst Spinal Cord Stimulation for Chronic Back and Limb Pain. Neuromodulation. Jun 2016; 19(4): 398-405. PMID 27139915
43. Deer T, Heros R, Tavel E, et al. Comparing Conventional Medical Management to Spinal Cord Stimulation for the Treatment of Low Back Pain in a Cohort of DISTINCT RCT Patients. J Pain Res. 2024; 17: 2741-2752. PMID 39193462
44. De Ridder D, Plazier M, Kamerling N, et al. Burst spinal cord stimulation for limb and back pain. World Neurosurg. Nov 2013; 80(5): 642-649.e1. PMID 23321375
45. De Ridder D, Vanneste S, Plazier M, et al. Burst spinal cord stimulation: toward paresthesia-free pain suppression. Neurosurgery. May 2010; 66(5): 986-90. PMID 20404705
46. Schu S, Slotty PJ, Bara G, et al. A prospective, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to examine the effectiveness of burst spinal cord stimulation patterns for the treatment of failed back surgery syndrome. Neuromodulation. Jul 2014; 17(5): 443-50. PMID 24945621
47. Kriek N, Groeneweg JG, Stronks DL, et al. Preferred frequencies and waveforms for spinal cord stimulation in patients with complex regional pain syndrome: A multicentre, double-blind, randomized and placebo-controlled crossover trial. Eur J Pain. Mar 2017; 21(3): 507-519. PMID 27714945
48. Deer T, Slavin KV, Amirdelfan K, et al. Success Using Neuromodulation With BURST (SUNBURST) Study: Results From a Prospective, Randomized Controlled Trial Using a Novel Burst Waveform. Neuromodulation. Jan 2018; 21(1): 56-66. PMID 28961366
49. Eldabe S, Duarte R, Gulve A, et al. Analgesic Efficacy of "Burst" and Tonic (500 Hz) Spinal Cord Stimulation Patterns: A Randomized Placebo-Controlled Crossover Study. Neuromodulation. Apr 2021; 24(3): 471-478. PMID 33251662
50. Hara S, Andresen H, Solheim O, et al. Effect of Spinal Cord Burst Stimulation vs Placebo Stimulation on Disability in Patients With Chronic Radicular Pain After Lumbar Spine Surgery: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. Oct 18 2022; 328(15): 1506-1514. PMID 36255427
51. Deer T, Gilligan C, Falowski S, et al. Treatment of Refractory Low Back Pain Using Passive Recharge Burst in Patients Without Options for Corrective Surgery: Findings and Results From the DISTINCT Study, a Prospective Randomized Multicenter Controlled Trial. Neuromodulation. Oct 2023; 26(7): 1387-1399. PMID 37642628
52. Sun S, Yin J, Wei H, et al. Long-Term Efficacy and Safety of High-Frequency Spinal Stimulation for Chronic Pain: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Clin J Pain. Jul 01 2024; 40(7): 415-427. PMID 38595082
53. Bicket MC, Dunn RY, Ahmed SU. High-Frequency Spinal Cord Stimulation for Chronic Pain: Pre-Clinical Overview and Systematic Review of Controlled Trials. Pain Med. Dec 2016; 17(12): 2326-2336. PMID 28025366
54. Perruchoud C, Eldabe S, Batterham AM, et al. Analgesic efficacy of high-frequency spinal cord stimulation: a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study. Neuromodulation. 2013; 16(4): 363-9; discussion 369. PMID 23425338
55. Kapural L, Yu C, Doust MW, et al. Novel 10-kHz High-frequency Therapy (HF10 Therapy) Is Superior to Traditional Low-frequency Spinal Cord Stimulation for the Treatment of Chronic Back and Leg Pain: The SENZA-RCT Randomized Controlled Trial. Anesthesiology. Oct 2015; 123(4): 851-60. PMID 26218762
56. Petersen EA, Stauss TG, Scowcroft JA, et al. Effect of High-frequency (10-kHz) Spinal Cord Stimulation in Patients With Painful Diabetic Neuropathy: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Neurol. Jun 01 2021; 78(6): 687-698. PMID 33818600
57. Bolash R, Creamer M, Rauck R, et al. Wireless High-Frequency Spinal Cord Stimulation (10 kHz) Compared with Multiwaveform Low-Frequency Spinal Cord Stimulation in the Management of Chronic Pain in Failed Back Surgery Syndrome Subjects: Preliminary Results of a Multicenter, Prospective Randomized Controlled Study. Pain Med. Oct 01 2019; 20(10): 1971-1979. PMID 30908577
58. De Andres J, Monsalve-Dolz V, Fabregat-Cid G, et al. Prospective, Randomized Blind Effect-on-Outcome Study of Conventional vs High-Frequency Spinal Cord Stimulation in Patients with Pain and Disability Due to Failed Back Surgery Syndrome. Pain Med. Dec 01 2017; 18(12): 2401-2421. PMID 29126228
59. Petersen EA, Stauss TG, Scowcroft JA, et al. Durability of High-Frequency 10-kHz Spinal Cord Stimulation for Patients With Painful Diabetic Neuropathy Refractory to Conventional Treatments: 12-Month Results From a Randomized Controlled Trial. Diabetes Care. Jan 01 2022; 45(1): e3-e6. PMID 34844993
60. Kapural L, Yu C, Doust MW, et al. Comparison of 10-kHz High-Frequency and Traditional Low-Frequency Spinal Cord Stimulation for the Treatment of Chronic Back and Leg Pain: 24-Month Results From a Multicenter, Randomized, Controlled Pivotal Trial. Neurosurgery. Nov 2016; 79(5): 667-677. PMID 27584814
61. Kapural L, Jameson J, Johnson C, et al. Treatment of nonsurgical refractory back pain with high-frequency spinal cord stimulation at 10 kHz: 12-month results of a pragmatic, multicenter, randomized controlled trial. J Neurosurg Spine. Aug 01 2022; 37(2): 188-199. PMID 35148512
62. Petersen EA, Stauss TG, Scowcroft JA, et al. High-Frequency 10-kHz Spinal Cord Stimulation Improves Health-Related Quality of Life in Patients With Refractory Painful Diabetic Neuropathy: 12-Month Results From a Randomized Controlled Trial. Mayo Clin Proc Innov Qual Outcomes. Aug 2022; 6(4): 347-360. PMID 35814185
63. Petersen EA, Stauss TG, Scowcroft JA, et al. Long-term efficacy of high-frequency (10 kHz) spinal cord stimulation for the treatment of painful diabetic neuropathy: 24-Month results of a randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. Sep 2023; 203: 110865. PMID 37536514
64. Patel NP, Jameson J, Johnson C, et al. Durable responses at 24 months with high-frequency spinal cord stimulation for nonsurgical refractory back pain. J Neurosurg Spine. Feb 01 2024; 40(2): 229-239. PMID 37976509
65. Campos-Fajardo S, Sierra-Peña JA, Suárez-Monsalve S, et al. Effectiveness of Dorsal Root Ganglion Stimulation in Chronic Pain Management: A Systematic Review. World Neurosurg. Oct 2024; 190: 157-171. PMID 38945208
66. Mattie R, Lin AB, Bhandal H, et al. Spinal cord stimulation for the treatment of complex regional pain syndrome: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Interv Pain Med. Dec 2024; 3(4): 100527. PMID 39717450
67. Vuka I, Marciuš T, Došenović S, et al. Neuromodulation with electrical field stimulation of dorsal root ganglion in various pain syndromes: a systematic review with focus on participant selection. J Pain Res. 2019; 12: 803-830. PMID 30881093
68. Deer TR, Hunter CW, Mehta P, et al. A Systematic Literature Review of Dorsal Root Ganglion Neurostimulation for the Treatment of Pain. Pain Med. Aug 01 2020; 21(8): 1581-1589. PMID 32803221
69. Moman RN, Peterson AA, Maher DP, et al. Infectious Complications of Dorsal Root Ganglion Stimulation: A Systematic Review and Pooled Analysis of Incidence. Neuromodulation. Oct 2022; 25(7): 956-964. PMID 34096135
70. D'Souza RS, Kubrova E, Her YF, et al. Dorsal Root Ganglion Stimulation for Lower Extremity Neuropathic Pain Syndromes: An Evidence-Based Literature Review. Adv Ther. Oct 2022; 39(10): 4440-4473. PMID 35994195
71. Deer TR, Levy RM, Kramer J, et al. Dorsal root ganglion stimulation yielded higher treatment success rate for complex regional pain syndrome and causalgia at 3 and 12 months: a randomized comparative trial. Pain. Apr 2017; 158(4): 669-681. PMID 28030470
72. Food and Drug Administration. Summary of Safety and Effectiveness Data (SSED): Axium Neurostimulator System. 2016; https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf15/P150004b.pdf. Accessed March 11, 2025.
73. Mekhail N, Deer TR, Kramer J, et al. Paresthesia-Free Dorsal Root Ganglion Stimulation: An ACCURATE Study Sub-Analysis. Neuromodulation. Feb 2020; 23(2): 185-195. PMID 30861286
74. Deer T, Pope J, Hunter C, et al. Safety Analysis of Dorsal Root Ganglion Stimulation in the Treatment of Chronic Pain. Neuromodulation. Feb 2020; 23(2): 239-244. PMID 30861617
75. Sivanesan E, Bicket MC, Cohen SP. Retrospective analysis of complications associated with dorsal root ganglion stimulation for pain relief in the FDA MAUDE database. Reg Anesth Pain Med. Jan 2019; 44(1): 100-106. PMID 30640660
76. Weiner RL, Yeung A, Montes Garcia C, et al. Treatment of FBSS Low Back Pain with a Novel Percutaneous DRG Wireless Stimulator: Pilot and Feasibility Study. Pain Med. Oct 2016; 17(10): 1911-1916. PMID 27125284
77. Ubbink DT, Vermeulen H. Spinal cord stimulation for non-reconstructable chronic critical leg ischaemia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. Feb 28 2013; 2013(2): CD004001. PMID 23450547
78. Klomp HM, Steyerberg EW, Habbema JD, et al. What is the evidence on efficacy of spinal cord stimulation in (subgroups of) patients with critical limb ischemia?. Ann Vasc Surg. 2009; 23(3): 355-63. PMID 19128928
79. Klomp HM, Spincemaille GH, Steyerberg EW, et al. Spinal-cord stimulation in critical limb ischaemia: a randomised trial. ESES Study Group. Lancet. Mar 27 1999; 353(9158): 1040-4. PMID 10199350
80. Abu Dabrh AM, Steffen MW, Asi N, et al. Nonrevascularization-based treatments in patients with severe or critical limb ischemia. J Vasc Surg. Nov 2015; 62(5): 1330-9.e13. PMID 26409842
81. Pan X, Bao H, Si Y, et al. Spinal Cord Stimulation for Refractory Angina Pectoris: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Clin J Pain. Jun 2017; 33(6): 543-551. PMID 27875377
82. Tsigaridas N, Naka K, Tsapogas P, et al. Spinal cord stimulation in refractory angina. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Acta Cardiol. Apr 2015; 70(2): 233-43. PMID 26148385
83. Zipes DP, Svorkdal N, Berman D, et al. Spinal cord stimulation therapy for patients with refractory angina who are not candidates for revascularization. Neuromodulation. 2012; 15(6): 550-8; discussion 558-9. PMID 22494013
84. Lanza GA, Grimaldi R, Greco S, et al. Spinal cord stimulation for the treatment of refractory angina pectoris: a multicenter randomized single-blind study (the SCS-ITA trial). Pain. Jan 2011; 152(1): 45-52. PMID 21084162
85. Lanza GA, Barone L, Di Monaco A. Effect of spinal cord stimulation in patients with refractory angina: evidence from observational studies. Neuromodulation. 2012; 15(6): 542-9; disdcussion 549. PMID 22364309
86. Ashrafpour S, Ashrafpour M. Efficacy of spinal cord stimulation as an adjunctive therapy in heart failure: A systematic review. Neurophysiol Clin. May 2024; 54(3): 102945. PMID 38422720
87. Lihua P, Su M, Zejun Z, et al. Spinal cord stimulation for cancer-related pain in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. Feb 28 2013; (2): CD009389. PMID 23450600
88. Peng L, Min S, Zejun Z, et al. Spinal cord stimulation for cancer-related pain in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. Jun 29 2015; 2015(6): CD009389. PMID 26121600
89. Blonde L, Umpierrez GE, Reddy SS, et al. American Association of Clinical Endocrinology Clinical Practice Guideline: Developing a Diabetes Mellitus Comprehensive Care Plan-2022 Update. Endocr Pract. Oct 2022; 28(10): 923-1049. PMID 35963508
90. Shanthanna H, Eldabe S, Provenzano DA, et al. Evidence-based consensus guidelines on patient selection and trial stimulation for spinal cord stimulation therapy for chronic non-cancer pain. Reg Anesth Pain Med. Jun 2023; 48(6): 273-287. PMID 37001888
91. Manchikanti L, Abdi S, Atluri S, et al. An update of comprehensive evidence-based guidelines for interventional techniques in chronic spinal pain. Part II: guidance and recommendations. Pain Physician. Apr 2013; 16(2 Suppl): S49-283. PMID 23615883
92. Aman MM, Mahmoud A, Deer T, et al. The American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) Best Practices and Guidelines for the Interventional Management of Cancer-Associated Pain. J Pain Res. 2021; 14: 2139-2164. PMID 34295184
93. Hunter CW, Deer TR, Jones MR, et al. Consensus Guidelines on Interventional Therapies for Knee Pain (STEP Guidelines) from the American Society of Pain and Neuroscience. J Pain Res. 2022; 15: 2683-2745. PMID 36132996
94. Sayed D, Grider J, Strand N, et al. The American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) Evidence-Based Clinical Guideline of Interventional Treatments for Low Back Pain. J Pain Res. 2022; 15: 3729-3832. PMID 36510616
95. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Spinal cord stimulation for chronic pain of neuropathic or ischaemic origin [TA159]. 2008; https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta159. Accessed Feb 27, 2024.
96. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. National Coverage Determination (NCD) for Electrical Nerve Stimulators (160.7). 1995; https://www.cms.gov/medicare-coverage-database/details/ncd-details.aspx?NCDId=240&ncdver=1&bc=AAAAgAAAAAAA&. Accessed March 13, 2025.

Codes

POLICY HISTORY