Spinal cord stimulation therapy for patients with refractory angina who are not candidates for revascularization

Douglas P. Zipes, Nelson Svorkdal, Daniel Berman, Richard Boortz-Marx, Timothy Henry, Amir Lerman, Edgar Ross, Michael Turner, Christopher Irwin

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

25 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for refractory angina. Materials and Methods: This multicenter, randomized, single-blind, controlled trial evaluated SCS in two patient groups: high stimulation (HS) (treatment) and low stimulation (LS) (control). The HS group controlled SCS with a programmer for a minimum of two hours four times daily. The LS group received SCS therapy above the paresthesia threshold for one min once daily. The primary efficacy endpoint was number of angina attacks recorded by patients at six months. The primary safety endpoint was the major adverse cardiac event (MACE) rate at six months. Results: Due to slow enrollment, a futility analysis was performed, resulting in early termination of the study. Sixty-eight patients were randomized after implantation. Mean change in angina attacks per day from baseline to six months was -1.19 ± 2.13 (HS) and -1.29 ± 1.66 (LS). The difference from baseline was significant within each group (both p < 0.001) but not between groups (p = 0.45). Total exercise time and time to angina onset increased significantly from baseline to six months within each group (both p = 0.02 and 0.002) but not between groups (p = 0.52 and 0.51). MACE was similar between groups. Conclusion: Although this study was terminated early, the results obtained at six months suggest that SCS (HS) is not more effective than the control (LS) in patients with refractory angina.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)550-558
Number of pages9
JournalNeuromodulation
Volume15
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 2012

Fingerprint

Spinal Cord Stimulation
Medical Futility
Therapeutics
Safety
Paresthesia
Exercise

Keywords

  • Angina pectoris
  • electric stimulation therapy
  • spinal cord stimulation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine
  • Neurology
  • Clinical Neurology

Cite this

Zipes, D. P., Svorkdal, N., Berman, D., Boortz-Marx, R., Henry, T., Lerman, A., ... Irwin, C. (2012). Spinal cord stimulation therapy for patients with refractory angina who are not candidates for revascularization. Neuromodulation, 15(6), 550-558. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-1403.2012.00452.x

Spinal cord stimulation therapy for patients with refractory angina who are not candidates for revascularization. / Zipes, Douglas P.; Svorkdal, Nelson; Berman, Daniel; Boortz-Marx, Richard; Henry, Timothy; Lerman, Amir; Ross, Edgar; Turner, Michael; Irwin, Christopher.

In: Neuromodulation, Vol. 15, No. 6, 11.2012, p. 550-558.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Zipes, DP, Svorkdal, N, Berman, D, Boortz-Marx, R, Henry, T, Lerman, A, Ross, E, Turner, M & Irwin, C 2012, 'Spinal cord stimulation therapy for patients with refractory angina who are not candidates for revascularization', Neuromodulation, vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 550-558. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-1403.2012.00452.x
Zipes, Douglas P. ; Svorkdal, Nelson ; Berman, Daniel ; Boortz-Marx, Richard ; Henry, Timothy ; Lerman, Amir ; Ross, Edgar ; Turner, Michael ; Irwin, Christopher. / Spinal cord stimulation therapy for patients with refractory angina who are not candidates for revascularization. In: Neuromodulation. 2012 ; Vol. 15, No. 6. pp. 550-558.
@article{27790dcd813240e3a3ddf8dc66c2bf65,
title = "Spinal cord stimulation therapy for patients with refractory angina who are not candidates for revascularization",
abstract = "Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for refractory angina. Materials and Methods: This multicenter, randomized, single-blind, controlled trial evaluated SCS in two patient groups: high stimulation (HS) (treatment) and low stimulation (LS) (control). The HS group controlled SCS with a programmer for a minimum of two hours four times daily. The LS group received SCS therapy above the paresthesia threshold for one min once daily. The primary efficacy endpoint was number of angina attacks recorded by patients at six months. The primary safety endpoint was the major adverse cardiac event (MACE) rate at six months. Results: Due to slow enrollment, a futility analysis was performed, resulting in early termination of the study. Sixty-eight patients were randomized after implantation. Mean change in angina attacks per day from baseline to six months was -1.19 ± 2.13 (HS) and -1.29 ± 1.66 (LS). The difference from baseline was significant within each group (both p < 0.001) but not between groups (p = 0.45). Total exercise time and time to angina onset increased significantly from baseline to six months within each group (both p = 0.02 and 0.002) but not between groups (p = 0.52 and 0.51). MACE was similar between groups. Conclusion: Although this study was terminated early, the results obtained at six months suggest that SCS (HS) is not more effective than the control (LS) in patients with refractory angina.",
keywords = "Angina pectoris, electric stimulation therapy, spinal cord stimulation",
author = "Zipes, {Douglas P.} and Nelson Svorkdal and Daniel Berman and Richard Boortz-Marx and Timothy Henry and Amir Lerman and Edgar Ross and Michael Turner and Christopher Irwin",
year = "2012",
month = "11",
doi = "10.1111/j.1525-1403.2012.00452.x",
language = "English",
volume = "15",
pages = "550--558",
journal = "Neuromodulation",
issn = "1094-7159",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Spinal cord stimulation therapy for patients with refractory angina who are not candidates for revascularization

AU - Zipes, Douglas P.

AU - Svorkdal, Nelson

AU - Berman, Daniel

AU - Boortz-Marx, Richard

AU - Henry, Timothy

AU - Lerman, Amir

AU - Ross, Edgar

AU - Turner, Michael

AU - Irwin, Christopher

PY - 2012/11

Y1 - 2012/11

N2 - Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for refractory angina. Materials and Methods: This multicenter, randomized, single-blind, controlled trial evaluated SCS in two patient groups: high stimulation (HS) (treatment) and low stimulation (LS) (control). The HS group controlled SCS with a programmer for a minimum of two hours four times daily. The LS group received SCS therapy above the paresthesia threshold for one min once daily. The primary efficacy endpoint was number of angina attacks recorded by patients at six months. The primary safety endpoint was the major adverse cardiac event (MACE) rate at six months. Results: Due to slow enrollment, a futility analysis was performed, resulting in early termination of the study. Sixty-eight patients were randomized after implantation. Mean change in angina attacks per day from baseline to six months was -1.19 ± 2.13 (HS) and -1.29 ± 1.66 (LS). The difference from baseline was significant within each group (both p < 0.001) but not between groups (p = 0.45). Total exercise time and time to angina onset increased significantly from baseline to six months within each group (both p = 0.02 and 0.002) but not between groups (p = 0.52 and 0.51). MACE was similar between groups. Conclusion: Although this study was terminated early, the results obtained at six months suggest that SCS (HS) is not more effective than the control (LS) in patients with refractory angina.

AB - Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for refractory angina. Materials and Methods: This multicenter, randomized, single-blind, controlled trial evaluated SCS in two patient groups: high stimulation (HS) (treatment) and low stimulation (LS) (control). The HS group controlled SCS with a programmer for a minimum of two hours four times daily. The LS group received SCS therapy above the paresthesia threshold for one min once daily. The primary efficacy endpoint was number of angina attacks recorded by patients at six months. The primary safety endpoint was the major adverse cardiac event (MACE) rate at six months. Results: Due to slow enrollment, a futility analysis was performed, resulting in early termination of the study. Sixty-eight patients were randomized after implantation. Mean change in angina attacks per day from baseline to six months was -1.19 ± 2.13 (HS) and -1.29 ± 1.66 (LS). The difference from baseline was significant within each group (both p < 0.001) but not between groups (p = 0.45). Total exercise time and time to angina onset increased significantly from baseline to six months within each group (both p = 0.02 and 0.002) but not between groups (p = 0.52 and 0.51). MACE was similar between groups. Conclusion: Although this study was terminated early, the results obtained at six months suggest that SCS (HS) is not more effective than the control (LS) in patients with refractory angina.

KW - Angina pectoris

KW - electric stimulation therapy

KW - spinal cord stimulation

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84870499935&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84870499935&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1525-1403.2012.00452.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1525-1403.2012.00452.x

M3 - Article

C2 - 22494013

AN - SCOPUS:84870499935

VL - 15

SP - 550

EP - 558

JO - Neuromodulation

JF - Neuromodulation

SN - 1094-7159

IS - 6

ER -