首次使用ecap控制的闭环技术客观证据表征颈、胸脊髓神经生理学差异。

IF 3.3 2区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Johnathan H Goree, Harold Nijhuis, Gregory L Smith, Erika A Petersen, Jason E Pope, Ajay B Antony, Chau M Vu, Dawood Sayed, Christopher M Lam, Usman Latif, Shrif J Costandi, Paul Verrills, Lalit Venkatesan, Weirong Ge, Ian Gould, Jan Willem Kallewaard
{"title":"首次使用ecap控制的闭环技术客观证据表征颈、胸脊髓神经生理学差异。","authors":"Johnathan H Goree, Harold Nijhuis, Gregory L Smith, Erika A Petersen, Jason E Pope, Ajay B Antony, Chau M Vu, Dawood Sayed, Christopher M Lam, Usman Latif, Shrif J Costandi, Paul Verrills, Lalit Venkatesan, Weirong Ge, Ian Gould, Jan Willem Kallewaard","doi":"10.1007/s40122-025-00782-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a widely accepted therapy in patients with chronic intractable neuropathic pain in the trunk and limbs. However, open-loop (OL) SCS systems, which rely on fixed stimulation parameters and subjective feedback, face limitations in delivering consistent neural activation and durable pain relief. Anatomical and physiological characteristics of the cervical spinal cord, such as decreased cerebrospinal fluid thickness and increased mobility, exacerbate these challenges. Limited evidence exists on differences in cervical and thoracic neurophysiology, and the corresponding impact on neural activation in SCS. This post hoc analysis characterizes neurophysiological differences between the cervical and thoracic regions using evoked compound action potential (ECAP)-controlled closed-loop (CL) technology to assess implications for SCS dosing and therapy optimization.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Global study and real-world chronic pain patients implanted with ECAP-controlled CL-SCS systems were included. To identify differences between cervical (n = 187) and thoracic (n = 1899) neurophysiology, the relationship between stimulation current and neural activation was analyzed. Additionally, neural activation stability was evaluated in both in-clinic and out-of-clinic settings.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The cervical spinal cord demonstrated significantly lower ECAP thresholds (p < 0.001) and > 100% higher spinal cord sensitivity compared to the thoracic region (p < 0.001). Cervical therapeutic dosing range was ≥ 48% narrower (p < 0.001), increasing the risk of overstimulation with OL-SCS. CL-SCS significantly improved dose accuracy in both regions (p < 0.001) during postural changes simulating activities of daily living. These findings highlight the superior precision and consistency in neural dosing with ECAP-controlled CL systems.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This is the first study to objectively characterize differences in cervical and thoracic spinal neurophysiology using SCS. ECAP-controlled CL-SCS maintains consistent neural activation in both cervical and thoracic regions. Given the heightened sensitivity and narrow dosing range in the cervical region, ECAP-controlled CL-SCS may enhance therapeutic outcomes through more precise and consistent neural dosing compared to OL systems.</p>","PeriodicalId":19908,"journal":{"name":"Pain and Therapy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"First Objective Evidence Characterizing Differences in Cervical and Thoracic Spinal Cord Neurophysiology Using ECAP-Controlled Closed-Loop Technology.\",\"authors\":\"Johnathan H Goree, Harold Nijhuis, Gregory L Smith, Erika A Petersen, Jason E Pope, Ajay B Antony, Chau M Vu, Dawood Sayed, Christopher M Lam, Usman Latif, Shrif J Costandi, Paul Verrills, Lalit Venkatesan, Weirong Ge, Ian Gould, Jan Willem Kallewaard\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40122-025-00782-y\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a widely accepted therapy in patients with chronic intractable neuropathic pain in the trunk and limbs. However, open-loop (OL) SCS systems, which rely on fixed stimulation parameters and subjective feedback, face limitations in delivering consistent neural activation and durable pain relief. Anatomical and physiological characteristics of the cervical spinal cord, such as decreased cerebrospinal fluid thickness and increased mobility, exacerbate these challenges. Limited evidence exists on differences in cervical and thoracic neurophysiology, and the corresponding impact on neural activation in SCS. This post hoc analysis characterizes neurophysiological differences between the cervical and thoracic regions using evoked compound action potential (ECAP)-controlled closed-loop (CL) technology to assess implications for SCS dosing and therapy optimization.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Global study and real-world chronic pain patients implanted with ECAP-controlled CL-SCS systems were included. To identify differences between cervical (n = 187) and thoracic (n = 1899) neurophysiology, the relationship between stimulation current and neural activation was analyzed. Additionally, neural activation stability was evaluated in both in-clinic and out-of-clinic settings.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The cervical spinal cord demonstrated significantly lower ECAP thresholds (p < 0.001) and > 100% higher spinal cord sensitivity compared to the thoracic region (p < 0.001). Cervical therapeutic dosing range was ≥ 48% narrower (p < 0.001), increasing the risk of overstimulation with OL-SCS. CL-SCS significantly improved dose accuracy in both regions (p < 0.001) during postural changes simulating activities of daily living. These findings highlight the superior precision and consistency in neural dosing with ECAP-controlled CL systems.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This is the first study to objectively characterize differences in cervical and thoracic spinal neurophysiology using SCS. ECAP-controlled CL-SCS maintains consistent neural activation in both cervical and thoracic regions. Given the heightened sensitivity and narrow dosing range in the cervical region, ECAP-controlled CL-SCS may enhance therapeutic outcomes through more precise and consistent neural dosing compared to OL systems.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19908,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pain and Therapy\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pain and Therapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40122-025-00782-y\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pain and Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40122-025-00782-y","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

脊髓刺激(SCS)是一种被广泛接受的治疗躯干和四肢慢性难治性神经性疼痛的方法。然而,开环(OL) SCS系统依赖于固定的刺激参数和主观反馈,在提供一致的神经激活和持久的疼痛缓解方面面临局限性。颈脊髓的解剖和生理特征,如脑脊液厚度减少和活动性增加,加剧了这些挑战。关于颈、胸神经生理差异及其对SCS神经激活的影响的证据有限。该事后分析利用诱发复合动作电位(ECAP)控制闭环(CL)技术分析了颈椎和胸椎神经生理差异,以评估SCS剂量和治疗优化的意义。方法:纳入全球研究和现实世界中植入ecap控制的CL-SCS系统的慢性疼痛患者。为了确定颈椎(n = 187)和胸椎(n = 1899)神经生理学的差异,分析了刺激电流与神经激活的关系。此外,神经激活稳定性在门诊和门诊外的设置进行了评估。结果:颈脊髓显示出明显较低的ECAP阈值(p比胸椎区域高100%)。结论:这是第一个使用SCS客观表征颈胸椎神经生理学差异的研究。ecap控制的CL-SCS在颈椎和胸椎区域保持一致的神经激活。与OL系统相比,ecap控制的CL-SCS可以通过更精确和一致的神经给药来提高颈椎区域的敏感性和狭窄的给药范围,从而提高治疗效果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
First Objective Evidence Characterizing Differences in Cervical and Thoracic Spinal Cord Neurophysiology Using ECAP-Controlled Closed-Loop Technology.

Introduction: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a widely accepted therapy in patients with chronic intractable neuropathic pain in the trunk and limbs. However, open-loop (OL) SCS systems, which rely on fixed stimulation parameters and subjective feedback, face limitations in delivering consistent neural activation and durable pain relief. Anatomical and physiological characteristics of the cervical spinal cord, such as decreased cerebrospinal fluid thickness and increased mobility, exacerbate these challenges. Limited evidence exists on differences in cervical and thoracic neurophysiology, and the corresponding impact on neural activation in SCS. This post hoc analysis characterizes neurophysiological differences between the cervical and thoracic regions using evoked compound action potential (ECAP)-controlled closed-loop (CL) technology to assess implications for SCS dosing and therapy optimization.

Methods: Global study and real-world chronic pain patients implanted with ECAP-controlled CL-SCS systems were included. To identify differences between cervical (n = 187) and thoracic (n = 1899) neurophysiology, the relationship between stimulation current and neural activation was analyzed. Additionally, neural activation stability was evaluated in both in-clinic and out-of-clinic settings.

Results: The cervical spinal cord demonstrated significantly lower ECAP thresholds (p < 0.001) and > 100% higher spinal cord sensitivity compared to the thoracic region (p < 0.001). Cervical therapeutic dosing range was ≥ 48% narrower (p < 0.001), increasing the risk of overstimulation with OL-SCS. CL-SCS significantly improved dose accuracy in both regions (p < 0.001) during postural changes simulating activities of daily living. These findings highlight the superior precision and consistency in neural dosing with ECAP-controlled CL systems.

Conclusions: This is the first study to objectively characterize differences in cervical and thoracic spinal neurophysiology using SCS. ECAP-controlled CL-SCS maintains consistent neural activation in both cervical and thoracic regions. Given the heightened sensitivity and narrow dosing range in the cervical region, ECAP-controlled CL-SCS may enhance therapeutic outcomes through more precise and consistent neural dosing compared to OL systems.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Pain and Therapy
Pain and Therapy CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-
CiteScore
6.60
自引率
5.00%
发文量
110
审稿时长
6 weeks
期刊介绍: Pain and Therapy is an international, open access, peer-reviewed, rapid publication journal dedicated to the publication of high-quality clinical (all phases), observational, real-world, and health outcomes research around the discovery, development, and use of pain therapies and pain-related devices. Studies relating to diagnosis, pharmacoeconomics, public health, quality of life, and patient care, management, and education are also encouraged. Areas of focus include, but are not limited to, acute pain, cancer pain, chronic pain, headache and migraine, neuropathic pain, opioids, palliative care and pain ethics, peri- and post-operative pain as well as rheumatic pain and fibromyalgia. The journal is of interest to a broad audience of pharmaceutical and healthcare professionals and publishes original research, reviews, case reports, trial protocols, short communications such as commentaries and editorials, and letters. The journal is read by a global audience and receives submissions from around the world. Pain and Therapy will consider all scientifically sound research be it positive, confirmatory or negative data. Submissions are welcomed whether they relate to an international and/or a country-specific audience, something that is crucially important when researchers are trying to target more specific patient populations. This inclusive approach allows the journal to assist in the dissemination of all scientifically and ethically sound research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信