TY - JOUR
T1 - Spinal cord stimulation
T2 - a real-world data analysis on outcomes and differences between rechargeable and non-rechargeable implantable pulse generators
AU - Luecke, Thorsten
AU - Kuhlmann, Harald
AU - May, Melanie
AU - Petermann, Marius
AU - Libutzki, Berit
AU - Jäehnichen, Gunnar
N1 - Funding Information:
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was funded by Nevro Corp. Redwood City, CA, USA.
Publisher Copyright:
© The Author(s) 2021.
PY - 2021
Y1 - 2021
N2 - Objective: In this analysis, we examined differences between rechargeable and non-rechargeable spinal cord stimulation (SCS) devices in patients with pain.Methods: We conducted a retrospective, longitudinal claims data analysis using a German research database comprising 5 million statutory insured patients (2012–2017). Outcomes of demographics, patient pathways, and health care resource utilization (HCRU) in patients with initial SCS were collected.Results: Of 150 patients in the database, 73 (49%) received a rechargeable device and 77 (51%) a non-rechargeable device. The average age was 62.5 years (51% female and 49% male patients). A significant decrease over a 3-year follow-up was observed in analgesic prescriptions (−18%), number of patient visits to a physician, and number of patients who were hospitalized. HCRU-related figures for patients with non-rechargeable neurostimulators increased in the last follow-up year whereas the group receiving rechargeable neurostimulators showed a steady decrease.Conclusions: SCS seems to be an effective way for patients with chronic pain to decrease pain and improve quality of life. Rechargeable devices seem to be superior to non-rechargeable devices owing to greater longevity and were found to be associated with continuous reduction of pain diagnoses, hospitalization, physician visits, and use of pain medication in our study.
AB - Objective: In this analysis, we examined differences between rechargeable and non-rechargeable spinal cord stimulation (SCS) devices in patients with pain.Methods: We conducted a retrospective, longitudinal claims data analysis using a German research database comprising 5 million statutory insured patients (2012–2017). Outcomes of demographics, patient pathways, and health care resource utilization (HCRU) in patients with initial SCS were collected.Results: Of 150 patients in the database, 73 (49%) received a rechargeable device and 77 (51%) a non-rechargeable device. The average age was 62.5 years (51% female and 49% male patients). A significant decrease over a 3-year follow-up was observed in analgesic prescriptions (−18%), number of patient visits to a physician, and number of patients who were hospitalized. HCRU-related figures for patients with non-rechargeable neurostimulators increased in the last follow-up year whereas the group receiving rechargeable neurostimulators showed a steady decrease.Conclusions: SCS seems to be an effective way for patients with chronic pain to decrease pain and improve quality of life. Rechargeable devices seem to be superior to non-rechargeable devices owing to greater longevity and were found to be associated with continuous reduction of pain diagnoses, hospitalization, physician visits, and use of pain medication in our study.
KW - chronic pain
KW - failed back surgery syndrome
KW - implantable pulse generator
KW - pain
KW - post-laminectomy syndrome
KW - real-world data
KW - rechargeable
KW - Spinal cord stimulation
U2 - 10.1177/03000605211038457
DO - 10.1177/03000605211038457
M3 - Article
C2 - 34459276
AN - SCOPUS:85114027089
SN - 0300-0605
VL - 49
SP - 1
EP - 16
JO - Journal of international medical research
JF - Journal of international medical research
IS - 8
ER -