脊髓刺激治疗慢性胰腺炎疼痛的假对照随机试验。

IF 3.5 2区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY European Journal of Pain Pub Date : 2024-07-11 DOI:10.1002/ejp.2315
Helga Angela Gulisano, Elin Eriksen, Carsten Reidies Bjarkam, Asbjørn Mohr Drewes, Søren Schou Olesen
{"title":"脊髓刺激治疗慢性胰腺炎疼痛的假对照随机试验。","authors":"Helga Angela Gulisano,&nbsp;Elin Eriksen,&nbsp;Carsten Reidies Bjarkam,&nbsp;Asbjørn Mohr Drewes,&nbsp;Søren Schou Olesen","doi":"10.1002/ejp.2315","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has emerged as a treatment option for patients with chronic pancreatitis (CP) who experience pain that does not respond to standard interventions. However, there is a lack of sham-controlled trials to support its efficacy.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>This randomized, double-blinded, sham-controlled, cross-over trial enrolled 16 CP patients with insufficient pain relief from standard therapies. Patients underwent high-frequency (1000 Hz) paraesthesia-free SCS or sham for two 10-day stimulation periods, separated by a 3-day washout period. The primary outcome was daily pain intensity registered in a pain diary based on a numeric rating scale (NRS). Secondary outcomes included various questionnaires. Quantitative sensory testing was used to probe the pain system before and after interventions.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>The average daily pain score on the NRS at baseline was 5.2 ± 1.9. After SCS, the pain score was 4.2 ± 2.1 compared to 4.3 ± 2.1 in the sham group (mean difference −0.1, 95% CI [−1.4 to 1.1]; <i>P</i> = 0.81). Similarly, no differences were observed between groups for the maximal daily pain score, secondary outcomes or quantitative sensory testing parameters. During an open-label, non-sham-controlled and non-blinded extension of the study, the average daily NRS was 5.2 ± 1.7 at baseline, 3.2 ± 1.8 at 3 months, 2.9 ± 1.9 at 6 months and 3.4 ± 2.2 at 12 months of follow-up (<i>P</i> = 0.001).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>In this first sham-controlled trial of SCS in painful CP, we did not find evidence of short-term pain relief with paraesthesia-free high-frequency (1000 Hz) stimulation. However, evaluation of the long-term effect by larger sham-controlled trials with long-term follow-up is warranted.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Significance Statement</h3>\n \n <p>In this first sham-controlled trial to apply high-frequency (1000 Hz) spinal cord stimulation in patients with visceral pain due to chronic pancreatitis, we did not find evidence for clinically relevant pain relief. Taken together with potential procedure-related complications, adverse effects and costs associated with spinal cord stimulation, our findings question its use for management of visceral pain.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":12021,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Pain","volume":"28 9","pages":"1627-1639"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ejp.2315","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A sham-controlled, randomized trial of spinal cord stimulation for the treatment of pain in chronic pancreatitis\",\"authors\":\"Helga Angela Gulisano,&nbsp;Elin Eriksen,&nbsp;Carsten Reidies Bjarkam,&nbsp;Asbjørn Mohr Drewes,&nbsp;Søren Schou Olesen\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/ejp.2315\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background</h3>\\n \\n <p>Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has emerged as a treatment option for patients with chronic pancreatitis (CP) who experience pain that does not respond to standard interventions. However, there is a lack of sham-controlled trials to support its efficacy.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>This randomized, double-blinded, sham-controlled, cross-over trial enrolled 16 CP patients with insufficient pain relief from standard therapies. Patients underwent high-frequency (1000 Hz) paraesthesia-free SCS or sham for two 10-day stimulation periods, separated by a 3-day washout period. The primary outcome was daily pain intensity registered in a pain diary based on a numeric rating scale (NRS). Secondary outcomes included various questionnaires. Quantitative sensory testing was used to probe the pain system before and after interventions.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>The average daily pain score on the NRS at baseline was 5.2 ± 1.9. After SCS, the pain score was 4.2 ± 2.1 compared to 4.3 ± 2.1 in the sham group (mean difference −0.1, 95% CI [−1.4 to 1.1]; <i>P</i> = 0.81). Similarly, no differences were observed between groups for the maximal daily pain score, secondary outcomes or quantitative sensory testing parameters. During an open-label, non-sham-controlled and non-blinded extension of the study, the average daily NRS was 5.2 ± 1.7 at baseline, 3.2 ± 1.8 at 3 months, 2.9 ± 1.9 at 6 months and 3.4 ± 2.2 at 12 months of follow-up (<i>P</i> = 0.001).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>In this first sham-controlled trial of SCS in painful CP, we did not find evidence of short-term pain relief with paraesthesia-free high-frequency (1000 Hz) stimulation. However, evaluation of the long-term effect by larger sham-controlled trials with long-term follow-up is warranted.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Significance Statement</h3>\\n \\n <p>In this first sham-controlled trial to apply high-frequency (1000 Hz) spinal cord stimulation in patients with visceral pain due to chronic pancreatitis, we did not find evidence for clinically relevant pain relief. Taken together with potential procedure-related complications, adverse effects and costs associated with spinal cord stimulation, our findings question its use for management of visceral pain.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12021,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Pain\",\"volume\":\"28 9\",\"pages\":\"1627-1639\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ejp.2315\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Pain\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejp.2315\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Pain","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejp.2315","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:脊髓刺激疗法(SCS)已成为慢性胰腺炎(CP)患者的一种治疗选择,这些患者的疼痛对标准干预措施无效。然而,目前尚缺乏假对照试验支持其疗效:这项随机、双盲、假对照、交叉试验共招募了 16 名标准疗法无法充分缓解疼痛的慢性胰腺炎患者。患者接受高频(1000赫兹)无副痛SCS或假刺激,刺激期为两个10天,中间有3天的冲洗期。主要结果是根据数字评分量表(NRS)在疼痛日记中记录的每日疼痛强度。次要结果包括各种问卷调查。定量感觉测试用于探查干预前后的疼痛系统:结果:基线时,NRS 的平均每日疼痛评分为 5.2 ± 1.9。SCS 治疗后,疼痛评分为 4.2 ± 2.1,而假体组为 4.3 ± 2.1(平均差异-0.1,95% CI [-1.4 至 1.1];P = 0.81)。同样,在每日最大疼痛评分、次要结果或定量感觉测试参数方面,也未观察到组间差异。在一项开放标签、非假对照和非盲法的扩展研究中,基线时的平均每日 NRS 为 5.2 ± 1.7,3 个月时为 3.2 ± 1.8,6 个月时为 2.9 ± 1.9,随访 12 个月时为 3.4 ± 2.2(P = 0.001):在这项首次针对疼痛型 CP 的 SCS 假对照试验中,我们没有发现无副痛性高频(1000 Hz)刺激能在短期内缓解疼痛的证据。然而,我们需要通过更大规模的假对照试验和长期随访来评估其长期效果:在这项首次对慢性胰腺炎内脏疼痛患者进行高频(1000 Hz)脊髓刺激的假对照试验中,我们没有发现与临床相关的疼痛缓解证据。考虑到脊髓刺激可能引起的并发症、不良反应和相关费用,我们的研究结果对脊髓刺激用于内脏疼痛治疗提出了质疑。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
A sham-controlled, randomized trial of spinal cord stimulation for the treatment of pain in chronic pancreatitis

Background

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has emerged as a treatment option for patients with chronic pancreatitis (CP) who experience pain that does not respond to standard interventions. However, there is a lack of sham-controlled trials to support its efficacy.

Methods

This randomized, double-blinded, sham-controlled, cross-over trial enrolled 16 CP patients with insufficient pain relief from standard therapies. Patients underwent high-frequency (1000 Hz) paraesthesia-free SCS or sham for two 10-day stimulation periods, separated by a 3-day washout period. The primary outcome was daily pain intensity registered in a pain diary based on a numeric rating scale (NRS). Secondary outcomes included various questionnaires. Quantitative sensory testing was used to probe the pain system before and after interventions.

Results

The average daily pain score on the NRS at baseline was 5.2 ± 1.9. After SCS, the pain score was 4.2 ± 2.1 compared to 4.3 ± 2.1 in the sham group (mean difference −0.1, 95% CI [−1.4 to 1.1]; P = 0.81). Similarly, no differences were observed between groups for the maximal daily pain score, secondary outcomes or quantitative sensory testing parameters. During an open-label, non-sham-controlled and non-blinded extension of the study, the average daily NRS was 5.2 ± 1.7 at baseline, 3.2 ± 1.8 at 3 months, 2.9 ± 1.9 at 6 months and 3.4 ± 2.2 at 12 months of follow-up (P = 0.001).

Conclusion

In this first sham-controlled trial of SCS in painful CP, we did not find evidence of short-term pain relief with paraesthesia-free high-frequency (1000 Hz) stimulation. However, evaluation of the long-term effect by larger sham-controlled trials with long-term follow-up is warranted.

Significance Statement

In this first sham-controlled trial to apply high-frequency (1000 Hz) spinal cord stimulation in patients with visceral pain due to chronic pancreatitis, we did not find evidence for clinically relevant pain relief. Taken together with potential procedure-related complications, adverse effects and costs associated with spinal cord stimulation, our findings question its use for management of visceral pain.

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
European Journal of Pain
European Journal of Pain 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
5.60%
发文量
163
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: European Journal of Pain (EJP) publishes clinical and basic science research papers relevant to all aspects of pain and its management, including specialties such as anaesthesia, dentistry, neurology and neurosurgery, orthopaedics, palliative care, pharmacology, physiology, psychiatry, psychology and rehabilitation; socio-economic aspects of pain are also covered. Regular sections in the journal are as follows: • Editorials and Commentaries • Position Papers and Guidelines • Reviews • Original Articles • Letters • Bookshelf The journal particularly welcomes clinical trials, which are published on an occasional basis. Research articles are published under the following subject headings: • Neurobiology • Neurology • Experimental Pharmacology • Clinical Pharmacology • Psychology • Behavioural Therapy • Epidemiology • Cancer Pain • Acute Pain • Clinical Trials.
期刊最新文献
Prevalence of Temporomandibular Disorder Symptoms After Whiplash Trauma—A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Development and Validation of a Short Version (PAIC6) of the Pain Assessment in Impaired Cognition Scale Ten Minutes of Core Stabilisation Exercise Result in Local Exercise-Induced Hypoalgesia in Patients With Chronic Unspecific Low Back Pain Spontaneous Pain and Pain Sensitivity in Response to Prolonged Experimental Sleep Disturbances—Potential Sex Differences A Multidimensional Regression Model for Predicting Recurrence in Chronic Low Back Pain
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1