
==== Front
Pain Ther
Pain Ther
Pain and Therapy
2193-8237
2193-651X
Springer Healthcare Cheshire

38977651
631
10.1007/s40122-024-00631-4
Original Research
Identifying SCS Trial Responders Immediately After Postoperative Programming with ECAP Dose-Controlled Closed-Loop Therapy
Pope Jason E. popeje@me.com

1
Antony Ajay 2
Petersen Erika A. 3
Rosen Steven M. 4
Sayed Dawood 5
Hunter Corey W. 6
Goree Johnathan H. 3
Vu Chau M. 1
Bhandal Harjot S. 1
Shumsky Philip M. 1
Bromberg Todd A. 4
Smith G. Lawson 3
Lam Christopher M. 5
Kalia Hemant 7
Lee Jennifer M. 8
Khurram Abeer 9
Gould Ian 9
Karantonis Dean M. 9
Deer Timothy R. 10
1 https://ror.org/00e8gtn74 grid.512614.5 Evolve Restorative Center, 220 Concourse Boulevard, Santa Rosa, CA 95403 USA
2 https://ror.org/056v2vw30 grid.489258.a The Orthopaedic Institute, Gainesville, FL USA
3 https://ror.org/00xcryt71 grid.241054.6 0000 0004 4687 1637 University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR USA
4 Delaware Valley Pain and Spine Institute, Trevose, PA USA
5 grid.412016.0 0000 0001 2177 6375 University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS USA
6 https://ror.org/02vwqfb11 grid.488686.c Ainsworth Institute of Pain Management, New York, NY USA
7 Center for Research and Innovation in Spine & Pain, Rochester, NY USA
8 Acute Pain Therapies & Ketamine Clinic, Bellevue, WA USA
9 Saluda Medical®, Bloomington, MN USA
10 https://ror.org/058h4cw85 grid.477931.f 0000 0004 9297 3933 Spine and Nerve Centers of the Virginias, Charleston, WV USA
9 7 2024
9 7 2024
10 2024
13 5 11731185
7 5 2024
20 6 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
Introduction

Drawbacks of fixed-output spinal cord stimulation (SCS) screening trials may lead to compromised trial outcomes and poor predictability of long-term success. Evoked compound action potential (ECAP) dose-controlled closed-loop (CL) SCS allows objective confirmation of therapeutic neural activation and pulse-to-pulse stimulation adjustment. We report on the immediate patient-reported and neurophysiologic treatment response post-physiologic CL-SCS and feasibility of early SCS trial responder prediction.

Methods

Patient-reported pain relief, functional improvement, and willingness to proceed to permanent implant were compared between the day of the trial procedure (Day 0) and end of trial (EOT) for 132 participants in the ECAP Study undergoing a trial stimulation period. ECAP-based neurophysiologic measurements from Day 0 and EOT were compared between responder groups.

Results

A high positive predictive value (PPV) was achieved with 98.4% (60/61) of patients successful on the Day 0 evaluation also responding at EOT. The false-positive rate (FPR) was 5.6% (1/18). ECAP-based neurophysiologic measures were not different between patients who passed all Day 0 success criteria (“Day 0 successes”) and those who did not (“needed longer to evaluate the therapy”). However, at EOT, responders had higher therapeutic usage and dose levels compared to non-responders.

Conclusions

The high PPV and low FPR of the Day 0 evaluation provide confidence in predicting trial outcomes as early as the day of the procedure. Day 0 trials may be beneficial for reducing patient burden and complication rates associated with extended trials. ECAP dose-controlled CL-SCS therapy may provide objective data and rapid-onset pain relief to improve prognostic ability of SCS trials in predicting outcomes.

Trial Registration

The ECAP Study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04319887).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40122-024-00631-4.

Keywords

Spinal cord stimulation
SCS
Evoked compound action potential
ECAP
Closed loop
Neuromodulation
http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100019593 Saluda Medical issue-copyright-statement© Springer Healthcare Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2024
==== Body
pmcKey Summary Points

Why carry out this study?	
For spinal cord stimulation (SCS) therapies, reliability of long-term efficacy predictions has been criticized because of reliance on patient-reported trial outcomes and the inability to confirm delivery of a stable therapeutic dose to the spinal cord	
Evoked compound action potential (ECAP) dose-controlled closed-loop (CL) SCS therapy, with objective confirmation of therapeutic neural activation and pulse-to-pulse adjustment of stimulation amplitude, may provide the ability to improve predictability of SCS trials	
We investigated the feasibility of evaluating trial success at the shortest possible duration, postoperatively, immediately after lead insertion and programming with ECAP dose-controlled CL-SCS therapy	
What was learned from the study?	
This research shows that ECAP dose-controlled CL-SCS responses to therapy can be detected effectively at Day 0, with a high positive predictive value (98.4%) and low false-positive rate (5.6%) for determining trial success	
This may allow physicians to confidently shorten the historically antiquated trial duration and provide the opportunity to redefine required SCS trial durations for systems employing ECAP dose-controlled CL-SCS	
Shortened trials with ECAP dose-controlled CL-SCS may reduce trial complications and associated failures and support vulnerable patient populations (e.g., the anticoagulated or immunocompromised patient) while maintaining confidence in trial outcomes	

Introduction

In many countries, patients are offered or required to experience a temporary screening trial implant to assess the treatment response of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for chronic pain. SCS trials typically last 3–7 days [1], with success defined by subjective patient-reported feedback of at least 50% reduction in pain symptoms. This requirement was probably adopted after 1984 with the approval of one of the first fully implantable SCS systems [2]. In 2020, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) also emphasized the importance of conducting a trial [3]. SCS trials are considered useful for evaluation of therapy response and allowing patients to experience the therapy, despite the debate surrounding the effectiveness of trials [1]. There has been, however, surprisingly little investigation into selection of a trial duration that provides the best balance between ensuring SCS success and patient safety [1]. For SCS systems characterized by delayed analgesia [4, 5] or lacking objective confirmation of stable neurophysiologic activation, a screening or trialing period spanning several days or longer is plausibly required. This prolonged trial duration exposes patients to risk of infections [6, 7], wearable trial equipment disconnects and failures, lead migrations [8], need to suspend normal medications (including anti-coagulants) [9], and increases associated patient burden, including work absenteeism [10].

Evoked compound action potential (ECAP)-controlled closed-loop (CL) SCS, using a physiologic closed loop control system (PCLCS[11], per IEC 60601-1-10), allows objective confirmation of therapeutic neural activation and adjusts stimulation amplitude on every stimulation pulse to maintain therapy at a target dose for typical activities of daily living [12] immediately post-programming. ECAP dose-controlled CL-SCS has been shown to provide superior pain relief than fixed-output, open-loop (OL)-SCS in a prospective, multicenter, randomized, self-selected cross-over, double-blind clinical trial with enduring outcomes out to 3 years [12–16]. Would an optimized and reproducible trial, with validated outcome assessments, and the use of objective ECAP dose-controlled CL-SCS offer an improved trial and prediction of therapy response, and when can those signals first be reliably detected?

Here, we investigate the feasibility of evaluating ECAP dose-controlled CL-SCS trial success at the shortest possible duration, postoperatively, immediately after lead insertion and programming. We hypothesize that trial success at this early stage of the trial (Day 0) is associated with success at the end of trial (EOT) for patients experiencing ECAP dose-controlled CL-SCS therapy. We were particularly interested in the positive predictive value (PPV) and false-positive rate (FPR) of the Day 0 evaluation. A high PPV and low FPR would provide confidence for the clinical validity of the evaluation and clearly have clinical relevance.

Methods

Participants with chronic, intractable trunk and/or limb pain were enrolled in the prospective, multicenter ECAP Study (NCT04319887, registered 24 March 2020 on ClinicalTrials.gov, first enrollment 29 October 2020) [17]. All subjects gave their informed consent for inclusion before they participated in the study. The ECAP Study was conducted in accordance with the United States FDA regulatory requirements, good clinical practice (GCP, per ISO 14155), Western Institutional Review Board approval (WIRB), and the Declaration of Helsinki guided ethical principles. This real-world study includes patients with a wide range of pain locations and indications, including chronic back and leg pain, upper limb pain, and conditions such as complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS). All patients underwent a temporary SCS trial with an external stimulator capable of ECAP-based PCLC (Evoke® System, Saluda Medical, Bloomington, MN) connected to one or two percutaneous Evoke leads (12 contacts, all capable of stimulation and ECAP measurement) placed in the dorsal epidural space of the spinal canal. Subjects with a successful temporary trial were eligible for a permanent Evoke System implant. For the observational analysis reported here, patients undergoing a traditional trial had evaluations performed on Day 0 postoperatively and at EOT (Fig. 1). These evaluations were prospectively collected for all possible patients starting from 29 October 2020 (N = 144).Fig. 1 Day 0 and EOT evaluations were performed for a subset of patients undergoing a traditional trial. EOT end of trial, HCP healthcare professional

Neural activation, validated by ECAPs and used to set the stimulation parameters, and the ability to enable the PCLC therapy were confirmed, giving confidence that consistent therapeutic activation could be delivered throughout the trial, with real-time adjustment of stimulation amplitude on every stimulation pulse [12]. Data collection did not impact provision of therapy, and patients were not expecting to make decisions about success of the device until EOT. Since the aim of this investigation was to evaluate the feasibility of predicting trial responders on Day 0 for patients with objective confirmation of consistent therapy delivery, only patients for whom PCLC therapy could be established on Day 0 (134/144) were included. Although reasons for not establishing PCLC therapy on Day 0 for the 10/144 patients were not documented, ECAP signals and activation plots could be recorded in these patients. Additionally, patients with confirmed mid-trial lead migration (N = 2) were removed from analysis. Baseline characteristics, pain regions, and etiologies for the patients included in this analysis (N = 132) are shown in Table 1. Table 1 Baseline characteristics, pain regions, and etiology

	Value or proportion	
Characteristics	
N	132	
Mean age (years)	60.7	
Mean BMI (kg/m2)	31.6	
Mean weight (kg)	91.6	
Mean height (m)	1.7	
Gender	
Female	52.3% (69/132)	
Male	47.7% (63/132)	
Pain region (not mutually exclusive)	
Legs	87.1% (115/132)	
Lower back	83.3% (110/132)	
Upper back + neck	9.1% (12/132)	
Arms	6.8% (9/132)	
Abdomen + groin	5.3% (7/132)	
Chest	0.8% (1/132)	
Etiology (not mutually exclusive)	
Radiculopathy	81.1% (107/132)	
Discogenic pain/DDD, herniation of adjacent disc, recurrent disc herniation, adjacent level degeneration	54.5% (72/132)	
Other†	53.8% (71/132)	
Spinal stenosis, foraminal stenosis	51.5% (68/132)	
Spondylosis	47.0% (62/132)	
Nerve root compression	31.8% (42/132)	
Scarring and fibrosis (perineural, epidural, dural, arachnoiditis)	27.3% (36/132)	
Facetogenic pain	24.2% (32/132)	
Degenerative spondylolisthesis	15.2% (20/132)	
CRPS I, CRPS II (IASP criteria)	11.4% (15/132)	
BMI  Body Mass Index, CRPS  complex regional pain syndrome, DDD degenerative disc disease, IASP International Association for the Study of Pain

†Other category includes: disc-other, instrumentation-related/hardware failure, myogenic pain, neurologic-other, osteoarthritis, pseudoarthrosis, rheumatoid arthritis, sacro-iliac joint dysfunction, scoliosis, spinal column-other, surgery related-other

Success criteria for this investigation were defined as: percentage pain relief (PPR) ≥ 50% (pain intensity test) and responded “Yes” to functional improvement (function test) and willingness to proceed to permanent implant (willingness test). PPR was chosen as the pain test due to its clinical applicability and high degree of correlation with calculated percent pain reduction [18–20]. The Day 0 function test was based on the validated Back Pain Functional Scale and Patient Specific Functional Scale assessments [21–23]. This involved patients completing a series of posture changes in the clinic mimicking activities of daily living before reporting whether any of the activities were made easier or less painful by their SCS therapy. Activities evaluated included sitting, standing, lying down, coughing, walking, and head forward/backward movements. Patients who passed all success criteria on Day 0 were classified as “Day 0 successes.” Patients failing any of the success criteria on Day 0 were classified as “needing longer to evaluate the therapy.”

PPR was collected on a continuous scale (0–100%) and converted to binary pass/fail based on the 50% pain relief cutoff (PPR ≥ 50% = pass, PPR < 50% = fail). The “yes” and “no” responses to the function test were similarly converted to pass/fail (“yes” = pass, “no” = fail). For the willingness test, patients could respond “yes,” “no,” or “unsure.” Given the need for trials to provide patients with enough experience of SCS to make an informed decision about progressing to a permanent implant [1], “unsure” and “no” responses were both treated as failures (“yes” = pass, “no”/“unsure” = fail). Trials were considered successful at the EOT timepoint if the physician progressed the patient to a permanent implant or if success criteria were met.

For comparison with the Day 0 data, PPR, functional improvement, and willingness test responses were also collected at EOT. We also report additional patient-reported outcomes (PROs) collected as part of the ECAP study [17] at EOT, including Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS), Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC), and a holistic score reflecting the overall clinical benefit to patients, calculated as the total number of minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) across five domains (see Supplementary Materials). Differences in PROs between Day 0 responder types were tested using a chi-square test (proportion difference) or t-test (mean difference). To validate the function test’s reliability in identifying function improvement, we compared function test results against additional EOT PROs (see Supplementary Materials). Appropriate licensure and/or approval for use was obtained for any PROs requiring permission to re-use.

Day 0 classification (successful/need longer to evaluate therapy) was compared to EOT evaluation status (responder/non-responder) for all patients in a 2 × 2 contingency table, and true-positive rate (sensitivity), true-negative rate (specificity), false-positive rate (FPR), and positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV, respectively) were calculated. The hypothesis that Day 0 evaluation status is associated with EOT status was tested with Barnard’s exact test.

Objective “dose ratio” and “dose accuracy” metrics were calculated to describe therapy dose levels and accuracy of the feedback loop on Day 0 and at EOT (see Supplementary Materials). Dose ratio is a standardized dose measure that may be compared across patients [24–26]. At EOT, additional data describing patients’ at-home usage of the device were available [25]. Therapy utilization represents the percentage of SCS usage expected to be therapeutic (see Supplementary Materials). Guided by previous findings [25], a one-sided Mann-Whitney U test was used to test the hypothesis that median dose ratio and dose accuracy were higher for Day 0 successes versus patients classified as needing longer to evaluate the therapy. At EOT, we tested the hypothesis that dose ratio, dose accuracy, and therapy utilization were all higher for EOT responders versus non-responders. Statistical analysis was conducted in Python v3.10 using the scipy and statsmodels packages. Statistical significance was judged at the 5% level.

Results

Day 0 and EOT evaluations were performed in 144 patients undergoing a traditional trial. ECAP dose-controlled CL therapy with pulse-to-pulse adjustment of stimulation was confirmed in 93% (134/144) of patients on Day 0. Of the 134 patients, two patients’ responses to the pain, function, and willingness tests changed from “yes” to “no” over the course of the trial. Trial lead migration was suspected to have occurred, which was confirmed by comparing x-ray or fluoroscopic images between the trial procedure and EOT. Since the results for these patients at EOT were confounded by lead migration, these patients were removed from analysis. One patient with CRPS had 40% PPR at EOT but experienced functional improvements and was interested to proceed to permanent implant. The trial was considered successful by the physician based on the PPR and functional improvement. This patient was imputed as a true positive.

Of the 132 patients included in this analysis (average trial length 6.4 ± 1.5 days, range 3–12 days), the overall trial success rate was 86.4% (114/132). The PPV was 98.4%, with 60/61 of the Day 0 successes continuing to respond at EOT. Of the patients classified as needing longer to evaluate therapy efficacy, 76.1% (54/71) were EOT responders (Table 2). The FPR of this evaluation was 5.6% (1/18) due to one patient with cervical CRPS who had a successful trial but opted not to proceed to a permanent implant. The true-positive rate (sensitivity) was 52.6% (60/114) while the true-negative rate (specificity) was 94.4% (17/18). The association between Day 0 status and EOT status was statistically significant (P = 0.001). Of note, 12.9% (17/132) of patients reported taking anticoagulant/antiplatelet medications. Table 2 Contingency table comparing Day 0 status to EOT status

	EOT responder	EOT non-responder	
Day 0 evaluation success	60 (True positive)	1 (False positive)	
Needed longer to evaluate the therapy	54 (False negative)	17 (True negative)	
EOT  end of trial

Patients passing versus failing the function test at EOT had higher values for PROMIS-29 Physical Function (39.9 vs 35.9, P = 0.037; number of MCIDs improvement 1.52 vs − 0.01, P < 0.001), PROMIS GH Physical Health scores (43.2 vs 35.5, P < 0.001; number of MCIDs improvement 2.05 vs 0.29, P  < 0.001), and the holistic score (9.5 vs 1.1 MCIDs improvement, P < 0.001) and lower values for PROMIS-29 Pain Interference score (56.3 vs 67.3, P < 0.001; number of MCIDs improvement 2.54 vs 0.34, P < 0.001).

Our success criteria (pain, function, and willingness tests) were more conservative than criteria included in typical clinical practice to ensure that the Day 0 evaluation was robust against false positives. On an individual test basis, 80.3% (106/132) and 81.8% (108/132) of patients passed the pain and function tests on Day 0, respectively (not mutually exclusive). The patients who passed Day 0 evaluation had average pain relief of 79.2% ± 17.1% and 81.8 ± 17.0% on Day 0 and EOT, respectively (Pearson correlation coefficient for Day 0 versus EOT PPR: r = 0.66, P < 0.001). At EOT, the Day 0 responders also had high satisfaction rates (100% of patients satisfied with pain relief and therapy), high improvement on PGIC (98.4% of patients improved), and a high holistic response score (10.4 MCIDs improvement). Outcomes for Day 0 success patients versus patients who needed longer to achieve success are displayed in Table 3. At EOT, slightly higher mean PPR was observed for patients who were successful on Day 0 versus those who needed longer to respond (EOT mean PPR: 81.8% vs 75.0%, P = 0.036), but there were no statistically significant differences in responder status, satisfaction rates, or holistic score (all P > 0.05). Table 3 Pain relief and responder status shown at Day0 and EOT for patients who were successful on the Day 0 evaluation vs those who were successful later. Additional outcomes like satisfaction, PGIC, and holistic response, collected at EOT only, are also displayed

	Patients who were successes on Day 0	Patients who were successes at EOT only	P value†	
Day 0				
Mean PPR	79.2%

(N = 61)

	54.9%

(N = 54)

	* P = 1.37E-6	
Percent PPR responders	100.0%

(61/61)

	64.8%

(35/54)

	* P = 3.97E-7	
EOT				
Mean PPR at EOT	81.8%

(N = 57)

	75.0%

(N = 50)

	* P = 0.036	
Percent PPR responders at EOT	96.5%

(55/57)

	96.0%

(48/50)

	P = 0.894	
Percent “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with pain relief	100.0%

(61/61)

	96.3%

(52/54)

	P = 0.129	
Percent “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with therapy	100.0%

(61/61)

	96.3%

(52/54)

	P = 0.129	
Percent “much improved” or “very much improved” on PGIC	98.4%

(60/61)

	90.7%

(49/54)

	P = 0.067	
Mean holistic score	10.4

(N = 61)

	9.0

(N = 54)

	P = 0.101	
MCID met in 1 or more domains	100.0%

(61/61)

	100.0%

(54/54)

	P = NA	
MCID met in 2 or more domains	96.7%

(59/61)

	83.3%

(45/54)

	* P = 0.015	
MCID met in 3 or more domains	82.0%

(50/61)

	77.8%

(42/54)

	P = 0.575	
MCID met in 4 or more domains	70.5%

(43/61)

	55.6%

(30/54)

	P = 0.097	
MCID met in all 5 domains	34.4%

(21/61)

	31.5%

(17/54)

	P = 0.738	
EOT end of trial, MCID minimal clinically important difference, PGIC Patient Global Impression of Change, PPR  percentage pain relief

†Statistical significance: *P < 0.05

Most patients responded “yes” to the willingness test on Day 0 (56.1%) and only a small percentage responded “no” (3.0%), while a substantial percentage responded “not sure” (40.9%). Since most patients classified as needing longer to evaluate the therapy responded “not sure” to the Day 0 willingness test (76.1%), we investigated the possibility of using only the pain and function criteria to assess Day 0 success. This gave a similar PPV to the original analysis (94.7%, 89/94), increased the true positive rate (75.4%, 89/118), but increased the risk of false positives (35.7%, 5/14).

Objective ECAP data analyzed in this investigation are described in the Supplementary Material. Median dose ratio at Day 0 was 1.39 (IQR 1.26–1.53) and 1.42 (IQR 1.23–1.54) for Day 0 successes compared to patients classified as needing longer to evaluate the therapy, respectively (P = 0.374). Median dose accuracy at Day 0 was 2.08 µV (IQR 1.78–2.74 µV) and 2.17 µV (IQR 1.72–2.93 µV) for Day 0 successes compared to patients classified as needing longer, respectively (P = 0.348). At EOT, out-of-clinic dose ratio and therapy utilization, but not dose accuracy, were significantly different between EOT responders and non-responders. Median out-of-clinic dose ratio at EOT was 1.39 (IQR 1.21–1.56) and 1.22 (IQR 1.06–1.41) for EOT responders versus non-responders, respectively (P = 0.037), while median therapy utilization was 98.9% (IQR 81.1–100%) and 94.2% (IQR 52.5–98.4%), respectively (P = 0.026). Median out-of-clinic dose accuracy at EOT was 5.68 (IQR 3.09–8.97) µV for responders and 6.58 (IQR 4.45–8.61) µV for non-responders (P = 0.346).

Discussion

The high positive predictive value (98.4%) and low false-positive rate (5.6%) of the Day 0 evaluation presented here suggest that ECAP dose-controlled CL-SCS, with real-time adjustment of stimulation amplitude on every stimulation pulse, may be utilized for early prediction of SCS trial responders. The single false positive was a CRPS patient who did not want to proceed to permanent implant at EOT despite ≥ 50% pain relief and functional improvement, PGIC improvement, and satisfaction with therapy and pain relief. Physicians and patients can therefore be confident that when a patient has a successful Day 0 evaluation, this is a true success and not due to a placebo effect such that the patient may fail trial evaluation criteria given more time. Moreover, as PPV may be influenced by the overall trial success rate, the specificity of 94.4% further confirms the internal validity of the Day 0 evaluation for predicting trial success.

These results suggest that same day trials, where leads are pulled after successful Day 0 evaluation, may be of utility when spinal cord activation is confirmed using ECAPs, and stable activation is maintained via ECAP dose-controlled CL-SCS therapy such that the in-clinic experience of therapy is representative of how therapy will feel across out-of-clinic activities of daily living [12, 13]. In contrast, shortened fixed-output SCS trials, regardless of waveform, would create risk of false-positive trial outcomes given the inability to confirm neural activation and the dynamic nature of the epidural space, which means that common posture changes and physiologic activity (e.g., respiration and heartbeat) can lead to under- and over-stimulation. Therefore, it makes sense for patients to obtain out-of-clinic experience with fixed-output SCS trial systems to confirm the stimulation levels and therapeutic efficacy that they can maintain when out of the clinic [12, 13].

Same day trials may reduce risks of postoperative infections, lead migrations, complications resulting from stopping antithrombotic medications, equipment disconnections, and other myriad issues associated with traditional trials [6–10]. As occurrence of these risks may undermine therapy efficacy and patient confidence in the therapy, same day trials may also “rescue” trial patients from false-negative trial outcomes that are inherently encountered when evaluating success at traditional 3–7 day durations. The improved efficiency of same day trials may be particularly important for vulnerable patient populations, including the anticoagulated patient. In this study, a substantial number of patients (12.9%) were on anticoagulants similar to rates reported (~ 20%) in other studies [9]. Although clear guidance exists [27, 28], a same day trial may further reduce the risk of ischemic events due to the suspension of anticoagulants.

In this dataset the true-positive rate was approximately 53%, which means that approximately half the patients assessed were identified correctly as trial successes on Day 0, while the other half of the trial successes needed longer to pass all success criteria. This may be related to a few variables, including expectations of the traditional trial (wanting to test drive the device at home over routine daily activities), further compounded by not expecting questions about EOT decisions on the day of the procedure. A substantial percentage of patients classified as “needing longer to evaluate the therapy” reported pain relief and functional improvements on Day 0 but did not respond “yes” to the willingness test (46%). While patient confidence is an important inclusion in any decision to proceed to a permanent implant [1] and may guard against false-positive responses, the drop-off here due to the willingness test is substantially higher than the minority of patients who reported preference for a two-stage procedure allowing “test-driving” an SCS system prior to permanent implant [29]. We hypothesize that a higher percentage of patients would pass the willingness test, and thus Day 0 evaluation, when patients have prior awareness that decisions to proceed to a permanent implant could be made immediately after trial system implant and programming.

Dose level and accuracy of the loop was the same across all patients on Day 0, regardless of their responder status. This highlights that all patients were programmed effectively with ECAP dose-controlled CL-SCS, with consistent pulse-to-pulse activation of the dorsal columns [12, 13]. The dose ratio and dose accuracy levels on Day 0 align with values providing maximum analgesic benefit to patients (dose ratio 1.2–1.6; dose accuracy < 10 µV) [25]. Median dose ratio for all patients on Day 0 was in the middle of this range at 1.4. At EOT, however, responders maintained their dose ratio at 1.4 while non-responders used a significantly lower dose ratio of 1.2, typical of the lower end of the optimal range. While research into evidence-based guidelines for neural dosing prescription is in early stages, these results extend relationships between dose ratio and pain relief previously reported in the permanent implant phase, highlighting the importance of maintaining optimum activation levels, for example via patient education and reprogramming after lead migration, to improve pain relief and associated trial success rates [25, 26].

This study has several limitations. First, we report observational data collected with patients undergoing a traditional trial of variable length. A prospective study is needed to compare long-term outcomes for traditional trials versus an abbreviated trial where patients have their leads pulled on Day 0 after passing success criteria. Second, lead migrations were only confirmed for patients who passed Day 0 evaluations but failed at EOT. Additional lead migrations may have been undetected if patients maintained adequate therapy or if device re-programming mitigated impacts of the migration. These scenarios are not of clear clinical significance [30] and were not further analyzed here. Third, in this investigation data were not available to control for impact of trial procedure anesthetics and/or analgesics on postoperative pain scores. If these significantly impacted the Day 0 evaluation, however, we would expect the FPR to be much higher and the PPV to be lower than observed [31].

We included all prospective patients in our analysis to compare pain relief for patients who responded on Day 0 compared to those requiring a longer period to determine their response. This is in contrast to other studies which only include therapy responders [5]. Interestingly, patients with successful Day 0 evaluations maintained their PPR at EOT (mean PPR 79.2% vs 81.8%) while the responders who needed longer to evaluate the therapy trended upwards in pain relief from Day 0 to EOT (mean PPR 54.9% vs 75.0%). Along with significant pain relief, Day 0 responders had high rates of satisfaction (100% of patients satisfied) and improved quality of life (98.4% of patients improved on PGIC) at EOT. Responder and satisfaction rates and mean holistic scores were not different at EOT between patients who responded on Day 0 compared to those who needed longer to respond. This indicates that Day 0 successes are not different from other SCS responders in terms of outcomes achieved with ECAP dose-controlled CL-SCS but are different in terms of the speed with which a response is achieved. These rapid responders may possess unique characteristics that make them suited to receive rapid relief with SCS and assess their relief quickly after implant, as early as Day 0. Such characteristics should be further investigated to predict rapid responders to SCS therapy.

Conclusion

This study demonstrates that reliable same-day identification of trial responders is enabled by the use of ECAP dose-controlled CL-SCS with objective neurophysiologic confirmation of treatment responses and maintenance of consistent therapy with pulse-to-pulse stimulation amplitude adjustments. Using pain reduction and functional assessments modified from validated PROs, this approach achieves a high PPV (98.4%) and low FPR (5.6%) compared to traditional trial outcomes. Implications from this finding may improve trial efficiency and reduce intra-trial complications while expanding SCS therapy access and decreasing risk for vulnerable patient populations. Further investigation is needed to assess long-term outcomes and true diagnostic efficacy of this technique. This research may have implications for SCS trial predictive success as well as on trial duration requirements.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.Supplementary file1 (PDF 143 KB)

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Dan Brounstein, Joel Barto, and Ivey Barnes for their thoughtful contributions affecting this work.

Author Contributions

Jason E. Pope conducted the study including data collection, interpretation of the data, and wrote and reviewed the manuscript; Ajay Antony, Erika A. Petersen, Steven M. Rosen, Dawood Sayed, Johnathan H. Goree, Chau M. Vu, Harjot S. Bhandal, Philip M. Shumsky, Todd A. Bromberg, G. Lawson Smith, Christopher M. Lam, and Timothy R. Deer conducted the study including data collection and reviewed and edited the manuscript; Corey W. Hunter, Hemant Kalia, and Jennifer Lee reviewed and edited the manuscript. Abeer Khurram conducted data analysis, interpretation of the data, and wrote the manuscript; Ian Gould and Dean Karantonis interpreted the data and reviewed and edited the manuscript. All authors approved the final manuscript and agree with its submission.

Funding

This study and the Rapid Service Fee were funded by Saluda Medical.

Data Availability

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Declarations

Conflicts of Interest

Jason E. Pope reports research and consulting fees from Saluda Medical during the conduct of the study; consultancy for Abbott, Medtronic, Saluda Medical, Flowonix, SpineThera, Vertos, Vertiflex, SPR Therapeutics, Tersera, Aurora, Spark, Ethos, Biotronik, Mainstay, WISE, Boston Scientific, and Thermaquil outside the submitted work; has received grant and research support from: Abbott, Flowonix, Aurora, Painteq, Ethos, Muse, Boston Scientific, SPR Therapeutics, Mainstay, Vertos, AIS, and Thermaquil outside the submitted work; and is a minority shareholder of Vertos, Stimgenics, SPR Therapeutics, Saluda Medical, Painteq, Aurora, Spark, Celeri Health, Neural Integrative Solutions, Pacific Research Institute, Thermaquil, Abbott and Anesthetic Gas Reclamation. Ajay Antony serves as a consultant/speaker for Boston Scientific, Abbott, Nalu, PainTEQ, Saluda, Vertos; he has received research support from ViaDISC, Abbott, Boston scientific, PainTEQ, Saluda, and SPR. Erika A. Petersen has received research support from Mainstay, Medtronic, Neuros Medical, Nevro Corp, ReNeuron, SPR, and Saluda Medical outside the submitted work, as well as personal fees from Abbott Neuromodulation, Biotronik, Medtronic Neuromodulation, Nalu, Neuros Medical, Nevro, Presidio Medical, Saluda Medical, and Vertos outside the submitted work. She holds stock options from SynerFuse and neuro42. There are no other relationships that might lead to a conflict of interest in the current study. Steven M. Rosen reports research and consulting fees from Saluda Medical during the conduct of the study. Dawood Sayed reports personal fees from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Flowonix, Medtronic, Nevro, Saluda, and Vertiflex, personal fees and stock options from Mainstay, SPR Therapeutics, PainTEQ, and Vertos, and stock options from Neuralace and Surgentec. Corey W. Hunter reports grants from Saluda Medical during the conduct of the study and consultancy fees from Genecentrix outside the submitted work. Johnathan H. Goree is a consultant for Saluda Medical, Abbott, and Stratus Medical and the recipient of research support paid to the institution by SPR Therapeutics and Mainstay Medical. Chau M. Vu serves as a consultant for Saluda Medical; consultant and principal investigator for PainTEQ. Harjot S. Bhandal serves as a consultant for Saluda Medica and principal investigator for Aurora Spine. Philip M. Shumsky serves as a consultant for Saluda Medical. Todd A. Bromberg reports research and consulting fees from Saluda Medical during the conduct of the study. He is also an advisor for and reports research fees from Medtronic. G. Lawson Smith and Christopher M. Lam report no conflicts of interest. Hemant Kalia serves as a consultant for Abbott, Nevro, Nalu, SPR Therapeutics, and Curonix. He serves on the medical advisory board for Abbott, Equanimity, Nervonik, and Virdio Health and reports research support from Abbott. Jennifer M. Lee is a consultant for and has received research support from Boston Scientific. Abeer Khurram, Ian Gould, and Dean M. Karantonis report being employees of Saluda Medical. Timothy R. Deer reports personal fees from Saluda Medical during the conduct of the study and consultancy for Axonics, Abbott, Nalu, Vertos, SpineThera, Mainstay, CornerLoc, Ethos, SPR Therapeutics, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, PainTEQ, Tissue Tech, Spinal Simplicity, and Avanos outside the submitted work. He is a minor equity holder of Saluda Medical, Nalu, SpineThera, Stimgenics, Vertiflex, Vertos, and Bioness and an advisory board member of Abbott, Vertos, Nalu, SPR Therapeutics, and Tissue Tech.

Ethical Approval

All subjects gave their informed consent for inclusion before they participated in the ECAP Study (NCT04319887, registered 24 March 2020 on ClinicalTrials.gov, first enrollment 29 October 2020). The ECAP Study was conducted in accordance with the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulatory requirements, good clinical practice (GCP, per ISO 14155), Western Institutional Review Board approval (WIRB), and the Declaration of Helsinki guided ethical principles.
==== Refs
References

1. Shanthanna H Eldabe S Provenzano DA Bouche B Buchser E Chadwick R Evidence-based consensus guidelines on patient selection and trial stimulation for spinal cord stimulation therapy for chronic non-cancer pain Reg Anesth Pain Med 2023 48 6 273 287 10.1136/rapm-2022-104097 37001888
Shanthanna H, Eldabe S, Provenzano DA, Bouche B, Buchser E, Chadwick R, 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. 2023;48(6):273–87.37001888 10.1136/rapm-2022-104097
2. Food and Drug Administration. Medtronic, Inc.; Premarket approval of the Medtronic Itrel spinal cord stimulation system. 1984.
3. FDA. Conduct a trial stimulation period before implanting a spinal cord stimulator (SCS)—letter to health care providers [Internet]. FDA. 2020 [cited 2023 Jan 3]. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/letters-health-care-providers/conduct-trial-stimulation-period-implanting-spinal-cord-stimulator-scs-letter-health-care-providers
4. Thomson SJ, Tavakkolizadeh M, Love-Jones S, Patel NK, Gu JW, Bains A, et al. Effects of rate on analgesia in kilohertz frequency spinal cord stimulation: results of the PROCO randomized controlled trial. Neuromodul Technol Neural Interface 2018;21(1):67–76.
5. Metzger CS Hammond MB Paz-Solis JF Newton WJ Thomson SJ Pei Y A novel fast-acting sub-perception spinal cord stimulation therapy enables rapid onset of analgesia in patients with chronic pain Expert Rev Med Devices 2021 18 3 299 306 10.1080/17434440.2021.1890580 33656411
Metzger CS, Hammond MB, Paz-Solis JF, Newton WJ, Thomson SJ, Pei Y, et al. A novel fast-acting sub-perception spinal cord stimulation therapy enables rapid onset of analgesia in patients with chronic pain. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2021;18(3):299–306.33656411 10.1080/17434440.2021.1890580
6. North R, Desai MJ, Vangeneugden J, Raftopoulos C, Van Havenbergh T, Deruytter M, et al. Postoperative infections associated with prolonged spinal cord stimulation trial duration (PROMISE RCT). Neuromodul Technol Neural Interf. 2020;23(5):620–5.
7. Goel V Kumar V Patwardhan AM Ibrahim M Sivanesan E Darrow D Procedure-related outcomes including readmission following spinal cord stimulator implant procedures: a retrospective cohort study Anesth Analg 2022 134 4 843 852 34914642
Goel V, Kumar V, Patwardhan AM, Ibrahim M, Sivanesan E, Darrow D, et al. Procedure-related outcomes including readmission following spinal cord stimulator implant procedures: a retrospective cohort study. Anesth Analg. 2022;134(4):843–52.34914642
8. Jenkinson RH Wendahl A Zhang Y Sindt JE Migration of pidural leads during spinal cord stimulator trials J Pain Res 2022 15 2999 3005 10.2147/JPR.S378937 36186754
Jenkinson RH, Wendahl A, Zhang Y, Sindt JE. Migration of pidural leads during spinal cord stimulator trials. J Pain Res. 2022;15:2999–3005.36186754 10.2147/JPR.S378937
9. Khan H Kumar V Ghulam-Jelani Z McCallum SE Hobson E Sukul V Safety of spinal cord stimulation in patients who routinely use anticoagulants Pain Med 2018 19 9 1807 1812 10.1093/pm/pnx305 29186582
Khan H, Kumar V, Ghulam-Jelani Z, McCallum SE, Hobson E, Sukul V, et al. Safety of spinal cord stimulation in patients who routinely use anticoagulants. Pain Med. 2018;19(9):1807–12.29186582 10.1093/pm/pnx305
10. Eldabe S Duarte RV Gulve A Thomson S Baranidharan G Houten R Does a screening trial for spinal cord stimulation in patients with chronic pain of neuropathic origin have clinical utility and cost-effectiveness (TRIAL-STIM)? A randomised controlled trial Pain 2020 161 12 2820 2829 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001977 32618875
Eldabe S, Duarte RV, Gulve A, Thomson S, Baranidharan G, Houten R, et al. Does a screening trial for spinal cord stimulation in patients with chronic pain of neuropathic origin have clinical utility and cost-effectiveness (TRIAL-STIM)? A randomised controlled trial. Pain. 2020;161(12):2820–9.32618875 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001977
11. Center for Devices and Radiological Health. Technical considerations for medical devices with physiologic closed-loop control technology [Internet]. FDA; 2023 [cited 2023 Nov 5]. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/technical-considerations-medical-devices-physiologic-closed-loop-control-technology
12. Mekhail N Levy RM Deer TR Kapural L Li S Amirdelfan K Durability of clinical and quality-of-life outcomes of closed-loop spinal cord stimulation for chronic back and leg pain: a secondary analysis of the EVOKE randomized clinical trial JAMA Neurol 2022 79 3 251 260 10.1001/jamaneurol.2021.4998 34998276
Mekhail N, Levy RM, Deer TR, Kapural L, Li S, Amirdelfan K, et al. Durability of clinical and quality-of-life outcomes of closed-loop spinal cord stimulation for chronic back and leg pain: a secondary analysis of the EVOKE randomized clinical trial. JAMA Neurol. 2022;79(3):251–60.34998276 10.1001/jamaneurol.2021.4998
13. Mekhail N Levy RM Deer TR Kapural L Li S Amirdelfan K 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 2020 19 2 123 134 10.1016/S1474-4422(19)30414-4 31870766
Mekhail N, Levy RM, Deer TR, Kapural L, Li S, Amirdelfan K, 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. 2020;19(2):123–34.31870766 10.1016/S1474-4422(19)30414-4
14. Mekhail NA, Levy RM, Deer TR, Kapural L, Li S, Amirdelfan K, 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. 2024;49(5):346–54.
15. Kapural L, Mekhail NA, Costandi S, Gilmore C, Pope JE, Li S, et al. Durable multimodal and holistic response for physiologic closed-loop spinal cord stimulation supported by objective evidence from the EVOKE double-blind randomized controlled trial. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2023;rapm-2023–104639.
16. Duarte RV, Bentley A, Soliday N, Leitner A, Gulve A, Staats PS, et al. Cost-utility analysis of Evoke closed-loop spinal cord stimulation for chronic back and leg pain. Clin J Pain. 2023;39(10):551–9.
17. Leitner A Hanson E Soliday N Staats P Levy R Pope J Real world clinical utility of neurophysiological measurement utilizing closed-loop spinal cord stimulation in a chronic pain population: the ECAP Study protocol JPR 2023 16 2497 2507 10.2147/JPR.S411927
Leitner A, Hanson E, Soliday N, Staats P, Levy R, Pope J, et al. Real world clinical utility of neurophysiological measurement utilizing closed-loop spinal cord stimulation in a chronic pain population: the ECAP Study protocol. JPR. 2023;16:2497–507.10.2147/JPR.S411927
18. Hagedorn JM, Bendel MA, Schmidt A, Schroeder DR, Hooten WM. Comparison of spinal cord stimulation trial reporting protocols and long-term pain relief outcomes following implantation. Neuromodul Technol Neural Interface. 2023;26(5):1047–50.
19. Hagedorn JM Deer TR Canzanello NC Covington SM Schroeder DR Bendel MA Differences in calculated percentage improvement versus patient-reported percentage improvement in pain scores: a review of spinal cord stimulation trials Reg Anesth Pain Med 2021 46 4 293 297 10.1136/rapm-2020-102238 33479116
Hagedorn JM, Deer TR, Canzanello NC, Covington SM, Schroeder DR, Bendel MA, et al. Differences in calculated percentage improvement versus patient-reported percentage improvement in pain scores: a review of spinal cord stimulation trials. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2021;46(4):293–7.33479116 10.1136/rapm-2020-102238
20. Fink AB Ong C Sumar MK Patel NC Knezevic NN The discrepancy and agreement between patient-reported percentage pain reduction and calculated percentage pain reduction in chronic pain patients Neurol Int 2023 15 2 560 568 10.3390/neurolint15020034 37092506
Fink AB, Ong C, Sumar MK, Patel NC, Knezevic NN. The discrepancy and agreement between patient-reported percentage pain reduction and calculated percentage pain reduction in chronic pain patients. Neurol Int. 2023;15(2):560–8.37092506 10.3390/neurolint15020034
21. Stratford P Binkley JM Riddle DL Development and initial validation of the back pain functional scale Spine 2000 25 16 2095 2102 10.1097/00007632-200008150-00015 10954642
Stratford P, Binkley JM, Riddle DL. Development and initial validation of the back pain functional scale. Spine. 2000;25(16):2095–102.10954642 10.1097/00007632-200008150-00015
22. Horn KK Jennings S Richardson G van Vliet D Hefford C Abbott JH The patient-specific functional scale: psychometrics, clinimetrics, and application as a clinical outcome measure J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2012 42 1 30 40 10.2519/jospt.2012.3727 22031594
Horn KK, Jennings S, Richardson G, van Vliet D, Hefford C, Abbott JH. The patient-specific functional scale: psychometrics, clinimetrics, and application as a clinical outcome measure. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2012;42(1):30–40.22031594 10.2519/jospt.2012.3727
23. Stratford P Gill C Westaway M Binkley JM Assessing disability and change on individual patients: a report of a patient specific measure Physiother Can 1995 47 4 258 263 10.3138/ptc.47.4.258
Stratford P, Gill C, Westaway M, Binkley JM. Assessing disability and change on individual patients: a report of a patient specific measure. Physiother Can. 1995;47(4):258–63.10.3138/ptc.47.4.258
24. Single PS Scott JB Mugan D Measures of dosage for spinal-cord electrical stimulation: review and proposal IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 2023 31 4653 4660 10.1109/TNSRE.2023.3335100 37983153
Single PS, Scott JB, Mugan D. Measures of dosage for spinal-cord electrical stimulation: review and proposal. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2023;31:4653–60.37983153 10.1109/TNSRE.2023.3335100
25. Muller L, Pope J, Petersen E, Verrills P, Kallewaard JW, Gould I, et al. First evidence of a biomarker-based dose-response relationship in chronic pain using physiologic closed-loop spinal cord stimulation. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2024; rapm-2024-105346.
26. Mekhail NA, Levy RM, Deer TR, Kapural L, Li S, Amirdelfan K, et al. Neurophysiological outcomes that sustained clinically significant improvements over 3 years of physiologic ECAP-controlled closed-loop spinal cord stimulation for the treatment of chronic pain. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2024; rapm-2024-105370.
27. Deer TR, Narouze S, Provenzano DA, Pope JE, Falowski SM, Russo MA, et al. The Neurostimulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC): recommendations on bleeding and coagulation management in neurostimulation devices. Neuromodul Technol Neural Interf. 2017;20(1):51–62.
28. Narouze S Benzon HT Provenzano D Buvanendran A De Andres J Deer T Interventional spine and pain procedures in patients on antiplatelet and anticoagulant medications (Second Edition): guidelines From the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, the European Society of Regional Anaesthesia and Pain Therapy, the American Academy of Pain Medicine, the International Neuromodulation Society, the North American Neuromodulation Society, and the World Institute of Pain Reg Anesth Pain Med 2018 43 3 225 262 29278603
Narouze S, Benzon HT, Provenzano D, Buvanendran A, De Andres J, Deer T, et al. Interventional spine and pain procedures in patients on antiplatelet and anticoagulant medications (Second Edition): guidelines From the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, the European Society of Regional Anaesthesia and Pain Therapy, the American Academy of Pain Medicine, the International Neuromodulation Society, the North American Neuromodulation Society, and the World Institute of Pain. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2018;43(3):225–62.29278603
29. Chadwick R, McNaughton R, Eldabe S, Baranidharan G, Bell J, Brookes M, et al. To trial or not to trial before spinal cord stimulation for chronic neuropathic pain: the patients’ view from the TRIAL-STIM randomized controlled trial. Neuromodul Technol Neural Interf. 2021;24(3):459–70.
30. West T ElSaban M Hussain N Schappell J Rogers K Orhurhu V Incidence of lead migration with loss of efficacy or paresthesia coverage after spinal cord stimulator implantation: systematic review and proportional meta-analysis of prospective studies and randomized clinical trials Neuromodulation 2023 26 5 917 927 10.1016/j.neurom.2023.03.016 37204361
West T, ElSaban M, Hussain N, Schappell J, Rogers K, Orhurhu V, et al. Incidence of lead migration with loss of efficacy or paresthesia coverage after spinal cord stimulator implantation: systematic review and proportional meta-analysis of prospective studies and randomized clinical trials. Neuromodulation. 2023;26(5):917–27.37204361 10.1016/j.neurom.2023.03.016
31. Parker J Karantonis D Single P Hypothesis for the mechanism of action of ECAP-controlled closed-loop systems for spinal cord stimulation Healthc Technol Lett 2020 7 3 76 80 10.1049/htl.2019.0110 32754341
Parker J, Karantonis D, Single P. Hypothesis for the mechanism of action of ECAP-controlled closed-loop systems for spinal cord stimulation. Healthc Technol Lett. 2020;7(3):76–80.32754341 10.1049/htl.2019.0110
