Spinal cord stimulation in severe angina pectoris - A systematic review based on the Swedish Council on Technology assessment in health care report on long-standing pain

Patients who continue to stiffer from lasting and severely disabling angina pectoris despite Optimum drug treatment and who are not suitable candidates for invasive procedures,. suffer from a condition referred to as "chronic refractory angina pectoris". Based on the available data, spinal cord Stimulation, SCS, is considered Lis the first-fine additional treatment for these patients by the European Society or Cardiology. However, no systematic review of randomised controlled Studies has yet been published. A systematic literature research, 1966-2003, as part of the Swedish Board of Health and Welfare (SBU) report oil long-standing pain, and ail additional research covering the years 2003-2007, were carried out. Acute Studies, case reports and mechanistic reviews were excluded, and the remaining 43 Studies were graded for Study quality according to a modified Jadad score. The eight medium-to high-score studies formed the basis for Conclusions regarding the scientific evidence (strong, moderately strong or limited) for the efficacy of SCS. There is strong evidence that SCS gives rise to symptomatic benefits (decrease in anginal attacks) and improved quality of life in patients with severe angina pectoris. There is also a strong evidence that SCS call improve the functional status Of these patients, as illustrated by the improved exercise time oil treadmill or longer walking distance without angina. In addition, SCS does not seem to have any negative effects on mortality in these patients (limited scientific evidence). The complication rate was found to be acceptable. (C) 2008 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of International Association for the Study of Pain

Time to gain trust and change : - experiences of attachment and mindfulness-based cognitive therapy among patients with chronic pain and psychiatric co-morbidity

The treatment of patients with chronic pain disorders is complex. In the rehabilitation of these patients, coping with chronic pain is seen as important. The aim of this study was to explore the meaning of attachment and mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (CT) among patients with chronic pain and psychiatric co-morbidity. A phenomenological approach within a lifeworld perspective was used. In total, 10 patients were interviewed after completion of 7- to 13-month therapy. The findings reveal that the therapy and the process of interaction with the therapist were meaningful for the patients’ well-being and for a better management of pain. During the therapy, the patients were able to initiate a movement of change. Thus, CT with focus on attachment and mindfulness seems to be of value for these patients. The therapy used in this study was adjusted to the patients’ special needs, and a trained psychotherapist with a special knowledge of patients with chronic pain might be required

Gabapentin in traumatic nerve injury pain: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over, mufti-center study

A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled cross-over multi-center study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of gabapentin in the treatment of neuropathic pain caused by traumatic or postsurgical peripheral nerve injury, using doses tip to 2400 mg/day. The study comprised a run-in period of two weeks, two treatment periods of five weeks separated by a three weeks' washout period. The primary efficacy variable was the change in the mean pain intensity score from baseline to the last week of treatment. Other variables included pain relief, health related quality of life (SF-36), interference of sleep by pain, Clinician and Patient Global Impression of Change, and adverse effects. Nine centers randomized a total of 120 patients, 22 of whom withdrew. There was no statistically significant difference between the treatments for the primary outcome efficacy variable. However, gabapentin provided significantly better pain relief (p = 0.015) compared with placebo. More patients had at least a 30% pain reduction with gabapentin compared with placebo (p = 0.040) and pain interfered significantly less with sleep during gabapentin treatment compared with placebo (p = 0.0016). Both the Patient (p = 0.023) and Clinician (p = 0.037) Global Impression of Change indicated a better response with gabapentin compared with placebo. Gabapentin was well tolerated. The most common adverse effects were dizziness and tiredness. (C) 2007 International Association for the Study of Pain. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved

Determining the Feasibility of Spinal Cord Neuromodulation for the Treatment of Chronic Systolic Heart Failure The DEFEAT-HF Study

Objectives The primary objective of the study was a change in left ventricular end-systolic volume index (LVESVi) from baseline to 6 months of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) therapy in the treatment arm compared to the control arm as measured by echocardiography. Secondary objectives were changes in peak oxygen uptake and N-terminal pro–B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) between the treatment arm and control arm from baseline through 6 months. Background Abnormal neurohormonal activation is often responsible for progression of heart failure (HF). Treatment has often included drug therapy to modulate the neurohormonal axis. The purpose of the DEFEAT-HF (Determining the Feasibility of Spinal Cord Neuromodulation for the Treatment of Chronic Heart Failure) clinical study was to evaluate whether direct modulation of the nervous system through SCS improved HF metrics, including heart size, biomarkers, functional capacity, and symptoms. Methods The DEFEAT-HF study was a prospective, multicenter randomized (3:2), parallel, single-blind, controlled study to investigate whether SCS was a feasible therapy for the treatment of systolic HF for patients with New York Heart Association functional class III HF, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤35%, QRS duration <120 ms, and left ventricular end-diastolic dimension ≥55 mm. The primary objective of the DEFEAT-HF study was to evaluate the reduction in LVESVi after 6 months of SCS therapy in the treatment arm compared to the control arm. Results In total, 81 patients were enrolled, with 66 successfully randomized and implanted with the SCS device system. Seventy-six percent (50 of 66) had an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator at the baseline visit. Among randomized patients, the mean age was 61 years, 79% were male, mean LVEF was 27%, and mean QRS duration was 105 ms. The change in LVESVi over 6 months was not significantly different between randomization arms (SCS OFF: –2.2 [95% confidence interval: –9.1 to 4.6] vs. SCS ON: 2.1 [95% confidence interval: –2.7 to 6.9]; p = 0.30). Analyses of secondary endpoints for the study were also not significantly different. Conclusions The present study does not provide evidence to support a meaningful change in clinical outcomes for HF patients receiving SCS