Spinal cord stimulation: selection, trials, evidence, complications
Bottom line
Spinal cord stimulation has randomized evidence in refractory neuropathic pain such as diabetic neuropathy. Know the landmark trials, that a screening trial checks initial response but does not improve long-term outcome, and how to manage bleeding and infection risk.
Key points
- Refractory painful diabetic neuropathy. In SENZA-PDN, 216 patients refractory to gabapentinoids and at least one other class were randomized; at 3 months, 79% with 10-kHz stimulation had at least 50% relief versus 5% with conventional management 1.
- Closed-loop stimulation uses ECAP feedback. Closed-loop systems measure the evoked compound action potential and adjust output in real time. In EVOKE, 77.6% versus 49.3% had at least 50% pain reduction at 36 months, closed-loop versus open-loop 2.
- The trial screens, it does not predict durability. Guidelines and regulators recommend trials to screen initial response before full implantation 3. Yet TRIAL-STIM found a screening-trial strategy did not improve pain at 6 or 36 months versus no trial 3.
- Stimulator trials and implants are high bleeding risk. ASRA-led and ASIPP guidelines both rate them high risk because epidural hematoma can cause paralysis; apixaban holds are 3 days (ASRA) or 2 days (ASIPP), restarting about 24 hours afterward 45.
- Short DOAC holds do not need bridging. In the PAUSE cohort, stopping a DOAC without heparin bridging gave low bleeding and stroke rates 6.
- Deep infection is an emergency. Fever, back pain and new deficits suggest epidural abscess: image promptly with MRI or CT, remove all hardware emergently, culture, admit and give broad-spectrum antibiotics 7.
Watch for
Fever with worsening back pain or any new neurologic deficit after a stimulator procedure means deep infection or epidural abscess until proven otherwise; oral antibiotics suit superficial infection only 7.
High-yield for the exam
- SENZA-PDN required HbA1c of 10% or less and BMI of 45 or less 1.
- EVOKE kept blinding to the 36-month assessment 2.
- Closed-loop output is adjusted every pulse to hold measured dorsal column activation within a target range 2.
- TRIAL-STIM at 36 months: no difference in pain, quality of life, responder rate or explant rate 3.
- Guidelines and payers still require screening trials, despite TRIAL-STIM 3.
- Bleeding-risk classification for stimulators is high under both ASRA-led and ASIPP guidance 85.
- DETER: deep device infection calls for complete hardware removal, cultures, admission and infectious disease input 7.
- In SENZA-PDN, the primary end point required 50% relief without worsening neurologic deficit 1.
Numbers to know
Common traps
- Telling a patient a positive trial guarantees long-term success 3.
- Bridging a short apixaban hold with heparin 6.
- Treating a deep device infection with oral antibiotics and observation 7.
- Assuming open-loop and closed-loop stimulation perform the same long term; EVOKE favored closed-loop at 36 months 2.
Practise this topic
- Free question: Refractory painful diabetic neuropathy
- Free question: Apixaban before a stimulator trial
7 more questions on this topic in the full question bank, with explanations and sources.
Sources
- Petersen EA, et al. Effect of high-frequency (10-kHz) spinal cord stimulation in patients with painful diabetic neuropathy: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Neurol, 2021. pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8022268/
- Mekhail NA, 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. pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11103285/
- Eldabe S, et al. Does a Screening Trial for Spinal Cord Stimulation in Patients With Chronic Pain of Neuropathic Origin Have Clinical Utility (TRIAL-STIM)? 36-Month Results From a Randomized Controlled Trial. Neurosurgery, 2023. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36226961/
- American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine. Updates to the ASRA guidelines for interventional pain procedures. ASRA Pain Medicine News, 2019. asra.com/guidelines-articles/original-articles/article-item/
- Manchikanti L, et al. Perioperative management of antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy in patients undergoing interventional techniques: 2024 updated guidelines from the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP). Pain Physician, 2024. painphysicianjournal.com/current/pdf?article=Nzg3NQ%3D%3D&jo
- Douketis JD, et al. Perioperative management of patients with atrial fibrillation receiving a direct oral anticoagulant. JAMA Intern Med, 2019. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31380891/
- Pritzlaff SG, et al. Device evaluation, treatment, and explantation recommendations (DETER): review and best practices for managing neuromodulation device infections. J Pain Res, 2025. pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12036694/
- Narouze S, 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. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29278603/
Related topics
Independent study material for the ABA Pain Medicine exam, written and reviewed by a board-certified pain physician. Not medical advice; not affiliated with the American Board of Anesthesiology.