Patent Application
20240181258
The present disclosure is directed generally to selective high frequency spinal cord modulation for inhibiting pain with reduced side effects, and associated systems and methods.
Neurological stimulators have been developed to treat pain, movement disorders, functional disorders, spasticity, cancer, cardiac disorders, and various other medical conditions. Implantable neurological stimulation systems generally have an implantable pulse generator and one or more leads that deliver electrical pulses to neurological tissue or muscle tissue. For example, several neurological stimulation systems for spinal cord stimulation (SCS) have cylindrical leads that include a lead body with a circular cross-sectional shape and one or more conductive rings spaced apart from each other at the distal end of the lead body. The conductive rings operate as individual electrodes and, in many cases, the SCS leads are implanted percutaneously through a large needle inserted into the epidural space, with or without the assistance of a stylet.
Once implanted, the pulse generator applies electrical pulses to the electrodes, which in turn modify the function of the patient's nervous system, such as by altering the patient's responsiveness to sensory stimuli and/or altering the patient's motor-circuit output. In pain treatment, the pulse generator applies electrical pulses to the electrodes, which in turn can generate sensations that mask or otherwise alter the patient's sensation of pain. For example, in many cases, patients report a tingling or paresthesia that is perceived as more pleasant and/or less uncomfortable than the underlying pain sensation. While this may be the case for many patients, many other patients may report less beneficial effects and/or results. Accordingly, there remains a need for improved techniques and systems for addressing patient pain.
The present technology is directed generally to spinal cord modulation and associated systems and methods for inhibiting pain via waveforms with high frequency elements or components (e.g., portions having high fundamental frequencies), generally with reduced or eliminated side effects. Such side effects can include unwanted motor stimulation or blocking, and/or interference with sensory functions other than the targeted pain. Several embodiments also provide simplified spinal cord modulation systems and components, and simplified procedures for the practitioner and/or the patient. Specific details of certain embodiments of the disclosure are described below with reference to methods for modulating one or more target neural populations (e.g., nerves) or sites of a patient, and associated implantable structures for providing the modulation. Although selected embodiments are described below with reference to modulating the dorsal column, dorsal horn, dorsal root, dorsal root entry zone, and/or other particular regions of the spinal column to control pain, the modulation may in some instances be directed to other neurological structures and/or target neural populations of the spinal cord and/or other neurological tissues. Some embodiments can have configurations, components or procedures different than those described in this section, and other embodiments may eliminate particular components or procedures. A person of ordinary skill in the relevant art, therefore, will understand that the disclosure may include other embodiments with additional elements, and/or may include other embodiments without several of the features shown and described below with reference to
In general terms, aspects of many of the following embodiments are directed to producing a therapeutic effect that includes pain reduction in the patient. The therapeutic effect can be produced by inhibiting, suppressing, downregulating, blocking, preventing, or otherwise modulating the activity of the affected neural population. In many embodiments of the presently disclosed techniques, therapy-induced paresthesia is not a prerequisite to achieving pain reduction, unlike standard SCS techniques. It is expected that the techniques described below with reference to
The pulse generator 101 can transmit signals (e.g., electrical signals) to the signal delivery element 110 that up-regulate (e.g., stimulate or excite) and/or down-regulate (e.g., block or suppress) target nerves. As used herein, and unless otherwise noted, the terms “modulate” and “modulation” refer generally to signals that have either type of the foregoing effects on the target nerves. The pulse generator 101 can include a machine-readable (e.g., computer-readable) medium containing instructions for generating and transmitting suitable therapy signals. The pulse generator 101 and/or other elements of the system 100 can include one or more processors 107, memories 108 and/or input/output devices. Accordingly, the process of providing modulation signals and executing other associated functions can be performed by computer-executable instructions contained on computer-readable media, e.g., at the processor(s) 107 and/or memory(s) 108. The pulse generator 101 can include multiple portions, elements, and/or subsystems (e.g., for directing signals in accordance with multiple signal delivery parameters), housed in a single housing, as shown in
The pulse generator 101 can also receive and respond to an input signal received from one or more sources. The input signals can direct or influence the manner in which the therapy instructions are selected, executed, updated and/or otherwise performed. The input signal can be received from one or more sensors 112 (one is shown schematically in
In some embodiments, the pulse generator 101 can obtain power to generate the therapy signals from an external power source 103. The external power source 103 can transmit power to the implanted pulse generator 101 using electromagnetic induction (e.g., RF signals). For example, the external power source 103 can include an external coil 104 that communicates with a corresponding internal coil (not shown) within the implantable pulse generator 101. The external power source 103 can be portable for ease of use.
In another embodiment, the pulse generator 101 can obtain the power to generate therapy signals from an internal power source, in addition to or in lieu of the external power source 103. For example, the implanted pulse generator 101 can include a non-rechargeable battery or a rechargeable battery to provide such power. When the internal power source includes a rechargeable battery, the external power source 103 can be used to recharge the battery. The external power source 103 can in turn be recharged from a suitable power source (e.g., conventional wall power).
In some cases, an external programmer 105 (e.g., a trial modulator) can be coupled to the signal delivery element 110 during an initial implant procedure, prior to implanting the pulse generator 101. For example, a practitioner (e.g., a physician and/or a company representative) can use the external programmer 105 to vary the modulation parameters provided to the signal delivery element 110 in real time, and select optimal or particularly efficacious parameters. These parameters can include the position of the signal delivery element 110, as well as the characteristics of the electrical signals provided to the signal delivery element 110. In a typical process, the practitioner uses a cable assembly 120 to temporarily connect the external programmer 105 to the signal delivery device 110. The cable assembly 120 can accordingly include a first connector 121 that is releasably connected to the external programmer 105, and a second connector 122 that is releasably connected to the signal delivery element 110. Accordingly, the signal delivery element 110 can include a connection element that allows it to be connected to a signal generator either directly (if it is long enough) or indirectly (if it is not). The practitioner can test the efficacy of the signal delivery element 110 in an initial position. The practitioner can then disconnect the cable assembly 120, reposition the signal delivery element 110, and reapply the electrical modulation. This process can be performed iteratively until the practitioner obtains the desired position for the signal delivery device 110. Optionally, the practitioner may move the partially implanted signal delivery element 110 without disconnecting the cable assembly 120. Further details of suitable cable assembly methods and associated techniques are described in co-pending U.S. application Ser. No. 12/562,892, filed on Sep. 18, 2009, and incorporated herein by reference. As will be discussed in further detail later, particular aspects of the present disclosure can advantageously reduce or eliminate the foregoing iterative process.
After the position of the signal delivery element 110 and appropriate signal delivery parameters are established using the external programmer 105, the patient 190 can receive therapy via signals generated by the external programmer 105, generally for a limited period of time. In a representative application, the patient 190 receives such therapy for one week. During this time, the patient wears the cable assembly 120 and the external programmer 105 outside the body. Assuming the trial therapy is effective or shows the promise of being effective, the practitioner then replaces the external programmer 105 with the implanted pulse generator 101, and programs the pulse generator 101 with parameters selected based on the experience gained during the trial period. Optionally, the practitioner can also replace the signal delivery element 110. Once the implantable pulse generator 101 has been positioned within the patient 190, the signal delivery parameters provided by the pulse generator 101 can still be updated remotely via a wireless physician's programmer (e.g., a physician's remote) 111 and/or a wireless patient programmer 106 (e.g., a patient remote). Generally, the patient 190 has control over fewer parameters than does the practitioner. For example, the capability of the patient programmer 106 may be limited to starting and/or stopping the pulse generator 101, and/or adjusting the signal amplitude.
In any of the foregoing embodiments, the parameters in accordance with which the pulse generator 101 provides signals can be modulated during portions of the therapy regimen. For example, the frequency, amplitude, pulse width and/or signal delivery location can be modulated in accordance with a preset program, patient and/or physician inputs, and/or in a random or pseudorandom manner. Such parameter variations can be used to address a number of potential clinical situations, including changes in the patient's perception of pain, changes in the preferred target neural population, and/or patient accommodation or habituation.
Certain aspects of the foregoing systems and methods may be simplified or eliminated in particular embodiments of the present disclosure. For example, in at least some instances, the therapeutic signals delivered by the system can produce an effect that is much less sensitive to lead location and signal delivery parameters (e.g., amplitude) than are conventional stimulation systems. Accordingly, as noted above, the trial and error process (or parts of this process) for identifying a suitable lead location and associated signal delivery parameters during the lead implant procedure can be eliminated. In addition to or in lieu of this simplification, the post-lead implant trial period can be eliminated. In addition to or in lieu of the foregoing simplifications, the process of selecting signal delivery parameters and administering the signals on a long-term basis can be significantly simplified. Further aspects of these and other expected beneficial results are discussed in greater detail below.
Nevro Corporation, the assignee of the present application, has conducted a multi-site clinical study during which multiple patients were first treated with conventional spinal cord stimulation (SCS) techniques, and then with newly developed techniques that are disclosed further below. This study was followed up by a further clinical study focusing on the newly developed techniques, which confirmed and expanded on results obtained during the initial study. Multiple embodiments of the newly developed techniques, therapies and/or systems are referred to as presently disclosed techniques, therapies, and/or systems, or more generally as presently disclosed technologies.
Prior to the initial clinical study, selected patients were identified as suffering from primary chronic low back pain (e.g., neuropathic pain, and/or nociceptive pain, and/or other types of pain, depending upon the patient), either alone or in combination with pain affecting other areas, typically the patient's leg(s). In all cases, the low back pain was dominant. During the study, the patients were outfitted with two leads, each implanted in the spinal region in a manner generally similar to that shown in
Patients with the leads 110 located as shown in
After the patient completed the standard SCS portion of the study, the patient then received modulation in accordance with the presently disclosed techniques. One aspect of these techniques included moving the leads 110 inferiorly, so as to be located at vertebral levels T9, T10, T11, and/or T12. After the leads 110 were repositioned, the patient received therapeutic signals at a frequency of from about 3 kHz to about 10 kHz. In particular cases, the therapy was applied at 8 kHz, 9 kHz or 10 kHz. These frequencies are significantly higher than the frequencies associated with standard SCS, and accordingly, modulation at these and other representative frequencies (e.g., from about 1.5 kHz to about 100 kHz) is occasionally referred to herein as high frequency modulation. The modulation was applied generally at a duty cycle of from about 50% to about 100%, with the modulation signal on for a period of from about 1 msec. to about 2 seconds, and off for a period of from about 1 msec. to about 1.5 seconds. The width of the applied pulses was about 30-35 μsec and the amplitude generally varied from about 1 mA to about 4 mA (nominally about 2.5 mA). Modulation in accordance with the foregoing parameters was typically applied to the patients for a period of about four days during the initial clinical study.
For purposes of comparison, bar 214 illustrates the pain score for the same patients receiving standard SCS therapy earlier in the study. Bar 214 indicates that the average pain value for standard SCS therapy was 3.8. Unlike the results of the presently disclosed therapy, standard SCS therapy tended to produce relatively flat patient pain results over the course of several days. Comparing bars 213 and 214, the clinical results indicate that the presently disclosed therapy reduced pain by 42% when compared with standard SCS therapy.
Other pain indices indicated generally consistent results. On the Oswestry Disability Index, average scores dropped from a baseline value of 54 to a value of 33, which is equivalent to a change from “severe disability” to “moderate disability”. Patients' global improvement scores ranked 1.9 on a scale of 1 (“very much improved”) to 7 (“very much worse”).
In addition to obtaining greater pain relief with the presently disclosed therapy than with standard SCS therapy, patients experienced other benefits as well, described further below with reference to
The improvement experienced by the patients is not limited to improvements in activity but also extends to relative inactivity, including sleep. For example, patients receiving standard SCS therapy may establish a signal delivery parameter at a particular level when lying prone. When the patient rolls over while sleeping, the patient may experience a significant enough change in the pain reduction provided by standard SCS treatments to cause the patient to wake. In many cases, the patient may additionally experience pain generated by the SCS signal itself, on top of the pain the SCS signal is intended to reduce. With the presently disclosed techniques, by contrast, this undesirable effect can be avoided.
Based on additional patient feedback, every one of the tested patients who received the presently disclosed therapy at the target location (e.g., who received the presently disclosed therapy without the lead migrating significantly from its intended location) preferred the presently disclosed therapy to standard SCS therapy. In addition, irrespective of the level of pain relief the patients received, 88% of the patients preferred the presently disclosed therapy to standard SCS therapy because it reduced their pain without creating paresthesia. This indicates that while patients may prefer paresthesia to pain, a significant majority prefer no sensation to both pain and paresthesia. This result, obtained via the presently disclosed therapy, is not available with standard SCS therapies that are commonly understood to rely on paresthesia (i.e., masking) to produce pain relief.
Still further, anecdotal data indicate that patients receiving the presently disclosed therapy experienced less muscle capture than they experienced with standard SCS. In particular, patients reported a lack of spasms, cramps, and muscle pain, some or all of which they experienced when receiving standard SCS. Patients also reported no interference with volitional muscle action, and instead indicated that they were able to perform motor tasks unimpeded by the presently disclosed therapy. Still further, patients reported no interference with other sensations, including sense of touch (e.g., detecting vibration), temperature and proprioception. In most cases, patients reported no interference with nociceptive pain sensation. However, in some cases, patients reported an absence of incision pain (associated with the incision used to implant the signal delivery lead) or an absence of chronic peripheral pain (associated with arthritis). Accordingly, in particular embodiments, aspects of the currently disclosed techniques may be used to address nociceptive pain, including acute peripheral pain, and/or chronic peripheral pain. For example, in at least some cases, patients with low to moderate nociceptive pain received relief as a result of the foregoing therapy. Patients with more severe/chronic nociceptive pain were typically not fully responsive to the present therapy techniques. This result may be used in a diagnostic setting to distinguish the types of pain experienced by the patients, as will be discussed in greater detail later.
The process of blocking, suppressing or otherwise reducing patient pain (block 640) can include doing so without creating paresthesia (block 643), or in association with a deliberately generated paresthesia (block 644). As noted above, clinical results indicate that most patients prefer the absence of paresthesia to the presence of paresthesia, e.g., because the sensation of paresthesia may change to an uncomfortable or painful sensation when the patient changes position and/or adjusts the signal amplitude. However, in some cases, patients may prefer the sensation of paresthesia (e.g., patients who have previously received SCS), and so can have the option of receiving it. Further details of methodologies that include combinations of paresthesia-inducing modulation and non-paresthesia-inducing modulation are included in U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/171,790, previously incorporated herein by reference. In other cases, paresthesia may be used by the practitioner for site selection (e.g., to determine the location at which active electrodes are positioned). In addition to the above, reducing patient pain can include doing so with relative insensitivity to patient attributes that standard SCS is normally highly sensitive to (block 645). These attributes can include patient movement (block 646) and/or patient position (block 647).
Nevro Corporation, the assignee of the present application, has conducted a follow-on study to evaluate particular parameters and results of the therapy described above. In the follow-on study, patients received implanted leads and simulators, and received therapy over a period of several months. This study did not include a direct comparison with conventional SCS techniques for each patient, though some of the patients received conventional SCS therapy prior to receiving modulation in accordance with the present technology. Selected results are described further below.
The contacts C of each lead 111a, 111b have a width W2 of approximately 3 mm, and are separated from each other by a distance D1 of approximately 1 mm. Accordingly, the center-to-center spacing S between neighboring contacts C is approximately 4 mm. The leads 111a, 111b were positioned at or close to the patients' spinal midline 189. Typically, one lead was positioned on one side of the midline 189, and the other lead was positioned on the other side of the patients' midline 189. During the course of the study, several significant effects were observed. For example, the leads 111a, 111b could be positioned at any of a variety of locations within a relatively wide window W1 having an overall width of +3-5 mm from the midline 189 (e.g., an overall width of 6-10 mm), without significantly affecting the efficacy of the treatment. In addition, patients with bilateral pain (e.g., on both sides of the midline 189) reported bilateral relief, independent of the lateral location of the leads 110a, 110b. For example, patients having a lead located within the window W1 on one side of the midline 189 reported pain relief on the opposite side of the midline 189. This is unlike conventional SCS therapies, for which bilateral relief, when it is obtained at all, is generally very sensitive to any departure from a strictly midline lead location. Still further, the distance between neighboring active contacts was significantly greater than is typical for standard SCS. Practitioners were able to “skip” (e.g., deactivate) several consecutive contacts so that neighboring active contacts had a center-to-center spacing of, for example, 20 mm, and an edge-to-edge spacing of, for example, 17 mm. In addition, patients were relatively insensitive to the axial location of the active contacts. For example, practitioners were able to establish the same or generally the same levels of pain relief over a wide range of contact spacings that is expected to extend up to two vertebral bodies (e.g., about 64 mm). Yet further, the practitioners obtained a similar therapeutic effect whether a given contact was identified as cathodic or anodic, as is described in greater detail in pending U.S. application Ser. No. 12/765,790 (Attorney Docket No. 66245.8024US), filed concurrently herewith and incorporated herein by reference.
For most patients in the follow-on study, the leads were implanted at the T9-T10 vertebral locations. These patients typically experienced primarily low back pain prior to receiving the therapy, though some experienced leg pain as well. Based on the results obtained during the follow-on study and the initial study, it is expected that the overall vertebral location range for addressing low back pain is from about T9 to about T12. It is further expected that within this range, modulation at T12 or T11-T12 may more effectively treat patients with both low back and leg pain. However, in some cases, patients experienced greater leg pain relief at higher vertebral locations (e.g., T9-T10) and in still further particular cases, modulation at T9 produced more leg pain relief than modulation at T10. Accordingly, within the general ranges described above, particular patients may have physiological characteristics or other factors that produce corresponding preferred vertebral locations.
Patients receiving treatment in the follow-on study received a square-wave signal at a frequency of about 10 kHz. Patients received modulation at a 100% duty cycle, with an initial current amplitude (bi-phasic) of about 2 mA. Patients and practitioners were able to adjust the signal amplitude, typically up to about 5 mA. At any of the foregoing levels, the signal pulses are expected to be suprathreshold, meaning that they can trigger an action potential in the target neural population, independent of any intrinsic neural activity at the target neural population.
Patients in the follow-on study were evaluated periodically after the modulation system 100 was implanted and activated. The VAS scores reported by these patients after 30 days of receiving treatment averaged about 1.0, indicating that the trend discussed above with respect to
Results from the follow-on study confirm a relative insensitivity of the therapeutic effectiveness of the treatment to changes in current amplitude. In particular, patients typically received modulation at a level of from about 2.0 mA to about 3.5 mA. In most cases, patients did not report significant changes in pain reduction when they changed the amplitude of the applied signal. Patients were in several cases able to increase the current amplitude up to a level of about 5 mA before reporting undesirable side effects. In addition, the side effects began to take place in a gradual, rather than a sudden, manner. Anecdotal feedback from some patients indicated that at high amplitudes (e.g., above 5 mA) the treatment efficacy began to fall off, independent of the onset of any undesirable side effects. It is further expected that patients can receive effective therapy at current amplitudes of less than 2 mA. This expectation is based at least in part on data indicating that reducing the duty cycle (e.g., to 70%) did not reduce efficacy.
The results of the follow-on study also indicated that most patients (e.g., approximately 80% of the patients) experienced at least satisfactory pain reduction without changing any aspect of the signal delivery parameters (e.g., the number and/or location of active contacts, and/or the current amplitude), once the system was implanted and activated. A small subset of the patients (e.g., about 20%) benefited from an increased current amplitude when engaging in particular activities, and/or benefited from a lower current amplitude when sleeping. For these patients, increasing the signal amplitude while engaging in activity produced a greater degree of pain relief, and reducing the amplitude at night reduced the likelihood of over-stimulation, while at the same time saving power. In a representative example, patients selected from between two such programs: a “strong” program which provided signals at a relatively high current amplitude (e.g., from about 1 mA to about 6 mA), and a “weak” program which provided signals at a lower current amplitude (e.g., from about 0.1 mA to about 3 mA).
Another observed effect during the follow-on study was that patients voluntarily reduced their intake of opioids and/or other pain medications that they had been receiving to address pain prior to receiving modulation in accordance with the present technology. The patients' voluntary drug intake reduction is expected to be a direct result of the decreased need for the drugs, which is in turn a direct result of the modulation provided in accordance with the present technology. However, due to the addictive nature of opioids, the ease with which patients voluntarily gave up the use of opioids was surprising. Therefore, it is also expected that for at least some patients, the present technology, in addition to reducing pain, acted to reduce the chemical dependency on these drugs. Accordingly, it is further expected that in at least some embodiments, therapeutic techniques in accordance with the present disclosure may be used to reduce or eliminate patient chemical dependencies, independent of whether the patients also have and/or are treated for low back pain.
Patients entering the follow-on study typically experienced neuropathic pain, nociceptive pain, or a combination of neuropathic pain and nociceptive pain. Neuropathic pain refers generally to pain resulting from a dysfunction in the neural mechanism for reporting pain, which can produce a sensation of pain without an external neural trigger. Nociceptive pain refers generally to pain that is properly sensed by the patient as being triggered by a particular mechanical or other physical effect (e.g., a slipped disc, a damaged muscle, or a damaged bone). In general, neuropathic pain is consistent, and nociceptive pain fluctuates, e.g., with patient position or activity. In at least some embodiments, treatment in accordance with the present technology appears to more effectively address neuropathic pain than nociceptive pain. For example, patients who reported low levels of pain fluctuation before entering treatment (indicating predominantly neuropathic pain), received greater pain relief during treatment than patients whose pain fluctuated significantly. In two particular cases, the therapy did not prove to be effective, and it is believe that this resulted from a mechanical issue with the patients' back anatomy, which identified the patients as better candidates for surgery than for the present therapy. Accordingly, in addition to addressing neuropathic pain and (in at least some cases), nociceptive pain, techniques in accordance with the present technology may also act as a screening tool to identify patients who suffer primarily from nociceptive pain rather than neuropathic pain. For example, the practitioner can make such an identification based at least in part on feedback from the patient corresponding to the existence and/or amount (including amount of fluctuation) of pain reduction when receiving signals in accordance with the present technology. As a result of using this diagnostic technique, these patients can be directed to surgical or other procedures that can directly address the nociceptive pain. In particular, patients may receive signals in accordance with the present technology and, if these patients are unresponsive, may be suitable candidates for surgical intervention. Of course, if the patients are responsive, they can continue to receive signals in accordance with the present technology as therapy.
One potential mechanism of action for the presently disclosed therapy is represented by arrow 710, and includes producing an incomplete conduction block (e.g., an incomplete block of afferent and/or efferent signal transmission) at the dorsal root level. This block may occur at the dorsal column, dorsal horn, and/or dorsal root entry zone, in addition to or in lieu of the dorsal root. In any of these cases, the conduction block is selective to and/or preferentially affects the smaller Aδ and/or C fibers and is expected to produce a decrease in excitatory inputs to the second order neurons, thus producing a decrease in pain signals supplied along the spinal thalamic tract.
Another potential mechanism of action (represented by arrow 720 in
Still another potential mechanism of action relates to the sensitivity of neurons in patients suffering from chronic pain. In such patients, it is believed that the pain-transmitting neurons may be in a different, hypersensitive state compared to the same neurons in people who do not experience chronic pain, resulting in highly sensitized cells that are on a “hair trigger” and fire more frequently and at different patterns with a lower threshold of stimulation than those cells of people who do not experience chronic pain. As a result, the brain receives a significantly increased volume of action potentials at significantly altered transmission patterns. Accordingly, a potential mechanism of action by which the presently disclosed therapies may operate is by reducing this hypersensitivity by restoring or moving the “baseline” of the neural cells in chronic pain patients toward the normal baseline and firing frequency of non-chronic pain patients. This effect can in turn reduce the sensation of pain in this patient population without affecting other neural transmissions (for example, touch, heat, etc.).
The foregoing mechanisms of action are identified here as possible mechanisms of action that may account for the foregoing clinical results. In particular, these mechanisms of action may explain the surprising result that pain signals transmitted by the small, slow Aδ and C fibers may be inhibited without affecting signal transmission along the larger, faster AB fibers. This is contrary to the typical results obtained via standard SCS treatments, during which modulation signals generally affect AB fibers at low amplitudes, and do not affect Aδ and C fibers until the signal amplitude is so high as to create pain or other unwanted effects transmitted by the AB fibers. However, aspects of the present disclosure need not be directly tied to such mechanisms. In addition, aspects of both the two foregoing proposed mechanisms may in combination account for the observed results in some embodiments, and in other embodiments, other mechanisms may account for the observed results, either alone or in combination with either one of the two foregoing mechanisms. One such mechanism includes an increased ability of high frequency modulation (compared to standard SCS stimulation) to penetrate through the cerebral spinal fluid (CSF) around the spinal cord. Another such mechanism is the expected reduction in impedance presented by the patient's tissue to high frequencies, as compared to standard SCS frequencies. Still another such mechanism is the ability of high frequency signal to elicit an asynchronous neural response, as disclosed in greater detail in pending U.S. application Ser. No. 12/362,244, filed on Jan. 29, 2009 and incorporated herein by reference. Although the higher frequencies associated with the presently disclosed techniques may initially appear to require more power than conventional SCS techniques, the signal amplitude may be reduced when compared to conventional SCS values (due to improved signal penetration) and/or the duty cycle may be reduced (due to persistence effects described later). Accordingly, the presently disclosed techniques can result in a net power savings when compared with standard SCS techniques.
Certain of the foregoing embodiments can produce one or more of a variety of advantages, for the patient and/or the practitioner, when compared with standard SCS therapies. Some of these benefits were described above. For example, the patient can receive effective pain relief without patient-detectable disruptions to normal sensory and motor signals along the spinal cord. In particular embodiments, while the therapy may create some effect on normal motor and/or sensory signals, the effect is below a level that the patient can reliably detect intrinsically, e.g., without the aid of external assistance via instruments or other devices. Accordingly, the patient's levels of motor signaling and other sensory signaling (other than signaling associated with the target pain) can be maintained at pre-treatment levels. For example, as described above, the patient can experience a significant pain reduction that is largely independent of the patient's movement and position. In particular, the patient can assume a variety of positions and/or undertake a variety of movements associated with activities of daily living and/or other activities, without the need to adjust the parameters in accordance with which the therapy is applied to the patient (e.g., the signal amplitude). This result can greatly simplify the patient's life and reduce the effort required by the patient to experience pain relief while engaging in a variety of activities. This result can also provide an improved lifestyle for patients who experience pain during sleep, as discussed above with reference to
Even for patients who receive a therapeutic benefit from changes in signal amplitude, the foregoing therapy can provide advantages. For example, such patients can choose from a limited number of programs (e.g., two or three) each with a different amplitude and/or other signal delivery parameter, to address some or all of the patient's pain. In one such example, the patient activates one program before sleeping and another after waking. In another such example, the patient activates one program before sleeping, a second program after waking, and a third program before engaging in particular activities that would otherwise cause pain. This reduced set of patient options can greatly simplify the patient's ability to easily manage pain, without reducing (and in fact, increasing) the circumstances under which the therapy effectively addresses pain. In any embodiments that include multiple programs, the patient's workload can be further reduced by automatically detecting a change in patient circumstance, and automatically identifying and delivering the appropriate therapy regimen. Additional details of such techniques and associated systems are disclosed in co-pending U.S. application Ser. No. 12/703,683, previously incorporated herein by reference.
Another benefit observed during the clinical studies described above is that when the patient does experience a change in the therapy level, it is a gradual change. This is unlike typical changes associated with conventional SCS therapies. With conventional SCS therapies, if a patient changes position and/or changes an amplitude setting, the patient can experience a sudden onset of pain, often described by patients as unbearable. By contrast, patients in the clinical studies described above, when treated with the presently disclosed therapy, reported a gradual onset of pain when signal amplitude was increased beyond a threshold level, and/or when the patient changed position, with the pain described as gradually becoming uncomfortable. One patient described a sensation akin to a cramp coming on, but never fully developing. This significant difference in patient response to changes in signal delivery parameters can allow the patient to more freely change signal delivery parameters and/or posture when desired, without fear of creating an immediately painful effect.
Another observation from the clinical studies described above is that the amplitude “window” between the onset of effective therapy and the onset of pain or discomfort is relatively broad, and in particular, broader than it is for standard SCS treatment. For example, during standard SCS treatment, the patient typically experiences a pain reduction at a particular amplitude, and begins experiencing pain from the therapeutic signal (which may have a sudden onset, as described above) at from about 1.2 to about 1.6 times that amplitude. This corresponds to an average dynamic range of about 1.4. In addition, patients receiving standard SCS stimulation typically wish to receive the stimulation at close to the pain onset level because the therapy is often most effective at that level. Accordingly, patient preferences may further reduce the effective dynamic range. By contrast, therapy in accordance with the presently disclosed technology resulted in patients obtaining pain relief at 1 mA or less, and not encountering pain or muscle capture until the applied signal had an amplitude of 4 mA, and in some cases up to about 5 mA, 6 mA, or 8 mA, corresponding to a much larger dynamic range (e.g., larger than 1.6 or 60% in some embodiments, or larger than 100% in other embodiments). Even at the forgoing amplitude levels, the pain experienced by the patients was significantly less than that associated with standard SCS pain onset. An expected advantage of this result is that the patient and practitioner can have significantly wider latitude in selecting an appropriate therapy amplitude with the presently disclosed methodology than with standard SCS methodologies. For example, the practitioner can increase the signal amplitude in an effort to affect more (e.g., deeper) fibers at the spinal cord, without triggering unwanted side effects. The existence of a wider amplitude window may also contribute to the relative insensitivity of the presently disclosed therapy to changes in patient posture and/or activity. For example, if the relative position between the implanted lead and the target neural population changes as the patient moves, the effective strength of the signal when it reaches the target neural population may also change. When the target neural population is insensitive to a wider range of signal strengths, this effect can in turn allow greater patient range of motion without triggering undesirable side effects.
Although the presently disclosed therapies may allow the practitioner to provide modulation over a broader range of amplitudes, in at least some cases, the practitioner may not need to use the entire range. For example, as described above, the instances in which the patient may need to adjust the therapy may be significantly reduced when compared with standard SCS therapy because the presently disclosed therapy is relatively insensitive to patient position, posture and activity level. In addition to or in lieu of the foregoing effect, the amplitude of the signals applied in accordance with the presently disclosed techniques may be lower than the amplitude associated with standard SCS because the presently disclosed techniques may target neurons that are closer to the surface of the spinal cord. For example, it is believed that the nerve fibers associated with low back pain enter the spinal cord between T9 and T12 (inclusive), and are thus close to the spinal cord surface at these vertebral locations. Accordingly, the strength of the therapeutic signal (e.g., the current amplitude) can be modest because the signal need not penetrate through a significant depth of spinal cord tissue to have the intended effect. Such low amplitude signals can have a reduced (or zero) tendency for triggering side effects, such as unwanted sensory and/or motor responses. Such low amplitude signals can also reduce the power required by the implanted pulse generator, and can therefore extend the battery life and the associated time between recharging and/or replacing the battery.
Yet another expected benefit of providing therapy in accordance with the foregoing parameters is that the practitioner need not implant the lead with the same level of precision as is typically required for standard SCS lead placement. For example, while the foregoing results were identified for patients having two leads (one positioned on either side of the spinal cord midline), it is expected that patients will receive the same or generally similar pain relief with only a single lead placed at the midline. Accordingly, the practitioner may need to implant only one lead, rather than two. It is still further expected that the patient may receive pain relief on one side of the body when the lead is positioned offset from the spinal cord midline in the opposite direction. Thus, even if the patient has bilateral pain, e.g., with pain worse on one side than the other, the patient's pain can be addressed with a single implanted lead. Still further, it is expected that the lead position can vary laterally from the anatomical and/or physiological spinal cord midline to a position 3-5 mm. away from the spinal cord midline (e.g., out to the dorsal root entry zone or DREZ). The foregoing identifiers of the midline may differ, but the expectation is that the foregoing range is effective for both anatomical and physiological identifications of the midline, e.g., as a result of the robust nature of the present therapy. Yet further, it is expected that the lead (or more particularly, the active contact or contacts on the lead) can be positioned at any of a variety of axial locations in a range of about T9-T12 in one embodiment, and a range of one to two vertebral bodies within T9-T12 in another embodiment, while still providing effective treatment. Accordingly, the practitioner's selected implant site need not be identified or located as precisely as it is for standard SCS procedures (axially and/or laterally), while still producing significant patient benefits. In particular, the practitioner can locate the active contacts within the foregoing ranges without adjusting the contact positions in an effort to increase treatment efficacy and/or patient comfort. In addition, in particular embodiments, contacts at the foregoing locations can be the only active contacts delivering therapy to the patient. The foregoing features, alone or in combination, can reduce the amount of time required to implant the lead, and can give the practitioner greater flexibility when implanting the lead. For example, if the patient has scar tissue or another impediment at a preferred implant site, the practitioner can locate the lead elsewhere and still obtain beneficial results.
Still another expected benefit, which can result from the foregoing observed insensitivities to lead placement and signal amplitude, is that the need for conducting a mapping procedure at the time the lead is implanted may be significantly reduced or eliminated. This is an advantage for both the patient and the practitioner because it reduces the amount of time and effort required to establish an effective therapy regimen. In particular, standard SCS therapy typically requires that the practitioner adjust the position of the lead and the amplitude of the signals delivered by the lead, while the patient is in the operating room reporting whether or not pain reduction is achieved. Because the presently disclosed techniques are relatively insensitive to lead position and amplitude, the mapping process can be eliminated entirely. Instead, the practitioner can place the lead at a selected vertebral location (e.g., about T9-T12) and apply the signal at a pre-selected amplitude (e.g., 1 to 2 mA), with a significantly reduced or eliminated trial-and-error optimization process (for a contact selection and/or amplitude selection), and then release the patient. In addition to or in lieu of the foregoing effect, the practitioner can, in at least some embodiments, provide effective therapy to the patient with a simple bipole arrangement of electrodes, as opposed to a tripole or other more complex arrangement that is used in existing systems to steer or otherwise direct therapeutic signals. In light of the foregoing effect(s), it is expected that the time required to complete a patient lead implant procedure and select signal delivery parameters can be reduced by a factor of two or more, in particular embodiments. As a result, the practitioner can treat more patients per day, and the patients can more quickly engage in activities without pain.
The foregoing effect(s) can extend not only to the mapping procedure conducted at the practitioner's facility, but also to the subsequent trial period. In particular, patients receiving standard SCS treatment typically spend a week after receiving a lead implant during which they adjust the amplitude applied to the lead in an attempt to establish suitable amplitudes for any of a variety of patient positions and patient activities. Because embodiments of the presently disclosed therapy are relatively insensitive to patient position and activity level, the need for this trial and error period can be reduced or eliminated.
Still another expected benefit associated with embodiments of the presently disclosed treatment is that the treatment may be less susceptible to patient habituation. In particular, it is expected that in at least some cases, the high frequency signal applied to the patient can produce an asynchronous neural response, as is disclosed in co-pending U.S. application Ser. No. 12/362,244, previously incorporated herein by reference. The asynchronous response may be less likely to produce habituation than a synchronous response, which can result from lower frequency modulation.
Yet another feature of embodiments of the foregoing therapy is that the therapy can be applied without distinguishing between anodic contacts and cathodic contacts. As described in greater detail in U.S. application Ser. No. 12/765,790 (Attorney Docket No. 66245.8024US, previously incorporated herein by reference), this feature can simplify the process of establishing a therapy regimen for the patient. In addition, due to the high frequency of the waveform, the adjacent tissue may perceive the waveform as a pseudo steady state signal. As a result of either or both of the foregoing effects, tissue adjacent both electrodes may be beneficially affected. This is unlike standard SCS waveforms for which one electrode is consistently cathodic and another is consistently anodic.
In any of the foregoing embodiments, aspects of the therapy provided to the patient may be varied within or outside the parameters used during the clinical testing described above, while still obtaining beneficial results for patients suffering from chronic low back pain. For example, the location of the lead body (and in particular, the lead body electrodes or contacts) can be varied over the significant lateral and/or axial ranges described above. Other characteristics of the applied signal can also be varied. For example, as described above, the signal can be delivered at a frequency of from about 1.5 kHz to about 100 kHz, and in particular embodiments, from about 1.5 kHz to about 50 kHz. In more particular embodiments, the signal can be provided at frequencies of from about 3 kHz to about 20 kHz, or from about 3 kHz to about 15 kHz, or from about 5 kHz to about 15 kHz, or from about 3 kHz to about 10 kHz. The amplitude of the signal can range from about 0.1 mA to about 20 mA in a particular embodiment, and in further particular embodiments, can range from about 0.5 mA to about 10 mA, or about 0.5 mA to about 4 mA, or about 0.5 mA to about 2.5 mA. The amplitude of the applied signal can be ramped up and/or down. In particular embodiments, the amplitude can be increased or set at an initial level to establish a therapeutic effect, and then reduced to a lower level to save power without forsaking efficacy, as is disclosed in pending U.S. application Ser. No. 12/264,836, filed Nov. 4, 2008, and incorporated herein by reference. In particular embodiments, the signal amplitude refers to the electrical current level, e.g., for current-controlled systems. In other embodiments, the signal amplitude can refer to the electrical voltage level, e.g., for voltage-controlled systems. The pulse width (e.g., for just the cathodic phase of the pulses) can vary from about 10 microseconds to about 333 microseconds. In further particular embodiments, the pulse width can range from about 25 microseconds to about 166 microseconds, or from about 33 microseconds to about 100 microseconds, or from about 50 microseconds to about 166 microseconds. The specific values selected for the foregoing parameters may vary from patient to patient and/or from indication to indication and/or on the basis of the selected vertebral location. In addition, the methodology may make use of other parameters, in addition to or in lieu of those described above, to monitor and/or control patient therapy. For example, in cases for which the pulse generator includes a constant voltage arrangement rather than a constant current arrangement, the current values described above may be replaced with corresponding voltage values.
In at least some embodiments, it is expected that the foregoing amplitudes will be suprathreshold. It is also expected that, in at least some embodiments, the neural response to the foregoing signals will be asynchronous, as described above. Accordingly, the frequency of the signal can be selected to be higher (e.g., between two and ten times higher) than the refractory period of the target neurons at the patient's spinal cord, which in at least some embodiments is expected to produce an asynchronous response.
Patients can receive multiple signals in accordance with still further embodiments of the disclosure. For example, patients can receive two or more signals, each with different signal delivery parameters. In one particular example, the signals are interleaved with each other. For instance, the patient can receive 5 kHz pulses interleaved with 10 kHz pulses. In other embodiments, patients can receive sequential “packets” of pulses at different frequencies, with each packet having a duration of less than one second, several seconds, several minutes, or longer depending upon the particular patient and indication.
In still further embodiments, the duty cycle may be varied from the 50%-100% range of values described above, as can the lengths of the on/off periods. For example, it has been observed that patients can have therapeutic effects (e.g., pain reduction) that persist for significant periods after the modulation has been halted. In particular examples, the beneficial effects can persist for 10-20 minutes in some cases, and up to an hour in others and up to a day or more in still further cases. Accordingly, the simulator can be programmed to halt modulation for periods of up to an hour, with appropriate allowances for the time necessary to re-start the beneficial effects. This arrangement can significantly reduce system power consumption, compared to systems with higher duty cycles, and compared to systems that have shorter on/off periods.
Another aspect of an embodiment of the lead 910 shown in
In some cases, it may be desirable to adjust the distance between the inferior contacts C1 and the superior contacts C2. For example, the lead 910 can have a coil arrangement (like a telephone cord) or other length-adjusting feature that allows the practitioner to selectively vary the distance between the sets of contacts. In a particular aspect of this arrangement, the coiled portion of the lead can be located between the first contacts C1 and the second contacts C2. For example, in an embodiment shown in
Referring next to
Referring next to
As noted above, one feature of the foregoing arrangements is that they can be easy to design and manufacture. For example, the manufacturer can use different stencils to provide different contact spacings, depending upon specific patient applications. In addition to or in lieu of the foregoing effect, the foregoing arrangement can provide for greater maneuverability and facilitate the implantation process by eliminating ring electrodes and/or other rigid contacts, or dividing the contacts into subcontacts. In other embodiments, other arrangements can be used to provide contact flexibility. For example, the contacts can be formed from a conductive silicone, e.g., silicone impregnated with a suitable loading of conductive material, such as platinum, iridium or another noble metal.
Yet another feature of an embodiment of the lead shown in
The robust characteristics of the presently disclosed therapy techniques may enable other aspects of the overall system described above with reference to
Many of the embodiments described above were described in the context of treating chronic, neuropathic low back pain with modulation signals applied to the lower thoracic vertebrae (T9-T12). In other embodiments, modulation signals having parameters (e.g., frequency, pulse width, amplitude, and/or duty cycle) generally similar to those described above can be applied to other patient locations to address other indications. For example, while the foregoing methodologies included applying modulation at lateral locations ranging from the spinal cord midline to the DREZ, in other embodiments, the modulation may be applied to the foramen region, laterally outward from the DREZ. In other embodiments, the modulation may be applied to other spinal levels of the patient. For example, modulation may be applied to the sacral region and more particularly, the “horse tail” region at which the sacral nerves enter the sacrum. Urinary incontinence and fecal incontinence represent example indications that are expected to be treatable with modulation applied at this location. In other embodiments, the modulation may be applied to other thoracic vertebrae. For example, modulation may be applied to thoracic vertebrae above T9. In a particular embodiment, modulation may be applied to the T3-T6 region to treat angina. Modulation can be applied to high thoracic vertebrae to treat pain associated with shingles. Modulation may be applied to the cervical vertebrae to address chronic regional pain syndrome and/or total body pain, and may be used to replace neck surgery. Suitable cervical locations include vertebral levels C3-C7, inclusive. In other embodiments, modulation may be applied to the occipital nerves, for example, to address migraine headaches.
As described above, modulation in accordance with the foregoing parameters may also be applied to treat acute and/or chronic nociceptive pain. For example, modulation in accordance with these parameters can be used during surgery to supplement and/or replace anesthetics (e.g., a spinal tap). Such applications may be used for tumor removal, knee surgery, and/or other surgical techniques. Similar techniques may be used with an implanted device to address post-operative pain, and can avoid the need for topical lidocaine. In still further embodiments, modulation in accordance with the foregoing parameters can be used to address other peripheral nerves. For example, modulation can be applied directly to peripheral nerves to address phantom limb pain.
From the foregoing, it will be appreciated that specific embodiments of the disclosure have been described herein for purposes of illustration, but that various modifications may be made without deviating from the disclosure. For example, the specific parameter ranges and indications described above may be different in further embodiments. As described above, the practitioner can avoid the use of certain procedures, (e.g., mapping, trial periods and/or current steering), but in other embodiments, such procedures may be used in particular instances. The lead described above with reference to
Certain aspects of the disclosure described in the context of particular embodiments may be combined or eliminated in other embodiments. For example, as described above, the trial period, operating room mapping process, and/or external modulator may be eliminated or simplified in particular embodiments. Therapies directed to particular indications may be combined in still further embodiments. Further, while advantages associated with certain embodiments have been described in the context of those embodiments, other embodiments may also exhibit such advantages, and not all embodiments need necessarily exhibit such advantages to fall within the scope of the present disclosure. Accordingly, the present disclosure and associated technology can encompass other embodiments not expressly shown or described herein.
The present application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/164,100, filed Jan. 24, 2014, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/765,747, now U.S. Pat. No. 8,712,533, filed Apr. 22, 2010. U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/765,747 claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/176,868, filed May 8, 2009 and incorporated herein by reference and claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/171,790, filed Apr. 22, 2009, and incorporated herein by reference.
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 61176868 | May 2009 | US | |
| 61171790 | Apr 2009 | US |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Parent | 17835436 | Jun 2022 | US |
| Child | 18444209 | US | |
| Parent | 16537443 | Aug 2019 | US |
| Child | 18444209 | US | |
| Parent | 14522500 | Oct 2014 | US |
| Child | 16537443 | US | |
| Parent | 14164100 | Jan 2014 | US |
| Child | 14522500 | US | |
| Parent | 12765747 | Apr 2010 | US |
| Child | 14164100 | US |
