data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/62b3a/62b3a9a9c874f3f61e562c2708bc6769d38861c0" alt="Abbott Proclaim 3660 Скачать руководство пользователя страница 74"
70
Pain Medication
In the first 12 weeks, 6 subjects (2 using tonic stimulation, 4 using burst stimulation) increased
pain medication. Between weeks 12 and 24, 15 subjects (5 using burst stimulation, 10 using
tonic stimulation) increased pain medication. Altogether, 12 tonic stimulation subjects and 9 burst
stimulation subjects increased pain medication. More subjects decreased pain medication during
the study than increased it, and more subjects decreased medication while receiving burst
stimulation (31 subjects) than while receiving tonic stimulation (27 subjects). The following table
shows a summary of medication changes from activation for each stimulation mode.
Table 49. Summary of medication changes from activation
Medication Change
Burst
Tonic
Decreased
31/96 (32.3%)
27/96 (28.1%)
Increased
9/96 (9.4%)
12/96 (12.5%)
No change
56/96 (58.3%)
57/96 (59.4%)
Summary of Supplemental Clinical Information
This pivotal, prospective, multicenter, randomized, crossover study assessed the safety and
effectiveness of a neurostimulation system which enables the use of both tonic and burst
stimulation modes. Twenty (20) experienced pain centers in the United States participated in the
study. One hundred seventy three (173) subjects were enrolled across the 20 sites, and all were
diagnosed with chronic, intractable pain of the trunk and/or limbs; had an average overall VAS
pain score of at least 60 on a 0-to-100 scale; and had attempted and previously failed at least 3
medically supervised treatments.
Conclusions Drawn from the Study
This section provides study conclusions based on stimulation effectiveness, safety, and risks and
benefits, as well as overall conclusions.
Effectiveness Conclusions
This section provides conclusions on stimulation effectiveness.
Pain measures.
The primary effectiveness endpoint of non-inferiority was met (43.5 versus
48.7,
p
<0.001), and burst stimulation was found to be superior to tonic stimulation
(
p
=0.017). Differences in VAS scores for burst stimulation and tonic stimulation from
baseline were assessed for carryover effect, with no statistical difference (
p
=0.883). Burst
stimulation was preferred by over two-thirds of subjects (70.8%) who had responded to tonic
stimulation during an SCS trial period.
The mean VAS scores for trunk and limb pain were lower with burst stimulation than with
tonic stimulation (40.9 versus 46.7 for trunk and 36.5 versus 41.6 for limb, respectively).
The percentage of subjects reporting at least a 30% decrease in VAS pain diary scores for
the average overall pain was higher with burst stimulation than with tonic stimulation (60.0%
compared to 51.0%). A higher percentage was also observed in subjects reporting at least a
50% decrease in VAS pain diary scores (39.0% compared to 32.0%).
Paresthesia.
More than half of subjects (61.6%) reported no paresthesia during burst
stimulation while 97.3% of subjects reported paresthesia during tonic stimulation. When
compared to tonic stimulation, burst stimulation was associated with a reduction of
paresthesia or no paresthesia, representing a relative reduction of 80.2% in average
paresthesia from tonic stimulation to burst stimulation.