Vervaat Fabienne E, van Suijlekom Hans, Wijnbergen Inge
Department of Cardiology, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Department of Anaesthesiology, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Neuromodulation. 2023 Dec;26(8):1867-1875. doi: 10.1111/ner.13411. Epub 2022 Jun 14.
Five to 10% of patients with stable coronary artery disease have refractory angina pectoris (RAP). These patients are restricted in performing daily activities due to angina pectoris. Spinal cord stimulation is a last resort treatment option. A number of this patient population also has an indication for a cardiac implanted electronic device (CIED) (pacemaker or implantable cardiac defibrillator). Manufacturers of spinal cord stimulators have stated a warning that interference can occur between the spinal cord stimulator and the CIED. Consequently, only a limited number of patients with RAP and a CIED have received a spinal cord stimulator. The aim of this retrospective cohort study is to determine whether spinal cord stimulation can be safely used in patients with RAP and a CIED.
All patients with RAP referred to our center were screened and included if 1) the patient received a spinal cord stimulator as treatment for RAP and if 2) the patient received a CIED either prior to or after spinal cord stimulator implantation. A transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) treadmill test was used as a screening tool to determine whether the patient was eligible for implantation of a spinal cord stimulator. Interference between the spinal cord stimulator and CIED was checked 1) after TENS treadmill test, 2) during implantation of spinal cord stimulator or CIED, 3) during mode switches of the SCS, and 4) during regular out patient follow-up.
In total, 22 patients had both a spinal cord stimulator and a CIED with an average follow-up duration of 44.5 months. No interference between the spinal cord stimulator and CIED was found.
Spinal cord stimulation can be safely applied in patients with a CIED provided that the CIED is checked for interference during implantation, if mode switches of the SCS occurred and once yearly after implantation according to routine follow-up.
5%至10%的稳定型冠状动脉疾病患者患有顽固性心绞痛(RAP)。这些患者因心绞痛而限制了日常活动。脊髓刺激是一种最后的治疗选择。许多这类患者也有心脏植入式电子设备(CIED,起搏器或植入式心脏除颤器)的指征。脊髓刺激器制造商已发出警告,脊髓刺激器与CIED之间可能会发生干扰。因此,只有少数患有RAP且有CIED的患者接受了脊髓刺激器治疗。本回顾性队列研究的目的是确定脊髓刺激是否可安全用于患有RAP且有CIED的患者。
所有转诊至我们中心的RAP患者均经过筛查,若符合以下条件则纳入研究:1)患者接受脊髓刺激器作为RAP的治疗;2)患者在脊髓刺激器植入之前或之后接受了CIED。经皮电神经刺激(TENS)跑步机测试用作筛查工具,以确定患者是否有资格植入脊髓刺激器。在以下情况下检查脊髓刺激器与CIED之间的干扰:1)TENS跑步机测试后;2)脊髓刺激器或CIED植入期间;3)脊髓刺激器模式切换期间;4)定期门诊随访期间。
共有22例患者同时拥有脊髓刺激器和CIED,平均随访时间为44.5个月。未发现脊髓刺激器与CIED之间存在干扰。
只要在植入时检查CIED是否存在干扰,若发生脊髓刺激器模式切换以及植入后每年按照常规随访检查一次,脊髓刺激可安全应用于患有CIED的患者。