Clinical Efficacy of Auricular Vagus Nerve Stimulation in the Treatment of Chronic and Acute Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION

Current guidelines for pain treatment recommend a personalized, multimodal and interdisciplinary approach as well as the use of a combination of drug and non-drug therapies. Risk factors for chronification should already be reduced in patients with acute pain, e.g., after surgery or trauma. Auricular vagus nerve stimulation (aVNS) could be an effective non-drug therapy in the multimodal treatment of chronic and acute pain. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of aVNS in treating chronic and acute pain conditions.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed regarding the application of auricular electrical stimulation in chronic and acute pain. Studies were classified according to their level of evidence (Jadad scale), scientific validity and risk of bias (RoB 2 tool) and analyzed regarding indication, method, stimulation parameters, duration of treatment and efficacy and safety. A meta-analysis on (randomized) controlled trials (using different comparators) was performed for chronic and acute pain conditions, respectively, including subgroup analysis for percutaneous (pVNS-needle electrodes) and transcutaneous (tVNS-surface electrodes) aVNS. The visual analog pain scale (VAS) was defined as primary efficacy endpoint.

RESULTS

A total of n = 1496 patients were treated with aVNS in 23 identified and analyzed studies in chronic pain, 12 studies in acute postoperative pain and 7 studies in experimental acute pain. Of these, seven studies for chronic pain and six studies for acute postoperative pain were included in the meta-analysis. In chronic pain conditions, including back pain, migraine and abdominal pain, a statistically significant reduction in VAS pain intensity for active compared to sham aVNS or control treatment with an effect size Hedges' g/mean difference of - 1.95 (95% confidence interval [CI]: - 3.94 to 0.04, p = 0.008) could be shown and a more favorable effect in pVNS compared to tVNS (- 5.40 [- 8.94; - 1.85] vs. - 1.00 [- 1.55; - 0.44]; p = 0.015). In acute pain conditions, single studies showed significant improvements with aVNS, e.g., in kidney donor surgery or tonsillectomy but, overall, a non-statistically significant reduction in VAS pain intensity for active compared to sham aVNS or control with - 0.70 [- 2.34; 0.93] (p = 0.15) could be observed in the meta-analysis. In acute pain results vary greatly between studies depending especially on co-medication and timepoints of assessment after surgery. A significant reduction in analgesics or opiate intake was documented in most studies evaluating this effect in chronic and acute pain. In 3 of the 12 randomized controlled trials in patients with chronic pain, a sustainable pain reduction over a period of up to 12 months was shown. Overall, aVNS was very well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review and meta-analysis indicate that aVNS can be an effective and safe non-drug treatment in patients with specific chronic and acute postoperative pain conditions. Further research is needed to identify the influence of simulation parameters and find optimal and standardized treatment protocols while considering quality-of-life outcome parameters and prolonged follow-up periods. A more standardized approach and harmonization in study designs would improve comparability and robustness of outcomes.