High-Frequency versus Low-Frequency Spinal Cord Stimulation in Treatment of Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia: Short-Term Results of a Randomized Trial

Introduction: The objective of the study is to determine if high-frequency (1 kHz) spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is better than low-frequency SCS for pain relief in chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI). Methods: HEAL-SCS trial was designed as an open-label, parallel-group, single-center randomized study with a 1:1 allocation ratio. The trial was conducted in Meshalkin National Medical Research Center between August 2018 and February 2020. Total 56 patients underwent screening, 50 were enrolled, 6 were rejected. The participants were randomized into 2 cohorts of 25 patients each by an external coordinator using an online tool. A neurosurgeon and a vascular surgeon both examined all patients and estimated the pain intensity using visual analog scale (VAS), quality of life with short-form-36 health survey (SF-36), and functional status by walking impairment questionnaire (WIQ) at 3 and 12 months. Tissue perfusion was evaluated for 34 patients using transcutaneous oxygen tension measurement (TcPO2) at baseline and in 12 months. Results: All 50 patients (84% men, median age 66.5 y.o) were available for primary outcome assessment 3 and 12 months after implantation. Intention-to-treat analysis demonstrated comparative advantage of HF-SCS over LF-SCS at 3 months with mean VAS score 2.8 (95% CI, 2.4; 3.2) and 3.3 (95% CI, 3.0; 3.6), respectively (p = 0.031). Clinical superiority of HF-SCS persisted at 12-month follow-up (p < 0.001). HF-SCS produced significantly greater pain relief by WIQ at 3 (p < 0.001) and 12 months (p = 0.009). Despite stair-climbing ability was better in HF-SCS group (p = 0.02), no significant difference between groups was found at 1-year post-op in terms of speed (p = 0.92) and distance scores (p = 0.68). Accordingly, the general and mental health domains of SF-36 were significantly better in HF-SCS at 12 months. Despite a tendency toward better resting oxygen pressure in HF-SCS group, there was no intergroup difference by TcPO2 (p = 0.076). Only 1 patient (2%) required above-the-knee amputation at 10 months after LF-SCS implantation. Conclusion: High-frequency SCS provides better pain relief, life quality, and functional performance in patients with CLTI during short-term follow-up. The lack of perfusion difference between high-frequency and conventional SCS requires further examination to the possible long-term advantages of the method.