CClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT03345472Updated Nov 3, 2020Results posted

Vectors Post Market: A Study to Assess Pain Relief Using Spinal Cord Stimulation

An interventional study of Spinal Cord Stimulation System in Chronic Pain, sponsored by MedtronicNeuro. Completed at 20 sites in United States. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2020-11-03.

Sponsored by MedtronicNeuro · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment

Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
175
Allocation
Not applicable
Ages
18 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study summary

This is a prospective, single-arm, multi-center study evaluating the efficacy of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) therapy for pain relief using high dose (HD) stimulation parameters delivered to neural targets identified during current commercial trial stimulation procedures. The study will evaluate changes in back and leg pain from baseline to 3, 6, and 12 months.

02

Conditions studied

  • Chronic Pain

Browse trials for

03

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years and older
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

  • Candidate per labeling for an SCS system as an aid in the management of chronic, intractable low back and leg pain
  • Presence of low back and leg pain
  • Moderate to crippled disability due to pain
  • Stable pain medications for back and leg pain for at least 28 days prior to enrollment
  • Willing and able to not increase pain medications through the 3-Month visit

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Previously trialed or implanted with stimulator or intrathecal drug delivery system
  • Current diagnosis of moderate to severe central lumbar spinal stenosis
  • Major psychiatric comorbidity or other progressive diseases
  • Serious drug-related behavioral issues
  • Pregnant or planning on becoming pregnant
  • Unable to achieve supine position
04

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Not applicable
Intervention model
Single group
Masking
None (open label)
Enrollment
175 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    Treated

    Enrolled subjects who are implanted with a spinal cord stimulation system that is activated.

    Device: Spinal Cord Stimulation System

Interventions

  • DeviceSpinal Cord Stimulation System

    Implanted neurostimulation system (neurostimulator and leads) with high dose stimulation parameters.

    Also known as: Medtronic RestoreSensor SureScan MRI neurostimulation system, Medtronic Intellis AdaptiveStim neurostimulation system

05

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Change in Overall Pain Intensity on the Visual Analog Scale (0-100)

    Demonstrate a significant improvement in overall pain intensity as measured by the Visual Analog Scale (VAS). The VAS ranges from 0 (no pain) to 100 (worst pain imaginable). The change in overall pain intensity is calculated as the Baseline VAS minus the 3-month VAS, where a positive value indicates an improvement (ie, reduction) in pain from Baseline to 3 months. Higher values represent a larger reduction (ie, greater improvement) in pain. The change in overall pain intensity as measured by the VAS can range from -100 (worsening in pain from 0 at baseline to 100 at 3 months) to 100 (improvement in pain from 100 at baseline to 0 at 3 months). It should be noted that while the change in VAS can range from -100 to 100, no subjects had a VAS of 0 at baseline, as the presence of pain was required for eligibility for inclusion in the study.

    Time frame: Baseline to 3 months

Secondary outcomes

  1. Overall Pain Efficacy Responder Rate

    Characterize the overall pain efficacy responder rate, where the responder rate is the percentage of subjects who experience at least a 50% improvement in overall pain, as measured by the Visual Analog Scale (VAS). The VAS ranges from 0 (no pain) to 100 (worst pain imaginable). The percent improvement for each subject was calculated as \[100\*(Baseline VAS - 3-month VAS)/Baseline VAS\], where a positive number represents an improvement, and the larger the number the greater the percent improvement. If the percent improvement from baseline to 3 months was at least 50%, the subject was considered a responder. The percentage of subjects who experience at least a 50% improvement in overall pain can range from 0% (no responders) to 100% (all responders).

    Time frame: Baseline to 3 months

  2. Low Back Pain Efficacy Responder Rate

    Characterize the low back pain efficacy responder rate, where the responder rate is the percentage of subjects who experience at least a 50% improvement in low back pain, as measured by the Visual Analog Scale (VAS). The VAS ranges from 0 (no pain) to 100 (worst pain imaginable). The percent improvement for each subject was calculated as \[100\*(Baseline VAS - 3-month VAS)/Baseline VAS\], where a positive number represents an improvement, and the larger the number the greater the percent improvement. If the percent improvement from baseline to 3 months was at least 50%, the subject was considered a responder. The percentage of subjects who experience at least a 50% improvement in low back pain can range from 0% (no responders) to 100% (all responders).

    Time frame: Baseline to 3 months

  3. Leg Pain Efficacy Responder Rate

    Characterize the leg pain efficacy responder rate, where the responder rate is the percentage of subjects who experience at least a 50% improvement in leg pain, as measured by the Visual Analog Scale (VAS). The VAS ranges from 0 (no pain) to 100 (worst pain imaginable). The percent improvement for each subject was calculated as \[100\*(Baseline VAS - 3-month VAS)/Baseline VAS\], where a positive number represents an improvement, and the larger the number the greater the percent improvement. If the percent improvement from baseline to 3 months was at least 50%, the subject was considered a responder. The percentage of subjects who experience at least a 50% improvement in leg pain can range from 0% (no responders) to 100% (all responders).

    Time frame: Baseline to 3 months

06

Results

Posted Mar 20, 2020

Participant flow

Implant to 3 Months
Participant flow — Implant to 3 Months
MilestoneTreated
Started103
Completed99
Not completed4
Withdrew: Withdrawal by subject2
Withdrew: Physician decision1
Withdrew: Adverse event1
3 Months to 12 Months
Participant flow — 3 Months to 12 Months
MilestoneTreated
Started99
Completed91
Not completed8
Withdrew: Physician decision3
Withdrew: Lost to follow-up2
Withdrew: Withdrawal by subject1
Withdrew: Adverse event1
Withdrew: Death1

Outcome measures

PrimaryChange in Overall Pain Intensity on the Visual Analog Scale (0-100)

Demonstrate a significant improvement in overall pain intensity as measured by the Visual Analog Scale (VAS). The VAS ranges from 0 (no pain) to 100 (worst pain imaginable). The change in overall pain intensity is calculated as the Baseline VAS minus the 3-month VAS, where a positive value indicates an improvement (ie, reduction) in pain from Baseline to 3 months. Higher values represent a larger reduction (ie, greater improvement) in pain. The change in overall pain intensity as measured by the VAS can range from -100 (worsening in pain from 0 at baseline to 100 at 3 months) to 100 (improvement in pain from 100 at baseline to 0 at 3 months). It should be noted that while the change in VAS can range from -100 to 100, no subjects had a VAS of 0 at baseline, as the presence of pain was required for eligibility for inclusion in the study.

Time frame:
Baseline to 3 months
Reported as:
Mean · units on a scale
Change in Overall Pain Intensity on the Visual Analog Scale (0-100)
units on a scaleTreated
Change in Overall Pain Intensity on the Visual Analog Scale (0-100)45.4 ± 2.6
SecondaryOverall Pain Efficacy Responder Rate

Characterize the overall pain efficacy responder rate, where the responder rate is the percentage of subjects who experience at least a 50% improvement in overall pain, as measured by the Visual Analog Scale (VAS). The VAS ranges from 0 (no pain) to 100 (worst pain imaginable). The percent improvement for each subject was calculated as \[100\*(Baseline VAS - 3-month VAS)/Baseline VAS\], where a positive number represents an improvement, and the larger the number the greater the percent improvement. If the percent improvement from baseline to 3 months was at least 50%, the subject was considered a responder. The percentage of subjects who experience at least a 50% improvement in overall pain can range from 0% (no responders) to 100% (all responders).

Time frame:
Baseline to 3 months
Reported as:
Number · percent of subjects who are responder
Overall Pain Efficacy Responder Rate
percent of subjects who are responderTreated
Overall Pain Efficacy Responder Rate68.3 (59.0 to 77.5)
SecondaryLow Back Pain Efficacy Responder Rate

Characterize the low back pain efficacy responder rate, where the responder rate is the percentage of subjects who experience at least a 50% improvement in low back pain, as measured by the Visual Analog Scale (VAS). The VAS ranges from 0 (no pain) to 100 (worst pain imaginable). The percent improvement for each subject was calculated as \[100\*(Baseline VAS - 3-month VAS)/Baseline VAS\], where a positive number represents an improvement, and the larger the number the greater the percent improvement. If the percent improvement from baseline to 3 months was at least 50%, the subject was considered a responder. The percentage of subjects who experience at least a 50% improvement in low back pain can range from 0% (no responders) to 100% (all responders).

Time frame:
Baseline to 3 months
Reported as:
Number · percent of subjects who are responders
Low Back Pain Efficacy Responder Rate
percent of subjects who are respondersTreated
Low Back Pain Efficacy Responder Rate59.8 (49.9 to 69.7)
SecondaryLeg Pain Efficacy Responder Rate

Characterize the leg pain efficacy responder rate, where the responder rate is the percentage of subjects who experience at least a 50% improvement in leg pain, as measured by the Visual Analog Scale (VAS). The VAS ranges from 0 (no pain) to 100 (worst pain imaginable). The percent improvement for each subject was calculated as \[100\*(Baseline VAS - 3-month VAS)/Baseline VAS\], where a positive number represents an improvement, and the larger the number the greater the percent improvement. If the percent improvement from baseline to 3 months was at least 50%, the subject was considered a responder. The percentage of subjects who experience at least a 50% improvement in leg pain can range from 0% (no responders) to 100% (all responders).

Time frame:
Baseline to 3 months
Reported as:
Number · percent of subjects who are responders
Leg Pain Efficacy Responder Rate
percent of subjects who are respondersTreated
Leg Pain Efficacy Responder Rate77.4 (69.1 to 85.7)

Adverse events

Collected over 12 months post-device activation. Non-serious events are listed at a 5% frequency threshold.

Adverse event summary by group
GroupDeathsSeriousOther
Treated1/103 (1%)1/103 (1%)36/103 (35%)
Most frequent serious events
Most frequent serious events
EventTreated
Back painMusculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders1/103
Most frequent other events
Most frequent other events
EventTreated
ParaesthesiaNervous system disorders19/103
Device stimulation issueProduct Issues11/103
Back painMusculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders9/103

Baseline characteristics

Age, Continuous
Age, Continuous(years)Treated
Mean60.8 ± 13.4
Sex: Female, Male
Sex: Female, Male(Participants)Treated
Female56
Male47
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)(Participants)Treated
Hispanic or Latino4
Not Hispanic or Latino93
Unknown or Not Reported6
Race (NIH/OMB)
Race (NIH/OMB)(Participants)Treated
American Indian or Alaska Native0
Asian0
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander0
Black or African American10
White92
More than one race0
Unknown or Not Reported1
Region of Enrollment
Region of Enrollment(participants)Treated
United States103
Years from pain onset to enrollment
Years from pain onset to enrollment(years)Treated
Mean12.9 ± 11.1
07

Study locations

20 sites
  • Pain Consultants of San Diego
    La Mesa, California 91942-8901, United States
  • Restore Orthopedics and Spine Center
    Orange, California 92868, United States
  • Center for Interventional Pain and Spine
    Wilmington, Delaware 19803, United States
  • Pain Care
    Stockbridge, Georgia 30281-5023, United States
  • National Spine and Pain
    Oxon Hill, Maryland 20745, United States
  • Michigan Pain Consultants
    Wyoming, Michigan 49519, United States
  • Comprehensive and Interventional Pain Management
    Henderson, Nevada 89052, United States
  • The Pain Management Center
    Voorhees, New Jersey 08043-3512, United States
  • University of Rochester Neurosurgery Partners Pain Management
    Rochester, New York 14618, United States
  • Carolinas Pain Center
    Huntersville, North Carolina 28078, United States
  • The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center
    Columbus, Ohio 43210, United States
  • Lehigh Valley Healthcare Network
    Allentown, Pennsylvania 18103, United States
  • Saint Luke's Neurosurgical Associates
    Bethlehem, Pennsylvania 18015, United States
  • Pain Diagnostics and Interventional Care
    Sewickley, Pennsylvania 15134, United States
  • Delaware Valley Pain and Spine Institute
    Trevose, Pennsylvania 19053, United States
  • Lowcountry Orthopaedics/Coastal Carolina Research Center
    Charleston, South Carolina 29406, United States
  • Carolina Center for Advanced Management of Pain
    Spartanburg, South Carolina 29303, United States
  • Precision Spine Care
    Tyler, Texas 75701, United States
  • Carilion Clinic Roanoke Memorial Hospital
    Roanoke, Virginia 24014, United States
  • Northwest Pain Care
    Spokane, Washington 99201, United States
08

References and documents

Publications

  • Hatheway JA, Mangal V, Fishman MA, Kim P, Shah B, Vogel R, Galan V, Severyn S, Weaver TE, Provenzano DA, Chang E, Verdolin MH, Howes G, Villarreal A, Falowski S, Hendrickson K, Stromberg K, Davies L, Johanek L, Kelly MT. Long-Term Efficacy of a Novel Spinal Cord Stimulation Clinical Workflow Using Kilohertz Stimulation: Twelve-Month Results From the Vectors Study. Neuromodulation. 2021 Apr;24(3):556-565. doi: 10.1111/ner.13324. Epub 2020 Dec 9. PubMed 33296127 ↗

Study documents

  • Study protocol · May 8, 2018
  • Statistical analysis plan · Jun 21, 2018

Documents are hosted by the registry — open the source record to download them.

09

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT03345472
Lead sponsor
MedtronicNeuro
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Nov 17, 2017
Start date
Nov 30, 2017
Primary completion
Feb 4, 2019
Completion
Oct 21, 2019
Results posted
Mar 20, 2020
Last update
Nov 3, 2020

Study contacts

Vectors Post Market Clinical Research Study Team
study director · Medtronic Restorative Therapies, Pain Therapy

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
Yes
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Oct 2020. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion