Spinal Cord Stimulation: A Comparison of Efficacy versus Other Novel Treatments for Refractory Angina Pectoris

Abstract

Abstract: Recently much attention has been directed toward novel treatment alternatives for refractory angina pectoris. Refractory angina is persistent stable class III or IV angina despite maximally tolerated medical treatment in patients with end‐stage coronary artery disease. Transmyocardial laser revascularization (TMLR), gene therapy, intermittent urokinase therapy, enhanced external balloon counterpulsation, and spinal cord stimulation have all been employed to treat refractory angina pectoris. TMLR and gene therapy are invasive open‐chest procedures that have yielded controversial results. Intermittent urokinase and enhanced external balloon counterpulsation studies have limited follow‐up times and require multiple clinic visits for treatment. Spinal cord stimulation has a proven short‐ and long‐term efficacy and cost‐effectiveness in the treatment of refractory angina. When compared to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), it has been shown to decrease the frequency of anginal attacks and consumption of short‐acting nitrates to the same extent in refractory angina. Spinal cord stimulation's safety profile has also been well established and it can be used concurrently with cardiac pacemakers or MRI systems, provided the proper precautions are taken. Since spinal cord stimulation is a minimally invasive procedure with a favorable efficacy and safety profile, it should be considered as a valid treatment alternative after medical management has failed in refractory angina prior to implementing invasive modalities such as TMLR or gene therapy.