A comparative effectiveness trial indicates that dorsal root ganglion stimulation provided a higher rate of treatment success with less postural variation in paresthesia intensity compared to spinal cord stimulation.

ObjectivesConventional spinal cord stimulation (SCS) delivers a tonic waveform with consistent stream of pulses; burst delivers groups of pulses separated by short pulse‐free periods. The current study compared the short‐term safety and efficacy of burst with tonic stimulation in subjects already receiving SCS.Materials and MethodsAt 4 IRB‐approved sites, 22 subjects previously implanted with an SCS device for intractable, chronic pain gave informed consent and received burst stimulation for 14 days. Subjects reported average daily Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for overall, trunk, and limb pain using tonic stimulation and after 7 and 14 days of burst stimulation. Thoughts about pain were assessed using the Pain Catastrophizing Scale. Areas of paresthesia were assessed during tonic and burst stimulation using body maps. Assessment of patient satisfaction and preferred stimulation occurred after 14 days of burst.ResultsAverage daily overall VAS reduced 46% from a mean of 53.5 (±20.2) mm during tonic SCS to 28.5 (±18.1) mm during burst (p < 0.001); trunk and limb VAS scores were also reduced by 33% and 51%, respectively. During burst, 16 subjects (73%) reported no paresthesia, 5 (23%) reported a reduction, and 1 (4%) reported increased paresthesia. After 14 days, 21 subjects (95%) reported being very satisfied or satisfied with burst. Burst was preferred by 20 subjects (91%), tonic by 1 (5%), and 1 (5%) reported no preference. Better pain relief was the most common reason cited for preference.ConclusionsA majority of subjects reported improved pain relief using burst compared with tonic stimulation. Most subjects experienced less paresthesia during burst and preferred burst citing better pain relief.

Hypertension and dyslipidemia are major risk factors for cardiovascular disease (CVD). Common treatments for high blood pressure (BP) and dyslipidemia include medications, but there is question as to whether natural sources may be adequate to reduce CVD risk factors. We examined the effects of tart cherry juice on lipid profiles, BP, glucose, insulin, and homeostatic model assessment-insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) in older adults. In this randomized-controlled clinical trial, 17 men and 20 women between the ages of 65-80 years were randomly assigned to consume 480 ml of tart cherry juice or control drink daily for 12 weeks. Control beverages were matched for energy and sugar content. Outcome variables were assessed at baseline and after 12 weeks of tart cherry juice or control drink. Systolic BP and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL) exhibited treatment × time interaction effects. At the end of the study, participants in the tart cherry group had lower levels of LDL cholesterol (difference of -20.6 with P = 0.001) and total cholesterol (difference of -19.11 with P = 0.01), and higher levels of glucose (difference of 7.94 with P = 0.001), triglycerides (difference of 6.66 with P = 0.01) and BMI (difference of 1.06 with P = 0.02) than in the control group. Neither tart cherry juice nor control significantly altered body weight, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, diastolic BP, insulin and HOMA-IR. Our findings show that tart cherry juice can lower the levels of systolic BP and LDL cholesterol. However, larger and longer follow-up studies are needed to further assess cardio-protective effects of tart cherry juice.