ArticlePain reports2025
A closed-loop spinal cord stimulation system in a patient with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator.
Article in Pain reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Neural Regulation of Cardiac Arrhythmias: From the Brain-Heart Axis to Emerging Precision Therapies.Research (Washington, D.C.) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) devices and implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) are well-established therapies for chronic pain management and mortality prevention in cardiovascular pathologies, respectively. As both devices rely on electrical current, there are concerns regarding potential interference between them that could lead to severe consequences. Methods: In this case report, we describe the case of a 50-year-old woman who had been implanted with an ICD for 5 years due to ischemic cardiopathy and class III heart failure symptoms, and who was referred to the Pain Unit after 4 years of persistent pain on the soles of her feet, which had not responded to opioids nor to percutaneous procedures. Thus, after being deemed suitable by anesthesiologists and obtaining psychological approval, she underwent implantation of an SCS closed-loop system. Results: Three months after the procedure, she reported an 80% relief of her pain. Both devices effectively functioned at all times, and no interference was observed. Conclusion: Pain management using a closed-loop SCS in a patient with an ICD can be safely performed without interference between the devices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.