Starnes, Keith

AbstractObjectiveNeuromodulation for pediatric refractory epilepsy (PRE) is preferred when the seizure onset zone is not amenable to surgical resection, due to multifocal onset or involvement of eloquent cortex. Given its rapidly evolving landscape, we describe our institutional experience with neurostimulation therapies including deep brain stimulation (DBS) of the anterior nucleus (DBS‐ANT), the centromedian nucleus (DBS‐CM), responsive neurostimulation (RNS), and chronic subthreshold stimulation (CSS) to treat PRE.MethodsA retrospective chart review was conducted to identify pediatric patients (≤18 years of age) who presented to our institution with PRE. Patients were included who had at least 1 year of follow‐up after neurostimulation was started. Patients with ≥50% seizure frequency reduction at last follow‐up compared to baseline were classified as responders.ResultsA total of 35 patients (21 females) were included in the series. Nine patients underwent DBS‐ANT, 9 underwent DBS‐CM (+ ANT in 7 patients), 5 underwent RNS, and 12 underwent CSS. The median age at seizure onset and surgery was 8 and 16 years, respectively. Structural lesions were the most common etiology of epilepsy (54%). Eighteen patients had prior interventions and 13 received invasive EEG. Post‐operative complications following neurostimulation implantation were noted in three patients (9%). However, no permanent deficits were noted. Median follow‐up time was 46 months (range 13–162 months). Twenty‐three patients (59%) were responders (3/9 DBS‐ANT; 7/9 DBS‐CM; 4/5 RNS; 9/12 CSS). Further, median seizure reduction was 25% (DBS‐ANT), 89% (DBS‐CM), 87% (RNS), and 88% (CSS) across the cohort. Six patients (17%) had improved subjective neurocognitive outcomes while the other 29 had stable neurocognitive outcomes.SignificanceDBS, RNS, and CSS are safe and effective options for PRE. An understanding of treatment approaches can optimize results by tailoring therapy to individual patients.Plain Language SummaryThis study investigates the use of various neurostimulation therapies for treating pediatric refractory epilepsy (PRE) including deep brain stimulation (DBS), responsive neurostimulation (RNS), and chronic subthreshold stimulation (CSS). Overall, neuromodulation was found to be effective in reducing seizures in most patients, with 59% of patients showing at least a 50% reduction in seizure frequency. Additionally, the treatments were generally safe, with few complications and no instances of permanent deficits.

Summary: The lack of reliable seizure detection remains a significant challenge for epilepsy care. A clinical deep brain stimulation (DBS) system provides constrained ambulatory brain recordings; however, limited data exist on the use of DBS recordings for seizure detection and lateralization. We present the case of an 18-year-old patient with drug-resistant focal epilepsy, who had seizure detection and lateralization by DBS recordings. Prior stereotactic-EEG, including a thalamus lead, identified independent left orbitofrontal and mesial temporal onset seizures. Notably, low-frequency thalamic ictal power was significantly elevated relative to baseline awake and sleep states. The patient was subsequently implanted with an anterior nucleus of the thalamus DBS system. Postimplantation, low-frequency power-in-band (5.3–10.3 Hz) recordings were initiated. Nursing staff identified four typical clinical seizures during the inpatient DBS recording period. Thalamic DBS trends contained relative peaks that were coincident with each nurse-reported seizure. Peri-ictal power was uniformly maximal ipsilateral to the seizure network. This case demonstrates the feasibility of seizure detection and lateralization by a thalamic DBS system for some individuals, and suggests DBS sensing parameter selection may be guided by thalamic stereotactic EEG. Further research is necessary to assess the generalizability of DBS seizure detection across individuals and diverse seizure networks.

Abstract There are limited treatment options for individuals with drug‐resistant idiopathic generalized epilepsy (IGE). Small, limited case series suggest that centromedian thalamus deep brain stimulation (CM‐DBS) may be an effective treatment option. The optimal CM‐DBS target for IGE is underexamined. Here, we present a retrospective analysis of CM‐DBS targeting and efficacy for five patients with drug‐resistant IGE. Volume of tissue activated (VTA) overlap with CM nucleus was performed using an open‐source toolbox. Median follow‐up time was 13 months. Median convulsive seizure frequency reduction was 66%. One patient had only absence seizures, with >99% reduction in absence seizure frequency. Four patients had electrode contacts positioned within the CM nucleus target, all of whom had >50% reduction in primary semiology seizure, with 85% median seizure reduction ( p = .004, paired‐sample t test). Volumetric “sweet‐spot” mapping revealed that best outcomes were correlated with stimulation of the middle ventral CM nucleus. Connectivity strength between the sweet‐spot region and central peri‐Rolandic cortex was increased significantly relative to other cortical regions ( p = 8.6 × 10 −4 , Mann–Whitney U test). Our findings indicate that CM‐DBS can be an effective treatment for patients with IGE, highlight the importance of accurate targeting and targeting analysis, and within the context of prior work, suggest that ideal CM‐DBS targets may be syndrome specific.

Purpose of review Neurostimulation is a quickly growing treatment approach for epilepsy patients. We summarize recent approaches to provide a perspective on the future of neurostimulation. Recent findings Invasive stimulation for treatment of focal epilepsy includes vagus nerve stimulation, responsive neurostimulation of the cortex and deep brain stimulation of the anterior nucleus of the thalamus. A wide range of other targets have been considered, including centromedian, central lateral and pulvinar thalamic nuclei; medial septum, nucleus accumbens, subthalamic nucleus, cerebellum, fornicodorsocommissure and piriform cortex. Stimulation for generalized onset seizures and mixed epilepsies as well as increased efforts focusing on paediatric populations have emerged. Hardware with more permanently implanted lead options and sensing capabilities is emerging. A wider variety of programming approaches than typically used may improve patient outcomes. Finally, noninvasive brain stimulation with its favourable risk profile offers the potential to treat increasingly diverse epilepsy patients. Summary Neurostimulation for the treatment of epilepsy is surprisingly varied. Flexibility and reversibility of neurostimulation allows for rapid innovation. There remains a continued need for excitability biomarkers to guide treatment and innovation. Neurostimulation, a part of bioelectronic medicine, offers distinctive benefits as well as unique challenges.

Abstract Deep brain stimulation and responsive neurostimulation (RNS) use high‐frequency stimulation (HFS) per the pivotal trials and manufacturer‐recommended therapy protocols. However, not all patients respond to HFS. In this retrospective case series, 10 patients implanted with the RNS System were programmed with low‐frequency stimulation (LFS) to treat their seizures; nine of these patients were previously treated with HFS (100 Hz or greater). LFS was defined as frequency < 10 Hz. Burst duration was increased to at least 1000 ms. With HFS, patients had a median seizure reduction (MSR) of 13% (interquartile range [IQR] = −67 to 54) after a median of 19 months (IQR = 8–49). In contrast, LFS was associated with a 67% MSR (IQR = 13–95) when compared to HFS and 76% MSR (IQR = 43–91) when compared to baseline prior to implantation. Charge delivered per hour and pulses per day were not significantly different between HFS and LFS, although time stimulated per day was longer for LFS (228 min) than for HFS (7 min). There were no LFS‐specific adverse effects reported by any of the patients. LFS could represent an alternative, effective method for delivering stimulation in focal drug‐resistant epilepsy patients treated with the RNS System.

Neurostimulation for epilepsy refers to the application of electricity to affect the central nervous system, with the goal of reducing seizure frequency and severity. We review the available evidence for the use of neurostimulation to treat pediatric epilepsy, including vagus nerve stimulation (VNS), responsive neurostimulation (RNS), deep brain stimulation (DBS), chronic subthreshold cortical stimulation (CSCS), transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). We consider possible mechanisms of action and safety concerns, and we propose a methodology for selecting between available options. In general, we find neurostimulation is safe and effective, although any high quality evidence applying neurostimulation to pediatrics is lacking. Further research is needed to understand neuromodulatory systems, and to identify biomarkers of response in order to establish optimal stimulation paradigms.