Alcalá-Zermeño, Juan Luis

Abstract To characterize invasive neuromodulation for insular drug‐resistant epilepsy, we retrospectively evaluated 22 patients treated with responsive neurostimulation (RNS; n = 14) or chronic subthreshold stimulation (CSS; n = 8). Stereoelectroencephalography was performed in 20 cases (91%). Median baseline seizure frequency was 10.5/month. Forty‐one percent had prior epilepsy surgery. At year 3, median seizure reduction (MSR) was 83% ( p = .01, Wilcoxon signed‐rank test), with a responder rate (RR) of 77%; MSR was 92% for CSS and 75% for RNS. There were no significant differences in MSR ( p ≥ .4) or RR ( p > .9) when comparing RNS versus CSS. Three patients achieved seizure freedom by year 3. Patients undergoing combined insular–thalamic stimulation ( n = 5) demonstrated an MSR of 84%, 86%, and 88% at 1, 2, and 3 years; seizure reduction in thalamocortical versus cortical‐only stimulation was not different ( p ≥ .1). Parasagittal lead trajectories achieved closer insular proximity than transopercular trajectories ( p < .0001, Mann–Whitney U ‐test). Median charge density at last follow‐up was 1.3 μC/cm 2 . There were no acute surgical complications and all stimulation‐related side effects resolved with programming adjustments. This study expands the limited literature on insular neuromodulation by demonstrating effectiveness of RNS and CSS, suggesting potential benefit from combined thalamocortical targeting, and defining parasagittal trajectories as a surgical approach for optimal lead proximity.

Abstract The accurate interpretation of scalp EEG remains an instrumental diagnostic component of epilepsy care. Knowledge of what constitutes normal EEG findings, non‐epileptiform abnormalities, and epileptiform patterns—both ictal and interictal—is essential for appropriate patient management. The International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) has developed an educational curriculum containing learning objectives necessary to accurately diagnose and manage people with epilepsy. In this Seminar in Epileptology, we address the learning objectives related to assessment and interpretation of EEG background activity, normal sleep patterns, provocation methods, interictal abnormalities, and ictal patterns, as well as a brief discussion on relevant advances in scalp EEG analysis and future perspectives on this topic.

Abstract Despite the growing interest in network-guided neuromodulation for epilepsy, uncertainty about the safety and long-term efficacy of thalamocortical stimulation persists. Our evaluation focused on the use of a four-lead open-loop implantable pulse generator for thalamocortical network neuromodulation. We retrospectively reviewed seven patients with diverse seizure networks—poorly localized, regional, or multifocal—undergoing thalamocortical neuromodulation. Employing a four-lead system, electrodes targeted both thalamic and cortical seizure network nodes. We assessed seizure severity, life satisfaction and sleep quality on a 10-point scale, and seizure frequency was assessed via telephone interviews and chart review. Outcomes were assessed by the Wilcoxon sign-rank test at the 0.05 significance level. Seven patients with a median age at implant of 22 years (range 14–42 years) had a median disabling seizure reduction of 93% (range 50–100%, P = 0.0156), with 100% responder rate (≥50% reduction in seizure frequency) after a median of 17 months post-implantation (range 13–60). The median improvement in seizure severity was 3.5 out of 10 points (P = 0.0312), life satisfaction 4.5 points (P = 0.0312) and quality of sleep 3 points (P = 0.062). No perioperative complications occurred. Transient seizure exacerbations (n = 2) and stimulation-related sensory/motor side-effects (n = 2) quickly resolved with parameter adjustments. One patient required surgical revision due to delayed infection. Six patients had permanent electrode placement refined by intracranial EEG trial stimulation; five patients had &gt;90% reduction in seizure frequency during trial stimulation. Thalamocortical network neuromodulation using a four-lead open-loop system is safe and associated with significant improvements in seizure control and patient quality of life. Trial stimulation during intracranial EEG shows promise for enhancing seizure network engagement and parameter optimization but requires further study. Prospective controlled trials are needed to further characterize and validate the efficacy and side-effect profile of thalamocortical network neuromodulation for epilepsy.

AbstractObjectiveThe effects of brain stimulation for diseases like epilepsy are delayed, making stimulation optimization difficult. The parameters for anterior thalamic nuclei (ANT) deep brain stimulation (DBS) for focal drug‐resistant epilepsy management are often restricted to those used in the SANTE landmark trial. There is little evidence regarding effective alternatives, and low‐frequency stimulation is typically neglected. We prospectively compare a widely differing stimulation parameter set to typical settings.MethodsThis randomized, modified crossover, open trial compares the efficacy and safety of an alternative set of parameters using continuous low‐frequency stimulation (cLFS) with a longer pulse width (7 Hz, 200 μs, continuous) compared to SANTE's intermittent high‐frequency stimulation (iHFS) with a short pulse width (145 Hz, 90 μs, cycling 1 min on/5 min off). After 3 months on a randomly assigned first set, patients are switched to the other settings, unless seizure‐free. Patients are re‐evaluated after 3 more months, which marks the completion of the trial. After that, they can either remain on the same settings or switch back.ResultsSixteen patients with a median baseline seizure frequency of 13.8 seizures/month (interquartile range [IQR] = 2.7–22.8) were included in the analysis. At trial completion (median follow‐up = 30 weeks, IQR = 26–35), ANT‐DBS significantly reduced median seizure frequency (62%, IQR = 18–81, Wilcoxon test statistic [W] = 99, p = .008). Both iHFS (33%, IQR = 0–65, W = 81, p = .02) and cLFS (73%, IQR = 30–79, W = 105, p = .001) significantly reduced median seizure frequency. cLFS showed improved median seizure frequency reduction compared to iHFS (W = 63, p = .03) and was not associated with any moderate or severe adverse effects.SignificanceResults support cLFS for ANT‐DBS as a safe and effective alternative to typical iHFS parameters. Stimulation with widely differing parameter sets may be as effective as or, in some situations, more effective than typical stimulation parameters.

AbstractApixaban is a widely used direct oral anticoagulant that is recommended over warfarin therapy for many clinical indications. In patients with atrial fibrillation, dose reductions are recommended for patients with advanced age (≥80 years), low weight (≤60 kg) or elevated serum creatinine (≥1.5 mg/dL), but there is no routine laboratory monitoring necessary for long term‐use. Furthermore, apixaban dose reductions due to renal dysfunction are not recommended when treating acute venous thromboembolism. Apixaban‐calibrated anti‐Xa assays are readily available at some medical centres, and they may be of clinical utility in certain circumstances such as in patients with renal insufficiency, medication adherence assessment, periprocedural planning, extremes in body weight and advanced age. Here, we describe the case of an elderly patient with chronic kidney disease taking apixaban for acute pulmonary embolism. The patient had an unanticipated prolonged apixaban half‐life, with detectable apixaban‐calibrated anti‐Xa levels for >10 days after the last administered dose, which delayed a necessary surgical intervention by >1 week. This case is an example of appropriately using apixaban‐calibrated anti‐Xa levels to guide therapeutic decision making in perioperative planning.

AbstractRacial disparities affect multiple dimensions of epilepsy care including epilepsy surgery. This study aims to further explore these disparities by determining the utilization of invasive neuromodulation devices according to race and ethnicity in a multicenter study of patients living with focal drug‐resistant epilepsy (DRE). We performed a post hoc analysis of the Human Epilepsy Project 2 (HEP2) data. HEP2 is a prospective study of patients living with focal DRE involving 10 sites distributed across the United States. There were no statistical differences in the racial distribution of the study population compared to the US population using census data except for patients reporting more than one race. Of 154 patients enrolled in HEP2, 55 (36%) underwent invasive neuromodulation for DRE management at some point in the course of their epilepsy. Of those, 36 (71%) were patients who identified as White. Patients were significantly less likely to have a device if they identified solely as Black/African American than if they did not (odds ratio = .21, 95% confidence interval = .05–.96, p = .03). Invasive neuromodulation for management of DRE is underutilized in the Black/African American population, indicating a new facet of racial disparities in epilepsy care.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The anterior nucleus of the thalamus (ANT) is a common target for deep brain stimulation (DBS) for drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE). However, the surgical approach to the ANT remains challenging because of its unique anatomy. This study aims to summarize our experience with the posterior temporo-parietal extraventricular (TPEV) approach targeting the ANT for DBS in DRE. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of patients with DRE who underwent ANT-DBS using the TPEV approach between January 2011 and February 2021. Subjects with at least 6-month follow-up were eligible. The final lead position and number of active contacts targeting the anteroventral nucleus (AV) of the ANT were assessed using Lead-DBS. Mean seizure frequency reduction percentage and responder rate (≥50% decrease in seizure frequency) were determined. RESULTS: Thirty-one patients (mean age: 32.9 years; 52% female patients) were included. The mean follow-up period was 27.6 months ± 13.9 (29, 16-36). The mean seizure frequency reduction percentage was 65% ± 26 (75, 50-82). Twenty-six of 31 participants (83%) were responders, P < .001. Two subjects (6%) were seizure-free for at least 6 months at the last evaluation. Antiepileptic drugs dose and/or number decreased in 17/31 subjects (55%). The success rate for placing at least 1 contact at AV was 87% (27/31 patients) bilaterally. The number of active contacts at the AV was significantly greater in the responder group, 3.1 ± 1.3 (3, 2-4) vs 1.8 ± 1.1 (2, 1-2.5); P = .041 with a positive correlation between the number of active contacts and seizure reduction percentage; r = 0.445, R 2 = 0.198, P = .012. CONCLUSION: The TPEV trajectory is a safe and effective approach to target the ANT for DBS. Future studies are needed to compare the clinical outcomes and target accuracy with the standard approaches.

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.