Crepeau, Amy Z.

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 Deep brain stimulation (DBS) of the anterior nucleus of the thalamus (ANT) can reduce seizures in patients with drug-resistant epilepsy. However, seizure freedom is rare, and there is no early response biomarker to predict long-term seizure suppression. To evaluate a short-term biomarker of therapeutic response to DBS, we studied 18-minute trials of ANT stimulation in patients with drug-resistant epilepsy undergoing intracranial electroencephalography. We compared a standard high-frequency periodic versus a non-periodic pulse pattern. We found that short-term ANT stimulation within the clinically used amplitude range preferentially altered the first 150 ms of anterograde ANT to anterior cingulate and superior frontal connectivity. Non-periodic ANT stimulation selectively modified early cortico-cortical evoked potentials more than periodic stimulation, and these changes were driven by the response phase. These pattern-specific changes in connectivity between the ANT and spatially restricted cortical areas suggest differing mechanisms and are a promising biomarker for patients being treated with ANT-DBS.

Objective: The objective of this study was to critically assess current evidence regarding the role of prophylactic antiseizure medication in patients presenting with acute intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH). Methods: The objective was addressed through the development of a structured critically appraised topic. This included a clinical scenario with a clinical question, literature search strategy, critical appraisal, results, evidence summary, commentary, and bottom-line conclusions. Participants included resident neurologists, a medical librarian, and content experts in the fields of epilepsy, stroke neurology, neurohospitalist medicine, and neurocritical care. Results: A randomized clinical trial was selected for critical appraisal. The trial assessed whether prophylactic levetiracetam (LEV) use reduced the risk of acute seizures in patients with ICH, as defined by clinical or electrographic seizure, captured by continuous electroencephalogram 72 hours after enrollment. A total of 42 patients were included in the final analysis (19 in the LEV group and 23 in the placebo group). There was a significantly higher occurrence of seizures in the placebo versus LEV group (LEV 16% vs placebo 43%, P = 0.043). There were no differences in functional outcomes between the groups at 3, 6, or 12 months (P > 0.1). Conclusions: The role of prophylactic treatment with antiseizure medication in ICH remains unclear.