Hines, Kevin

Abstract Objectives Pivotal trials have established the effectiveness of the Responsive Neurostimulation System (RNS® System) in treating focal epilepsy. In clinical trials, depth leads were primarily used to treat mesial temporal seizure onsets while cortical strip leads were used to treat neocortical seizure onsets. Here, we systematically analyze the safety and efficacy of stereoelectroencephalography (sEEG)‐guided depth leads to provide responsive stimulation to neocortical gray matter. Methods Patients were stratified as strong responders (>median cohort seizure reduction %), weak responders (>0% and ≤median cohort seizure reduction %), and anti‐responders (≤0%) based on percent seizure reduction at 1 year post‐implant (1‐Y). Pre‐operative T1‐weighted magnetic resonance imaging and post‐operative computed tomography images were merged, and the Euclidean distance between the sEEG epileptic focus (sEEG‐EF) and the nearest RNS System depth lead contacts was calculated. Results A total of 87 depth leads were implanted in 55 patients across neocortical brain regions. The median reduction in clinical seizures improved from 66.7% at 1‐Y to 77.5% at long‐term follow‐up (LTFU: 2.35 ± 0.95 years), with 10 patients (18.2%) achieving complete seizure freedom. Seven patients (12.7%) experienced six serious adverse events. At 1‐Y, shorter Euclidean distance between the sEEG‐EF and RNS System depth leads predicted improved seizure outcome in strong responders ( β = −0.84, p = 0.008) but not in weak responders ( β = 0.21, p = 0.9) or anti‐responders ( β = −20.34, p = 0.11). At LTFU, there was no significant relationship between Euclidean distance and seizure reduction in strong responders ( β = 0.77, p = 0.18), weak responders ( β = 2.05, p = 0.54), or anti‐responders ( β = 0.24, p = 0.99). Exploratory analyses at 1‐Y showed nominal associations between older age ( ρ = 0.32), longer epilepsy duration ( ρ = 0.27), and non‐mesial temporal sEEG‐EFs and greater seizure reduction; however, none survived Bonferroni correction (adjusted α = 0.0027; all post‐correction p > 0.0027), and no associations were observed at LTFU. Significance In this series, neocortical depth leads for RNS therapy had favorable safety and efficacy and proximity to the sEEG‐EF drove initial outcomes for strong responders to RNS therapy. Plain Language Summary In this multi‐center study, patients with difficult‐to‐treat seizures received brain‐responsive stimulation using a device called responsive neurostimulation (RNS), which delivers small electrical pulses to reduce seizures. We focused on patients treated with electrodes placed in the brain's outer regions (the neocortex) and guided by a mapping procedure called sEEG. On average, patients had their seizures cut by two‐thirds after one year and by more than three‐quarters with longer follow‐up, with about one in five becoming seizure‐free. The treatment was safe, and closer electrode placement to the seizure source helped explain early—but not long‐term—improvements.

Summary: Epilepsy neuromodulation treatment failure is a significant challenge, with multiple possible causes. The responsive neurostimulation (RNS) system delivers stimulation from a single current source, and the relative flow of the electrical current through each stimulating contact is inversely proportional to the relative impedance of each contact. Current shunting through low-impedance contacts (i.e., intraventricular contacts) can divert therapy away from the intended targets and may be a cause of treatment failure. We present a case of a patient with bitemporal epilepsy and bitemporal encephaloceles, with poor response to bilateral mesial temporal RNS, who completed stereotactic EEG (sEEG) monitoring to investigate the possible causes of treatment failure. The sEEG was safely completed without damaging the RNS device. The sEEG recorded independent bitemporal interictal epileptiform discharges and seizures, which did not arise from sampled encephalocele regions. The sEEG-recorded RNS stimulation artifact was reduced in the left mesial temporal region relative to the right, which suggested potential current shunting through the right-sided contacts. Impedance measurements confirmed several low-impedance contacts from the right lead, with associated intraventricular position on imaging. At last follow up, 161 days after replacement of the right lead, the patient experienced an additional 58% reduction in seizure burden. Effective therapy delivery by single-current-source neurostimulation systems, such as RNS, critically depends on relative electrode impedances. Current shunting through low-impedance contacts is an underappreciated potential cause of treatment failure. Routine impedance assessments and individualized stimulation programs are recommended to avoid unintended current diversion. Concurrent sEEG monitoring and active RNS are feasible and can characterize stimulation effects.