Grewal, Sanjeet S.

ImportanceImplementing multidisciplinary teams for treatment of complex brain tumors needing awake craniotomies is associated with significant costs. To date, there is a paucity of analysis on the cost utility of introducing advanced multidisciplinary standardized teams to enable awake craniotomies.ObjectiveTo assess the cost utility of introducing a standardized program of awake craniotomies.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsA retrospective economic evaluation was conducted at Mayo Clinic Florida. All patients with single, unilateral lesions who underwent elective awake craniotomies between January 2016 and December 2021 were considered eligible for inclusion. The economic perspective of the health care institution and a time horizon of 1 year were considered. Data were analyzed from October 2022 to May 2023.ExposureTreatment with an awake craniotomy before standardization (2016-2018) compared with treatment with awake craniotomy after standardization (2018-2021).Main Outcomes and MeasuresPatient demographics, perioperative, and postoperative outcomes, including length of stay, intensive care (ICU) admission, extent of resection, readmission rates, and 1-year mortality were compared between patients undergoing surgery before and after standardization. Direct medical costs were estimated from Medicare reimbursement rates for all billed procedures. A cost-utility analysis was performed considering differences in direct medical costs and in 1-year mortality within the periods before and after standardization of procedures. Uncertainty was explored in probability sensitivity analysis.ResultsA total of 164 patients (mean [SD] age, 49.9 [15.7] years; 98 [60%] male patients) were included in the study. Of those, 56 underwent surgery before and 108 after implementation of procedure standardization. Procedure standardization was associated with reductions in length of stay from a mean (SD) of 3.34 (1.79) to 2.46 (1.61) days (difference, 0.88 days; 95% CI, 0.33-1.42 days; P = .002), length of stay in ICU from a mean (SD) of 1.32 (0.69) to 0.99 (0.90) nights (difference, 0.33 nights; 95% CI, 0.06-0.60 nights; P = .02), 30-day readmission rate from 14% (8 patients) in the prestandardization cohort to 5% (5 patients) (difference, 9%; 95% CI, 19.6%-0.3%; P = .03), while extent of resection and intraoperative complication rates were similar between both cohorts. The standardized protocol was associated with mean (SD) savings of $7088.80 ($12 389.50) and decreases in 1-year mortality (dominant intervention). This protocol was found to be cost saving in 75.5% of all simulations in probability sensitivity analysis.Conclusions and RelevanceIn this economic evaluation of standardization of awake craniotomy, there was a generalized reduction in length of stay, ICU admission time, and direct medical costs with implementation of an optimized protocol. This was achieved without compromising patient outcomes and with similar extent of resection, complication rates, and reduced readmission rates.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Epilepsy is considered one of the most prevalent and severe chronic neurological disorders worldwide. Our study aims to analyze the national trends in different treatment modalities for individuals with drug-resistant epilepsy and investigate the outcomes associated with these procedural trends in the United States. METHODS: Using the National Inpatient Sample database from 2010 to 2020, patients with drug-resistant focal epilepsy who underwent laser interstitial thermal therapy (LITT), open surgical resection, vagus nerve stimulation (VNS), or responsive neurostimulation (RNS) were identified. Trend analysis was performed using piecewise joinpoint regression. Propensity score matching was used to compare outcomes between 10 years prepandemic before 2020 and the first peak of the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: This study analyzed a total of 33 969 patients with a diagnosis of drug-resistant epilepsy, with 3343 patients receiving surgical resection (78%), VNS (8.21%), RNS (8%), and LITT (6%). Between 2010 and 2020, there was an increase in the use of invasive electroencephalography monitoring for seizure zone localization ( P = .003). There was an increase in the use of LITT and RNS ( P < .001), while the use of surgical resection and VNS decreased over time ( P < .001). Most of these patients (89%) were treated during the pre-COVID pandemic era (2010-2019), while a minority (11%) underwent treatment during the COVID pandemic (2020). After propensity score matching, the rate of pulmonary complications, postprocedural hematoma formation, and mortality were slightly higher during the pandemic compared with the prepandemic period ( P = .045, P = .033, and P = .026, respectively). CONCLUSION: This study indicates a relative decrease in the use of surgical resections, as a treatment for drug-resistant focal epilepsy. By contrast, newer, minimally invasive surgical approaches including LITT and RNS showed gradual increases in usage.

Abstract Objective Advanced Parkinson's Disease (PD) is associated with Parkinson’s Disease gait impairment (PDg), which increases the risk for falls and is often treatment-refractory. Subthalamic nucleus (STN) and globus pallidus pars interna (GPi) deep brain stimulation (DBS) often fails to improve axial symptoms like PDg. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has been suggested to improve PDg. SCS may benefit PDg by disrupting pathologic beta-oscillations and hypersynchrony in cortico-striatal-thalamic circuits to override excessive inhibition of brainstem locomotor regions. SCS may potentially improve locomotion by acting at any of these levels, either alone or in combination. Methods We conducted a comprehensive literature search and scoping review, identifying 106 patients in whom SCS was evaluated for PDg. Results Among the identified patients, 63% carried a pain diagnosis. Overall, the most common stimulation location was thoracic (78%), most commonly T9-T10. Burst (sub-perception) was the most common stimulation modality (59%). Prior treatment with DBS was used in 25%. Motor outcomes were assessed by the Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) III-motor, UPDRS, the Timed Up and Go (TUG), and/or 10-/20-meter walking tests. Among these patients, 95 (90%) had PDg amelioration and improved motor outcomes. Conclusions Despite small sample sizes, patient heterogeneity, and unblinded evaluations complicating interpretations of efficacy and safety, SCS may be beneficial for at least a subset of PDg. Further research is required to clarify the role of SCS for PDg and the patients most suitable to benefit from this intervention.

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.

Summary: The responsive neurostimulator continuously monitors the electrocorticogram. It delivers short bursts of high-frequency electrical stimulation when personalized patterns are detected. Intracranial EEG recording including electrocorticography is susceptible to artifacts, albeit at a lesser frequency compared with scalp recording. The authors describe a novel case of a patient with focal epilepsy, bitemporal responsive neurostimulation, and seizures without self-awareness manifest as focal impaired awareness seizures adversely affecting memory. At follow-up evaluation, the patient reported being clinically seizure-free although a single long episode was detected using the Patient Data Management System over the course of 3 years. Initial review identified a left-sided rhythmic discharge with a bilateral spatial field of involvement. In response to detection, the responsive neurostimulation delivered a series of five electrical stimulations. On further review, the patient recalled undergoing cervical radiofrequency ablation, which coincided with the appearance of the “electrographic seizure.” Extrinsic electrical artifact involving monomorphic nonevolving waveforms confirmed electrical artifact identified and treated by responsive neurostimulation as an epileptic seizure. On rare occasion, implanted electrical devices may lead to misdiagnosis and mistreatment of patients because of intracranial artifact.

AbstractNeuromodulation in epilepsy is a proven treatment for people with drug‐resistant focal epilepsy. Dual device therapies are increasingly utilized in people with drug‐resistant epilepsy. Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) and deep brain stimulation (DBS) target the thalamus involving the primary neurobiological network in patients with genetic generalized epilepsy (GGE). We report a novel case of combined neuromodulation in a patient with drug‐resistant GGE who achieved a partial response with seizure reduction after VNS implantation yet following VNS‐DBS polyneurostimulation gradually achieved prolonged seizure freedom. We speculate that by combining the indirect activating effects of VNS with the direct inhibitory effects of DBS, this may provide synergy to thalamic modulated networks. We hypothesize a “rational polytherapy” may exist in some patients with GGE undergoing dual neuromodulation.