Starnes, Donnie Keith

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.

Objective Lennox–Gastaut syndrome (LGS) is a severe treatment‐resistant epilepsy. Although vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) and deep brain stimulation (DBS) are established therapies, comparative data and the impact of dual neuromodulation remain limited. We compared seizure outcomes across VNS, DBS, and combined DBS + VNS therapy in LGS. Methods This retrospective cohort study at Mayo Clinic (2005–2024) included LGS patients treated with VNS and/or DBS . Seizure frequency was assessed at 6, 12, and 24 months post‐stimulation. Responder was defined as 50% or more seizure reduction. Results Forty patients were included (42% female, median, 150 seizures/month). Eleven patients underwent sequential VNS followed by DBS and contributed data to 2 treatment epochs, yielding 3 treatment groups: VNS alone (n = 29), DBS alone (n = 12), and DBS + VNS (n = 10). At 24 months, median seizure reduction rate was comparable between VNS (50%; 95% confidence interval [ CI], 44–75%) and the overall DBS cohort (59%, 95% CI, 33–86%) ( p = 0.54). However, a significant difference emerged when comparing the 3 treatment arms ( p = 0.027). Specifically, DBS + VNS therapy yielded significantly greater median reduction rate (81%, 95% CI, 60–99%) than DBS alone (43%, 95% CI, 0–58%) ( p adj = 0.027) or VNS alone (50%, 95% CI, 44.4–75.0%) ( p adj = 0.048). Four patients attained sustained seizure freedom above 1 year at last follow‐up. Interpretation VNS and DBS provide comparable seizure reduction in LGS over a 2‐year follow‐up period. DBS + VNS was associated with further improvements in seizure reduction in this small, retrospective dataset. This possibility warrants further investigation. ANN NEUROL 2026

Abstract Objective To assess the localization and lateralization values of ictal emotional features and ictal defensive behaviors in pediatric and young adult patients with frontal lobe epilepsy (FLE). Methods Children and young adults with FLE were identified from a single institution's epilepsy surgery database. Two epileptologists determined by consensus the presence of ictal emotional features (positive‐ smile, laughter, humming, singing; negative‐ fear, crying, anger, disgust, contempt, sadness) and ictal defensive behaviors (freezing with a fearful facial expression, shielding the face with hands, burying the face in a pillow, or exhibiting hyperkinetic motor behaviors like attempting to escape from bed or resisting restraint) in each patient's first video EEG (vEEG). Historic seizure semiology and vEEG reports were compared with the consensus vEEG analysis. Longitudinal changes in ictal emotional features were defined by the emergence or resolution of ictal emotional features between historic seizure semiology and re‐review of presurgical vEEG analysis. Subgroup analyses were conducted according to the seizure lateralization (left vs. right) and sublobar localization (precentral, medial, lateral, extensive) based on surgical extent. Results Twenty‐three FLE patients were included (female 39%; mean age at vEEG analysis: 11.28 years, range 1.75–20.17). The inter‐rater reliability was very good for both ictal emotional features ( κ = 0.81, 95% CI: 0.59–1) and ictal defensive behaviors ( κ = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.79–1). Ictal emotional features were observed in 10 patients (43.4%), with negative emotions present in 70% (7/10) of these cases. vEEG reports lacked documentation of ictal emotional features in two patients. Although ictal emotional features showed no statistical correlation by sublobar regions, ictal defensive behaviors were consistently seen in medial compared to lateral FLE (100% vs. 16.6%; p = 0.004). Longitudinal changes in ictal emotional features were observed in 8 (34.7%) patients. Significance Ictal emotional features were common in pediatric and young adult FLE patients and were mainly negative. Ictal defensive behaviors were more likely associated with medial FLE. Longitudinal changes in ictal emotional features occurred in about a third of pediatric and young adult patients with FLE. Plain Language Summary This study examined emotional features and defensive behaviors during seizures in children and young adults with FLE. Negative emotions were commonly seen during seizures. Ictal defensive behaviors were more frequently observed in patients with medial FLE, and recognizing these signs could help clinicians localize the seizures. Changes in emotional features were seen over time in about one‐third of children and young adult patients.

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.

Abstract Objective Noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) provides a treatment option for patients not eligible for surgical intervention or who seek low‐risk approaches and may be used in the hospital, clinic, and at home. Our objective is to summarize our single‐center experience with multiple NIBS approaches for the treatment of focal epilepsy. Methods A retrospective chart review identified drug‐resistant focal epilepsy patients who received NIBS as an epilepsy treatment at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, MN. Patients were typically treated as follows: (1) for TMS, 1 Hz stimulation was applied for five consecutive days in the neuromodulation clinic, (2) for outpatient tDCS, stimulation was applied for five consecutive days in the clinic, followed by optional treatment at home, and (3) for inpatient tDCS, stimulation was applied for three consecutive days. We analyzed continuous EEG data for the inpatient tDCS cohort and available HD‐EEG data for outpatient cohorts to quantify changes in interictal epileptiform discharges (IEDs) as a result of stimulation. Outcomes were assessed at 1 month for TMS and outpatient tDCS and 1 week for inpatient tDCS. Results Twenty‐four patients were treated with TMS ( n = 10) and tDCS ( n = 14, 9 as outpatients). The median age was 40 years (range 15–73). The median seizure reduction following stimulation was 50%. Fourteen patients (58%) were responders to treatment (TMS = 4/10, tDCS Outpatient = 7/9, tDCS Inpatient = 3/5). Five outpatient tDCS participants elected to continue treatment at home. Four TMS and four outpatient tDCS patients underwent high‐density EEG before and after 5 days of therapy. Following stimulation, IED rate was reduced in 4/5 inpatient tDCS patients, 4/4 outpatient tDCS patients, and 4/4 TMS patients. Two patients experienced an increase in seizure frequency (1 following TMS and 1 following outpatient tDCS), which returned to baseline 4–6 weeks after stimulation treatments were discontinued. Significance TMS and tDCS are potential treatment approaches for drug‐resistant focal epilepsy patients in the hospital, clinic, and home. They have a favorable safety profile and can lead to a reduction in IED rates and seizures. These results suggest further studies are needed to examine NIBS as a treatment for epilepsy. Plain Language Summary Noninvasive brain stimulation, such as transcranial magnetic stimulation and transcranial direct current stimulation, offers new treatment options for patients with focal seizures. This study reviewed the experience at Mayo Clinic using noninvasive brain stimulation in the hospital, clinic, and at‐home settings to treat seizures. The results showed an overall 50% median seizure reduction, and 58% of patients had at least a 50% reduction in seizures. Noninvasive brain stimulation is a promising treatment approach with a favorable safety profile.

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.