Citations

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.

AbstractObjectiveStereoelectroencephalography‐guided radiofrequency thermocoagulation (SEEG‐guided RFTC) has been increasingly used as diagnostic and therapeutic approach for drug‐resistant focal epilepsies (DREs). We aimed to describe seizure outcomes of RFTC before and after further neurosurgical intervention.MethodsRetrospective single‐institution case series of patients who underwent SEEG‐RFTC. The primary outcome was Engel class I–IV classification ([responders Engel I–III and non‐responders Engel IV]) at last follow‐up after RFTC and prior to further neurosurgical intervention (open surgical resection, laser ablation, and neuromodulation).ResultsTwenty‐five patients (median age 18.9 years) with DRE were included. The median follow‐up time after RFTC was 7.2 months, including 20 patients who underwent further intervention (median follow‐up time of 7.3 months) and 5 without intervention (median of 3.5 months). From the patients who had further intervention, 17 (85%) underwent surgical procedure (laser ablation 53%, open surgical resection 47%) (median 4.4 months) and 3 (15%) had responsive neurostimulators placed (median 6.9 months). Prior to further intervention (median follow‐up 3.5 months after RFTC), 12 (48%) patients were classified as responders (12% Engel class I, 16% class II, and 20% class III) and 13 (52%) as non‐responders. Following neurosurgical intervention, 17 (68%) patients were followed for a median time of 2.7 months and 3 were lost to follow‐up. Of eight initial RFTC responders, 87.5% and 12.5% had Engel classes I and III, respectively. Of nine who were non‐responders, 33% had Engel class I, 22% II and III, and 44% IV outcomes following further intervention. No neurologic complications were reported.SignificanceSEEG‐guided RFTC is a well‐tolerated procedure and a beneficial diagnostic approach prior to further neurosurgical interventions in patients with DRE.Plain Language SummarySEEG‐guided RFTC is a well‐tolerated procedure and in the patients who experienced initial seizure reduction (n = 8), subsequent neurosurgical intervention (surgery or neuromodulation) led to favorable seizure outcomes (87.5% seizure freedom and 12.5% worthwhile seizure improvement).

Abstract Temporal lobe epilepsy is a common neurological disease characterized by recurrent seizures that often originate within limbic networks involving amygdala and hippocampus. The limbic network is involved in crucial physiologic functions involving memory, emotion and sleep. Temporal lobe epilepsy is frequently drug-resistant, and people often experience comorbidities related to memory, mood and sleep. Deep brain stimulation targeting the anterior nucleus of the thalamus (ANT-DBS) is an established therapy for temporal lobe epilepsy. However, the optimal stimulation parameters and their impact on memory, mood and sleep comorbidities remain unclear. We used an investigational brain sensing-stimulation implanted device to accurately track seizures, interictal epileptiform spikes (IES), and memory, mood and sleep comorbidities in five ambulatory subjects. Wireless streaming of limbic network local field potentials (LFPs) and subject behaviour were captured on a mobile device integrated with a cloud environment. Automated algorithms applied to the continuous LFPs were used to accurately cataloged seizures, IES and sleep-wake brain state. Memory and mood assessments were remotely administered to densely sample cognitive and behavioural response during ANT-DBS in ambulatory subjects living in their natural home environment. We evaluated the effect of continuous low-frequency and duty cycle high-frequency ANT-DBS on epileptiform activity and memory, mood and sleep comorbidities. Both low-frequency and high-frequency ANT-DBS paradigms reduced seizures. However, continuous low-frequency ANT-DBS showed greater reductions in IES, electrographic seizures and better sleep and memory outcomes. These results highlight the potential of synchronized brain sensing and dense behavioural tracking during ANT-DBS for optimizing neuromodulation therapy. While studies with larger patient numbers are needed to validate the benefits of low-frequency ANT-DBS, these findings are potentially translatable to individuals currently implanted with ANT-DBS systems.

Abstract There are limited treatment options for individuals with drug‐resistant idiopathic generalized epilepsy (IGE). Small, limited case series suggest that centromedian thalamus deep brain stimulation (CM‐DBS) may be an effective treatment option. The optimal CM‐DBS target for IGE is underexamined. Here, we present a retrospective analysis of CM‐DBS targeting and efficacy for five patients with drug‐resistant IGE. Volume of tissue activated (VTA) overlap with CM nucleus was performed using an open‐source toolbox. Median follow‐up time was 13 months. Median convulsive seizure frequency reduction was 66%. One patient had only absence seizures, with >99% reduction in absence seizure frequency. Four patients had electrode contacts positioned within the CM nucleus target, all of whom had >50% reduction in primary semiology seizure, with 85% median seizure reduction ( p = .004, paired‐sample t test). Volumetric “sweet‐spot” mapping revealed that best outcomes were correlated with stimulation of the middle ventral CM nucleus. Connectivity strength between the sweet‐spot region and central peri‐Rolandic cortex was increased significantly relative to other cortical regions ( p = 8.6 × 10 −4 , Mann–Whitney U test). Our findings indicate that CM‐DBS can be an effective treatment for patients with IGE, highlight the importance of accurate targeting and targeting analysis, and within the context of prior work, suggest that ideal CM‐DBS targets may be syndrome specific.

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.

AbstractDirect cortical stimulation has been applied in epilepsy for nearly a century and has experienced a renaissance, given unprecedented opportunities to probe, excite, and inhibit the human brain. Evidence suggests stimulation can increase diagnostic and therapeutic utility in patients with drug‐resistant epilepsies. However, choosing appropriate stimulation parameters is not a trivial issue, and is further complicated by epilepsy being characterized by complex brain state dynamics. In this article derived from discussions at the ICTALS 2022 Conference (International Conference on Technology and Analysis for Seizures), we succinctly review the literature on cortical stimulation applied acutely and chronically to the epileptic brain for localization, monitoring, and therapeutic purposes. In particular, we discuss how stimulation is used to probe brain excitability, discuss evidence on the usefulness of stimulation to trigger and stop seizures, review therapeutic applications of stimulation, and finally discuss how stimulation parameters are impacted by brain dynamics. Although research has advanced considerably over the past decade, there are still significant hurdles to optimizing use of this technique. For example, it remains unclear to what extent short timescale diagnostic biomarkers can predict long‐term outcomes and to what extent these biomarkers add information to already existing biomarkers from passive electroencephalographic recordings. Further questions include the extent to which closed loop stimulation offers advantages over open loop stimulation, what the optimal closed loop timescales may be, and whether biomarker‐informed stimulation can lead to seizure freedom. The ultimate goal of bioelectronic medicine remains not just to stop seizures but rather to cure epilepsy and its comorbidities.

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.

Abstract Neuromodulation is a key therapeutic tool for clinicians managing patients with drug‐resistant epilepsy. Multiple devices are available with long‐term follow‐up and real‐world experience. The aim of this review is to give a practical summary of available neuromodulation techniques to guide the selection of modalities, focusing on patient selection for devices, common approaches and techniques for initiation of programming, and outpatient management issues. Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS), deep brain stimulation of the anterior nucleus of the thalamus (DBS‐ANT), and responsive neurostimulation (RNS) are all supported by randomized controlled trials that show safety and a significant impact on seizure reduction, as well as a suggestion of reduction in the risk of sudden unexplained death in epilepsy (SUDEP). Significant seizure reductions are observed after 3 months for DBS, RNS, and VNS in randomized controlled trials, and efficacy appears to improve with time out to 7 to 10 years of follow‐up for all modalities, albeit in uncontrolled follow‐up or retrospective studies. A significant number of patients experience seizure‐free intervals of 6 months or more with all three modalities. Number and location of epileptogenic foci are important factors affecting efficacy, and together with comorbidities such as severe mood or sleep disorders, may influence the choice of modality. Programming has evolved—DBS is typically initiated at lower current/voltage than used in the pivotal trial, whereas target charge density is lower with RNS, however generalizable optimal parameters are yet to be defined. Noninvasive brain stimulation is an emerging stimulation modality, although it is currently not used widely. In summary, clinical practice has evolved from those established in pivotal trials. Guidance is now available for clinicians who wish to expand their approach, and choice of neuromodulation technique may be tailored to individual patients based on their epilepsy characteristics, risk tolerance, and preferences.