Citations

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 Objective Anterior nucleus of the thalamus (ANT) deep brain stimulation (DBS) is an effective therapy for frontotemporal and limbic drug‐resistant focal epilepsies. The pulvinar nucleus (PUL) is an emerging neuromodulation target for seizure networks involving the posterior quadrant and temporal lobe. This study evaluates the safety and effectiveness of combined bilateral ANT plus PUL DBS for posterior quadrant and temporal lobe epilepsies. Methods We conducted a single‐center retrospective cohort study of patients receiving combined ANT/PUL DBS between 2021 and 2025. Outcomes included median seizure rate reduction (MSR), responder rate (RR; >50% seizure frequency reduction), and stimulation‐related side effects, assessed across ANT, PUL, and concurrent ANT/PUL stimulation settings. Acute surgical complications were evaluated. Statistical significance was assessed using two‐sided Wilcoxon signed‐rank tests with Holm–Bonferroni correction. Results Nine patients with combined ANT/PUL DBS were identified, and eight patients had sufficient follow‐up for inclusion (median follow‐up = 20 months). Posterior predominant structural abnormalities were present in eight of nine patients. There were no acute surgical complications. Three instances of transient stimulation‐related side effects resolved with parameter adjustments, whereas one patient required rescue antiseizure medication in addition to programming changes. Eight patients received periods of ANT stimulation, six PUL stimulation, and seven combined ANT/PUL stimulation. Regarding overall outcome, at last follow‐up, there was a significant 80.8% MSR ( p = .0078) and 87.5% RR, with two patients receiving ANT and six ANT/PUL stimulation. Regarding target‐specific MSR, concurrent ANT/PUL DBS (68.8% MSR) showed a trend toward superior performance relative to ANT (43.3%) and PUL DBS (17.5%) alone, although subgroup analysis of target‐specific performance did not reach statistical significance. Significance Combined four‐lead ANT/PUL DBS appears safe and effective for patients with drug‐resistant posterior quadrant and temporal lobe epilepsies. Dual‐network neuromodulation may provide greater flexibility to individually optimize neuromodulation for complex seizure networks.

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 Drug-resistant epilepsy affects tens of millions of people worldwide and is associated with considerable morbidity and mortality. Thalamic deep brain stimulation and cortical responsive neurostimulation are proven treatments for focal epilepsy. Both have been used to target a range of thalamic nuclei; yet, the roles of these thalamic nuclei in focal seizure generation remain incompletely understood. Thirteen patients with drug-resistant focal epilepsy undergoing intracranial EEG were consented to undergo investigation of thalamocortical networks. Sampled regions included cortical, mesial temporal, and thalamic brain regions. Visual and spectral analyses were performed to identify seizure onset patterns and correlate thalamic and cortical seizure activity. Thalamic ictal discharges were observed in 89% of seizures. Of these, 56% demonstrated synchronous thalamocortical activity with distinct patterns. These onset patterns included hypersynchronous spiking, low-voltage fast activity, ictal baseline shifts, and broadband suppression. Multiple thalamic nuclei were involved in ictal organization and propagation, with the specific nuclei depending on the cortical seizure network. The thalamus plays a crucial role in focal onset seizure generation and propagation, with distinct seizure onset patterns and nuclei involved. These findings support exploring a broader range of thalamic nuclei in epilepsy neurostimulation and have implications for seizure detection settings in intracranial sensing devices.

Objective The effects of deep brain stimulation (DBS) manifest across multiple timescales, spanning seconds to months, and involve direct electrical effects, neuroplasticity, and network reorganization. In epilepsy, the delayed impact of DBS on seizures presents challenges for optimization. Single‐pulse stimulation and resulting brain stimulation evoked potentials (BSEPs) provide a means to assess effective connectivity and network excitability. This study integrates BSEPs and short trials of DBS during stereoelectroencephalography (sEEG) to map seizure network engagement, modulate network dynamics, and monitor excitability and interictal abnormalities for biomarker informed neuromodulation. Methods Ten individuals with drug resistant epilepsy undergoing clinical sEEG were enrolled in this retrospective cohort study of epilepsy neuromodulation biomarkers. Each patient underwent a trial of high frequency (145Hz) thalamic DBS. BSEPs were acquired before and after DBS trials. Baseline BSEP amplitude assessed seizure network engagement, and modulation of amplitude (pre vs post DBS) assessed change in network excitability. Interictal epileptiform discharges were tracked by an automated classifier. Results Baseline BSEPs delineated distinct patterns of network engagement between thalamic subfields with maximal frontotemporal engagement achieved with stimulation of the anterior nucleus of the thalamus‐ventral anterior nucleus junction. DBS delivered for >1.5 hours reduced BSEP amplitudes compared to baseline, and the degree of modulation correlated with baseline connectivity strength. Shorter DBS trials did not induce reliable BSEP amplitude suppression, but did immediately suppress interictal epileptiform discharge rates in well‐connected seizure networks. Interpretation BSEPs and trials of DBS during sEEG provide novel network biomarkers to evaluate the modulation of large‐scale networks across multiple timescales, advancing biomarker informed neuromodulation. ANN NEUROL 2026;99:748–760

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.