[Invasive stimulation procedures and EEG diagnostics in epilepsy]

Functional Brain Mapping Using Depth Electrodes

OBJECTIVE

This study investigated the neurologic symptoms and stimulus intensities in the stimulation of deep structures and subcortical fibers with the depth electrodes.

METHODS

Seventeen patients with drug-refractory epilepsy who underwent functional brain mapping with the depth electrodes were enrolled. The 50 Hz electrical stimulation was applied, and the diffusion tensor image was used to identify subcortical fibers. The responsible structures and stimulus intensities for the induced neurologic symptoms were evaluated.

RESULTS

Neurologic symptoms were induced in 11 of 17 patients. The opercular stimulation elicited the neurologic symptoms in 6 patients at the median threshold of 4.0 mA (visceral/face/hand sensory, hand/throat motor, negative motor and auditory symptoms). The insular stimulation induced the neurologic symptoms in 4 patients at the median threshold of 4.0 mA (auditory, negative motor, and sensory symptoms). The stimulation of subcortical fibers was induced in 5 of 9 patients at the median threshold of 4.5 mA. The thresholds of depth electrodes were significantly lower than those of subdural electrodes in 8 patients who used both subdural and depth electrodes and induced symptoms with both electrodes.

CONCLUSIONS

The stimulation of depth electrodes can identify the function of deep structures and subcortical fibers with lower intensities than subdural electrodes.

Vagus nerve stimulation for conservative therapy-refractive epilepsy and depression

Numerous studies confirm that the vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) is an efficient, indirect neuromodulatory therapy with electrically induced current for epilepsy that cannot be treated by epilepsy surgery and is therapy-refractory and for drug therapy-refractory depression. VNS is an established, evidence-based and in the long-term cost-effective therapy in an interdisciplinary overall concept.Long-term data on the safety and tolerance of the method are available despite the heterogeneity of the patient populations. Stimulation-related side effects like hoarseness, paresthesia, cough or dyspnea depend on the stimulation strength and often decrease with continuing therapy duration in the following years. Stimulation-related side effects of VNS can be well influenced by modifying the stimulation parameters. Overall, the invasive vagus nerve stimulation may be considered as a safe and well-tolerated therapy option.For invasive and transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation, antiepileptic and antidepressant as well as positive cognitive effects could be proven. In contrast to drugs, VNS has no negative effect on cognition. In many cases, an improvement of the quality of life is possible.iVNS therapy has a low probability of complete seizure-freedom in cases of focal and genetically generalized epilepsy. It must be considered as palliative therapy, which means that it does not lead to healing and requires the continuation of specific medication. The functional principle is a general reduction of the neuronal excitability. This effect is achieved by a slow increase of the effectiveness sometimes over several years. Responders are those patients who experience a 50% reduction of the seizure incidence. Some studies even reveal seizure-freedom in 20% of the cases. Currently, it is not possible to differentiate between potential responders and non-responders before therapy/implantation.The current technical developments of the iVNS generators of the new generation like closed-loop system (cardiac-based seizure detection, CBSD) reduce also the risk for SUDEP (sudden unexpected death in epilepsy patients), a very rare, lethal complication of epilepsies, beside the seizure severity.iVNS may deteriorate an existing sleep apnea syndrome and therefore requires possible therapy interruption during nighttime (day-night programming or magnet use) beside the close cooperation with sleep physicians.The evaluation of the numerous iVNS trials of the past two decades showed multiple positive effects on other immunological, cardiological, and gastroenterological diseases so that additional therapy indications may be expected depending on future study results. Currently, the vagus nerve stimulation is in the focus of research in the disciplines of psychology, immunology, cardiology as well as pain and plasticity research with the desired potential of future medical application.Beside invasive vagus nerve stimulation with implantation of an IPG and an electrode, also devices for transdermal and thus non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation have been developed during the last years. According to the data that are currently available, they are less effective with regard to the reduction of the seizure severity and duration in cases of therapy-refractory epilepsy and slightly less effective regarding the improvement of depression symptoms. In this context, studies are missing that confirm high evidence of effectiveness. The same is true for the other indications that have been mentioned like tinnitus, cephalgia, gastrointestinal complaints etc. Another disadvantage of transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation is that the stimulators have to be applied actively by the patients and are not permanently active, in contrast to implanted iVNS therapy systems. So they are only intermittently active; furthermore, the therapy adherence is uncertain.

Deep brain and cortical stimulation for epilepsy

BACKGROUND

Despite optimal medical treatment, including epilepsy surgery, many epilepsy patients have uncontrolled seizures. Since the 1970s interest has grown in invasive intracranial neurostimulation as a treatment for these patients. Intracranial stimulation includes both deep brain stimulation (DBS) (stimulation through depth electrodes) and cortical stimulation (subdural electrodes). This is an updated version of a previous Cochrane review published in 2014.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy, safety and tolerability of DBS and cortical stimulation for refractory epilepsy based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register on 29 September 2015, but it was not necessary to update this search, because records in the Specialized Register are included in CENTRAL. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2016, Issue 11, 5 November 2016), PubMed (5 November 2016), ClinicalTrials.gov (5 November 2016), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform ICTRP (5 November 2016) and reference lists of retrieved articles. We also contacted device manufacturers and other researchers in the field. No language restrictions were imposed.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs comparing deep brain or cortical stimulation versus sham stimulation, resective surgery, further treatment with antiepileptic drugs or other neurostimulation treatments (including vagus nerve stimulation).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Four review authors independently selected trials for inclusion. Two review authors independently extracted the relevant data and assessed trial quality and overall quality of evidence. The outcomes investigated were seizure freedom, responder rate, percentage seizure frequency reduction, adverse events, neuropsychological outcome and quality of life. If additional data were needed, the study investigators were contacted. Results were analysed and reported separately for different intracranial targets for reasons of clinical heterogeneity.

MAIN RESULTS

Twelve RCTs were identified, eleven of these compared one to three months of intracranial neurostimulation with sham stimulation. One trial was on anterior thalamic DBS (n = 109; 109 treatment periods); two trials on centromedian thalamic DBS (n = 20; 40 treatment periods), but only one of the trials (n = 7; 14 treatment periods) reported sufficient information for inclusion in the quantitative meta-analysis; three trials on cerebellar stimulation (n = 22; 39 treatment periods); three trials on hippocampal DBS (n = 15; 21 treatment periods); one trial on nucleus accumbens DBS (n = 4; 8 treatment periods); and one trial on responsive ictal onset zone stimulation (n = 191; 191 treatment periods). In addition, one small RCT (n = 6) compared six months of hippocampal DBS versus sham stimulation. Evidence of selective reporting was present in four trials and the possibility of a carryover effect complicating interpretation of the results could not be excluded in five cross-over trials without any or a sufficient washout period. Moderate-quality evidence could not demonstrate statistically or clinically significant changes in the proportion of patients who were seizure-free or experienced a 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency (primary outcome measures) after one to three months of anterior thalamic DBS in (multi)focal epilepsy, responsive ictal onset zone stimulation in (multi)focal epilepsy patients and hippocampal DBS in (medial) temporal lobe epilepsy. However, a statistically significant reduction in seizure frequency was found for anterior thalamic DBS (mean difference (MD), -17.4% compared to sham stimulation; 95% confidence interval (CI) -31.2 to -1.0; high-quality evidence), responsive ictal onset zone stimulation (MD -24.9%; 95% CI -40.1 to -6.0; high-quality evidence) and hippocampal DBS (MD -28.1%; 95% CI -34.1 to -22.2; moderate-quality evidence). Both anterior thalamic DBS and responsive ictal onset zone stimulation do not have a clinically meaningful impact on quality life after three months of stimulation (high-quality evidence). Electrode implantation resulted in postoperative asymptomatic intracranial haemorrhage in 1.6% to 3.7% of the patients included in the two largest trials and 2.0% to 4.5% had postoperative soft tissue infections (9.4% to 12.7% after five years); no patient reported permanent symptomatic sequelae. Anterior thalamic DBS was associated with fewer epilepsy-associated injuries (7.4 versus 25.5%; P = 0.01) but higher rates of self-reported depression (14.8 versus 1.8%; P = 0.02) and subjective memory impairment (13.8 versus 1.8%; P = 0.03); there were no significant differences in formal neuropsychological testing results between the groups. Responsive ictal-onset zone stimulation seemed to be well-tolerated with few side effects.The limited number of patients preclude firm statements on safety and tolerability of hippocampal DBS. With regards to centromedian thalamic DBS, nucleus accumbens DBS and cerebellar stimulation, no statistically significant effects could be demonstrated but evidence is of only low to very low quality.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Except for one very small RCT, only short-term RCTs on intracranial neurostimulation for epilepsy are available. Compared to sham stimulation, one to three months of anterior thalamic DBS ((multi)focal epilepsy), responsive ictal onset zone stimulation ((multi)focal epilepsy) and hippocampal DBS (temporal lobe epilepsy) moderately reduce seizure frequency in refractory epilepsy patients. Anterior thalamic DBS is associated with higher rates of self-reported depression and subjective memory impairment. There is insufficient evidence to make firm conclusive statements on the efficacy and safety of hippocampal DBS, centromedian thalamic DBS, nucleus accumbens DBS and cerebellar stimulation. There is a need for more, large and well-designed RCTs to validate and optimize the efficacy and safety of invasive intracranial neurostimulation treatments.