Vagal nerve stimulation for drug-resistant epilepsies in different age, aetiology and duration

Precise control of tibial nerve stimulation for bladder regulation via evoked compound action potential feedback mechanisms

Optimizing stimulation protocols for peripheral neuromodulation often depends on patient feedback, which can result in inconsistent clinical outcomes. Here we present a closed-loop control system for peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) that utilizes evoked compound action potential (ECAP) feedback to regulate stimulation parameters, addressing the limitations of traditional methods. Unlike established closed-loop control techniques in the central nervous system, such as local field potential and spike analysis, a comparable approach for the peripheral nervous system remains underdeveloped. ECAPs can be consistently observed across peripheral nerves, providing a reliable measure of nerve activation. We developed a fully implantable device and neural interface for tibial nerve stimulation (TNS) that incorporates the proposed closed-loop system. This TNS system shows promise as a PNS treatment for alleviating overactive bladder symptoms. In a rat model, the system demonstrated longer micturition intervals and greater effectiveness compared to conventional motor response-based control.

Long-Term Outcome of Vagus Nerve Stimulation for Drug-Resistant Epilepsy

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

In this study, we aimed to assess the long-term outcome of vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) in patients with drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE).

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of outcome data of 24 patients with DRE, who had been implanted with VNS and had at least 5 years of post-surgery follow-up was performed. The seizure outcome at the latest follow-up was classified as class I-V as proposed by John C. McHugh. The cognitive, psychiatric, and behavioral outcomes were recorded using standardized tests.

RESULTS

Mean age at the time of VNS implantation was 18.7 (6-38) years; nine (37.5%) of the patients were females. Mean duration of epilepsy was 13.6 years (range: 2.5-35 years); 18 (75%) patients had multiple (≥2) seizure types and 15 (62.5%) had daily seizures. The most common etiology was perinatal hypoxic injury (15, 62.5%). More than 50% seizure reduction (class 1 and 2) was noted in 54.2% of patients at 1 year, which increased to 75% at ≥5 years follow-up. A significantly higher number of patients with other etiologies had >50% reduction in seizures at the latest follow-up, when compared to those with hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy (53.3% vs. 100%, P = 0.0024). The average intelligence quotient (IQ; 71.17 ± 28.92 vs. 64.65 ± 29.61, P = 0.014) and quality of life (66.64 ± 14.63 vs. 64.65 ± 29.61, P < 0.001) scores were significantly higher in patients post-VNS implantation, when compared to their baseline scores. Furthermore, significant number of patients had improvement in psychiatric diagnosis (29.2% vs. 4.2%, P = 0.047) and behavioral problems (50% vs. 4.2%, P < 0.001) post-VNS implantation.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study shows >50% seizure reduction in 75% of patients after VNS implantation at long-term follow-up, with improvement in IQ, quality of life, psychiatric and behavioral problems.

Vagus nerve stimulation in lesional and Non-Lesional Drug-Resistant focal onset epilepsies

PURPOSE

Drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) affects one-third of patients with focal epilepsy. A large portion of patients are not candidates for epilepsy surgery, thus alternative options, such as vagus nerve stimulation (VNS), are proposed. Our objective is to study the effect of vagus nerve stimulation on lesional versus non-lesional epilepsies.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study in a single center in London, Ontario, which includes patients with DRE implanted with VNS, implanted between 1997-2018 and the date of analysis is December 2023.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients implanted with VNS were classified by lesional (VNS-L) and non-lesional (VNS-NL) based on their MRI head findings. We further subdivided the VNS groups into patients with VNS alone versus those who also had additional epilepsy surgeries.

RESULTS

A total of 29 patients were enrolled in the VNS-L, compared to 29 in the VNS-NL. The median age of the patients in the study was 31.8 years, 29.31 % were men (N = 17). 41.4 % (n = 12) of the patients were VNS responders (≥50 % seizure reduction) in the VNS-L group compared to 62.0 % (n = 18) in the VNS-NL group (p = 0.03). When other epilepsy surgeries were combined with VNS in the VNS-L group, the median rate of seizure reduction was greater (72.4 (IQR 97.17-45.88) than the VNS-NL group 53.9 (IQR 92.22-27.92); p = 0.27).

CONCLUSIONS

VNS is a therapeutic option for patients with lesional epilepsy, with slightly inferior results compared to patients with non-lesional epilepsy. Patients implanted with VNS showed higher seizure reduction rates if they had previous epilepsy surgeries. This study demonstrates that VNS in lesional epilepsies can be an effective treatment.

Vagus nerve stimulation for the therapy of Dravet syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

Dravet syndrome (DS) is a refractory developmental and epileptic encephalopathy characterized by seizures, developmental delay and cognitive impairment with a variety of comorbidities, including autism-like behavior, speech dysfunction, and ataxia. Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) is one of the common therapies for DS. Here, we aim to perform a meta-analysis and systematic review of the efficacy of VNS in DS patients.

Methods

We systematically searched four databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane and CNKI) to identify potentially eligible studies from their inception to January 2024. These studies provided the effective rate of VNS in treating patients with DS. The proportions of DS patients achieving ≥50% reduction of seizure frequency were extracted from these studies. Meta-analyses were performed to respectively evaluate the efficacy of VNS for DS after 3, 6, 12, 18, 24 and 36 months.

Results

Sixteen trials with a total of 173 patients were included. Meta-analyses showed that the pooled efficiency was 0.54 (95% CI 0.43-0.65) in the DS patients treated with VNS (p < 0.05). Meanwhile, the pooled efficiency respectively was 0.42 (95% CI 0.25-0.61), 0.54 (95% CI 0.39-0.69), 0.51 (95% CI 0.39-0.66), and 0.49 (95% CI 0.36-0.63) in the DS patients treated with VNS after 3, 6, 12 and 24 months (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

This study suggests that VNS is effective in the treatment of DS. However, few studies have focused on VNS for DS, and there is a lack of high-quality evidence. Thus, high-quality randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm the efficacy of VNS in DS.

Neurostimulation treatments for epilepsy: Deep brain stimulation, responsive neurostimulation and vagus nerve stimulation

Epilepsy is a common and debilitating neurological disorder, and approximately one-third of affected individuals have ongoing seizures despite appropriate trials of two anti-seizure medications. This population with drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) may benefit from neurostimulation approaches, such as vagus nerve stimulation (VNS), deep brain stimulation (DBS) and responsive neurostimulation (RNS). In some patient populations, these techniques are FDA-approved for treating DRE. VNS is used as adjuvant therapy for children and adults. Acting via the vagus afferent network, VNS modulates thalamocortical circuits, reducing seizures in approximately 50 ​% of patients. RNS uses an adaptive (closed-loop) system that records intracranial EEG patterns to activate the stimulation at the appropriate time, being particularly well-suited to treat seizures arising within eloquent cortex. For DBS, the most promising therapeutic targets are the anterior and centromedian nuclei of the thalamus, with anterior nucleus DBS being used for treating focal and secondarily generalized forms of DRE and centromedian nucleus DBS being applied for treating generalized epilepsies such as Lennox-Gastaut syndrome. Here, we discuss the indications, advantages and limitations of VNS, DBS and RNS in treating DRE and summarize the spatial distribution of neuroimaging observations related to epilepsy and stimulation using NeuroQuery and NeuroSynth.

Perianaesthetic management on a child with Lennox-Gastaut Syndrome for vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) placement

Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) is a neurostimulatory modality in treating patients with medically resistant epilepsy (MRE). It was introduced in 1997 and has been proven to reduce patients' dependency on antiepileptic drugs and seizure frequency. However, the usage of VNS in children with MRE has been limited, especially those with Lennox Gastaut Syndrome (LGS). Our teenage boy with this syndrome developed MRE and successfully underwent VNS placement. We discuss the perianaesthetic challenges, a brief description of VNS and the reported successes in patients with LGS.

Predictive factors for successful vagus nerve stimulation in patients with refractory epilepsy: real-life insights from a multicenter study

Introduction

Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) therapy is an established treatment for patients with drug-resistant epilepsy that reduces seizure frequency by at least 50% in approximately half of patients; however, the characteristics of the patients with the best response have not yet been identified. Thus, it is important to identify the profile of patients who would have the best response to guide early indications and better patient selection.

Methods

This retrospective study evaluated vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) as an adjuvant therapy for patients with drug-resistant epilepsy from six epilepsy centers in Brazil. Data from 192 patients aged 2-66 years were analyzed, and all patients received at least 6 months of therapy to be included.

Results

Included patients were aged 2-66 years (25.6 ± 14.3), 105 (54.7%) males and 87 (45.8%) females. Median follow-up interval was 5 years (range, 2005-2018). Overall, the response rate (≥50% seizure reduction) after VNS implantation was 65.6% (126/192 patients). Most patients had 50-90% seizure reduction (60.9%) and nine patients became seizure-free. There were no serious complications associated with VNS implantation. The rate of a ≥ 50% seizure reduction response was significantly higher in patients with no history of neurosurgery. The presence of focal without generalized seizures and focal discharges on interictal EEG was associated with better response. Overall, etiological predictors of a better VNS response profile were tumors while a worse response to VNS was related to the presence of vascular malformations and Lennox-Gastaut Syndrome.

Discussion

We observed an association between a better response to VNS therapy no history of neurosurgery, focal interictal epileptiform activity, and focal seizure pattern. Additionally, it is important to highlight that age was not a determinant factor of the response, as children and adults had similar response rates. Thus, VNS therapy should be considered in both adults and children with DRE.

Efficacy of vagus nerve stimulation in 95 children of drug-resistant epilepsy with structural etiology

Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) is one of the treatment options for drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE). To analyze the efficacy of VNS in children of DRE with structural etiology, we conducted a cohort study including 95 patients of DRE with structural etiology who underwent VNS treatment. Patients were followed up every 3 months at the outpatient department or via a remote programming platform. The median follow-up period was 2.6 years (range 1.0-4.6 years). The respective responder rates at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months of follow-up were 40.0% (38/95), 52.6% (50/95), 56.0% (47/84), and 59.7% (37/62). The respective seizure-free rates at 12, 18, and 24 months of follow-up were 8.4% (8/95), 9.5% (8/84), and 9.7% (6/62). The patients were divided into four groups based on etiologies: malformations of cortical development (n = 26), post-encephalitic lesions (n = 36), perinatal brain injury lesions (n = 31), and hippocampal sclerosis (n = 2). The respective responder rates at 12 months of follow-up in these groups were 53.8% (14/26), 52.8% (19/36), 51.6% (16/31), and 50.0% (1/2). There were no significant differences in gender, age at onset, age at stimulator implantation, epilepsy duration prior to VNS implantation, number of anti-seizure medications ever tried before VNS treatment, pulse amplitude of VNS, specific structural etiologies, lobe distribution or hemispheric side of structural lesions between responders and non-responders. Of the 95 patients, 8 (8.4%) underwent lesion surgery or hemispherectomy before VNS implantation, and 6/8 (75%) of these patients had a >50% reduction in seizure frequency. One patient who had a corpus callosotomy before VNS implantation had no response to VNS treatment. In conclusion, VNS is an effective treatment in children of DRE with structural etiology. There was no significant difference in VNS efficacy in patients with different structural etiologies. Vagus nerve stimulation treatment may also control seizures well in some patients with poor outcomes after lesion resection or hemispherectomy before VNS implantation.

Vagus nerve stimulation in children with drug-resistant epilepsy of monogenic etiology

Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) is an effective treatment for drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE). The present study evaluated the efficacy of VNS in pediatric patients with DRE of monogenic etiology. A total of 20 patients who received VNS treatment at our center were followed up every 3 months through outpatient visits or a remote programming platform. The median follow-up time was 1.4 years (range: 1.0–2.9). The rate of response to VNS at 12 months of follow-up was 55.0% (11/20) and the seizure-free rate was 10.0% (2/20). We found that 75.0% (3/4) of patients with an SCN1A variant had a >50% reduction in seizure frequency. Patients with pathogenic mutations in the SLC35A2, CIC, DNM1, MBD5, TUBGCP6, EEF1A2, and CHD2 genes or duplication of X q28 (MECP2 gene) had a >50% reduction in seizure frequency. Compared with the preoperative electroencephalography (EEG), at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after stimulator implantation, the percentage of the patients whose background frequency increased >1.5 Hz was respectively, 15.0% (3/20), 50.0% (10/20), 58.3% (7/12) and 62.5% (5/8); the percentage of the patients whose interictal EEG showed a >50% decrease in spike number was respectively 10% (2/20), 40.0% (8/20), 41.6% (5/12) and 50.0% (4/8). In the 9 patients with no response to VNS treatment, there was no difference in terms of spike number and background frequency between preoperative and postoperative EEG. Five of the 20 children (25.0%) reached new developmental milestones or acquired new skills after VNS compared to the preoperative evaluation. The efficacy of VNS in pediatric patients with DRE of monogenic etiology is consistent with that in the overall population of pediatric DRE patients. Patients with Dravet syndrome (DS), tuberous sclerosis complex (TSC), or Rett syndrome/MECP2 duplication syndrome may have a satisfactory response to VNS, but it is unclear whether patients with rare variants of epilepsy-related genes can benefit from the treatment.

A prediction model integrating synchronization biomarkers and clinical features to identify responders to vagus nerve stimulation among pediatric patients with drug-resistant epilepsy

Aims

Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) is a neuromodulation therapy for children with drug‐resistant epilepsy (DRE). The efficacy of VNS is heterogeneous. A prediction model is needed to predict the efficacy before implantation.

Methods

We collected data from children with DRE who underwent VNS implantation and received regular programming for at least 1 year. Preoperative clinical information and scalp video electroencephalography (EEG) were available in 88 children. Synchronization features, including phase lag index (PLI), weighted phase lag index (wPLI), and phase‐locking value (PLV), were compared between responders and non‐responders. We further adapted a support vector machine (SVM) classifier selected from 25 clinical and 18 synchronization features to build a prediction model for efficacy in a discovery cohort (n = 70) and was tested in an independent validation cohort (n = 18).

Results

In the discovery cohort, the average interictal awake PLI in the high beta band was significantly higher in responders than non‐responders (p < 0.05). The SVM classifier generated from integrating both clinical and synchronization features had the best prediction efficacy, demonstrating an accuracy of 75.7%, precision of 80.8% and area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUC) of 0.766 on 10‐fold cross‐validation. In the validation cohort, the prediction model demonstrated an accuracy of 61.1%.

Conclusion

This study established the first prediction model integrating clinical and baseline synchronization features for preoperative VNS responder screening among children with DRE. With further optimization of the model, we hope to provide an effective and convenient method for identifying responders before VNS implantation.

Vagus nerve stimulation for focal seizures

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review published in 2015. Epilepsy is a chronic neurological disorder, characterised by recurring, unprovoked seizures. Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) is a neuromodulatory treatment that is used as an adjunctive therapy for treating people with drug-resistant epilepsy. VNS consists of chronic, intermittent electrical stimulation of the vagus nerve, delivered by a programmable pulse generator.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of VNS when used as add-on treatment for people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS), and MEDLINE Ovid on 3 March 2022. We imposed no language restrictions. CRS Web includes randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials from the Specialised Registers of Cochrane Review Groups, including Epilepsy, CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered parallel or cross-over, randomised, double-blind, controlled trials of VNS as add-on treatment, which compared high- and low-level stimulation (including three different stimulation paradigms: rapid, mild, and slow duty-cycle), and VNS stimulation versus no stimulation, or a different intervention. We considered adults or children with drug-resistant focal seizures who were either not eligible for surgery, or who had failed surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods, assessing the following outcomes: 1. 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency 2. Treatment withdrawal (any reason) 3. Adverse effects 4. Quality of life (QoL) 5. Cognition 6. Mood

MAIN RESULTS

We did not identify any new studies for this update, therefore, the conclusions are unchanged. We included the five randomised controlled trials (RCT) from the last update, with a total of 439 participants. The baseline phase ranged from 4 to 12 weeks, and double-blind treatment phases from 12 to 20 weeks. We rated two studies at an overall low risk of bias, and three at an overall unclear risk of bias, due to lack of reported information about study design. Effective blinding of studies of VNS is difficult, due to the frequency of stimulation-related side effects, such as voice alteration. The risk ratio (RR) for 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency was 1.73 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.13 to 2.64; 4 RCTs, 373 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), showing that high frequency VNS was over one and a half times more effective than low frequency VNS. The RR for treatment withdrawal was 2.56 (95% CI 0.51 to 12.71; 4 RCTs, 375 participants; low-certainty evidence). Results for the top five reported adverse events were: hoarseness RR 2.17 (99% CI 1.49 to 3.17; 3 RCTs, 330 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); cough RR 1.09 (99% CI 0.74 to 1.62; 3 RCTs, 334 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); dyspnoea RR 2.45 (99% CI 1.07 to 5.60; 3 RCTs, 312 participants; low-certainty evidence); pain RR 1.01 (99% CI 0.60 to 1.68; 2 RCTs; 312 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); paraesthesia 0.78 (99% CI 0.39 to 1.53; 2 RCTs, 312 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Results from two studies (312 participants) showed that a small number of favourable QOL effects were associated with VNS stimulation, but results were inconclusive between high- and low-level stimulation groups. One study (198 participants) found inconclusive results between high- and low-level stimulation for cognition on all measures used. One study (114 participants) found the majority of participants showed an improvement in mood on the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale compared to baseline, but results between high- and low-level stimulation were inconclusive. We found no important heterogeneity between studies for any of the outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

VNS for focal seizures appears to be an effective and well-tolerated treatment. Results of the overall efficacy analysis show that high-level stimulation reduced the frequency of seizures better than low-level stimulation. There were very few withdrawals, which suggests that VNS is well tolerated. Adverse effects associated with implantation and stimulation were primarily hoarseness, cough, dyspnoea, pain, paraesthesia, nausea, and headache, with hoarseness and dyspnoea more likely to occur with high-level stimulation than low-level stimulation. However, the evidence for these outcomes is limited, and of moderate to low certainty. Further high-quality research is needed to fully evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of VNS for drug-resistant focal seizures.

Patient-Specific Characteristics Associated with Favorable Response to Vagus Nerve Stimulation

OBJECTIVE

The expansion in treatments for medically refractory epilepsy heightens the importance of identifying patients who are likely to benefit from vagus nerve stimulation (VNS). Here, we identify predictors with a positive VNS response.

METHODS

We present a retrospective analysis of 158 patients with medically refractory epilepsy. Patients were categorized as VNS responders or nonresponders. Baseline characteristics and time to VNS response were recorded. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression were used to identify predictors of response. Recursive partitioning analysis was used to identify likely VNS responders.

RESULTS

Eighty-nine (56.3%) patients achieved ≥50% seizure frequency reduction. Left-hand dominance (hazard ratio [HR] 1.703, P = 0.038), age at epilepsy onset ≥15 years (HR 2.029, P = 0.005), duration of epilepsy ≥8 years (HR 1.968, P = 0.007) and age at implantation ≥35 years (HR 1.809, P = 0.020), and baseline seizure frequency <5/month (HR 1.569, P = 0.044) were significant univariate predictors of VNS response. Following multivariate Cox regression, left-hand dominance, age at epilepsy onset ≥15 years, and duration of epilepsy ≥8 years remained significant. With recursive partitioning analysis, patients with either age at epilepsy onset ≥15 years, left-hand dominance, or baseline seizure frequency <5/month were stratified into Group A and had a 73.9% responder rate; the remaining patients stratified into Group B had a 43.8% responder rate.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with age at epilepsy onset ≥15 years, left-hand dominance, or baseline seizure frequency <5/month are ideal candidates for VNS.

Vagus Nerve Stimulation Therapy for the Treatment of Seizures in Refractory Postencephalitic Epilepsy: A Retrospective Study

Background

Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) has been demonstrated to be safe and effective for patients with refractory epilepsy, but there are few reports on the use of VNS for postencephalitic epilepsy (PEE). This retrospective study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of VNS for refractory PEE.

Methods

We retrospectively studied 20 patients with refractory PEE who underwent VNS between August 2017 and October 2019 in Chinese PLA General Hospital and Beijing Children’s Hospital. VNS efficacy was evaluated based on seizure reduction, effective rate (percentage of cases with seizure reduction ≥ 50%), McHugh classification, modified Early Childhood Epilepsy Severity Scale (E-Chess) score, and Grand Total EEG (GTE) score. The follow-up time points were 3, 6, and 12 months after VNS. Pre- and postoperative data were compared and analyzed.

Results

The median [interquartile range (IQR)] seizure reduction rates at 3, 6, and 12 months after VNS were 23.72% (0, 55%), 46.61% (0, 79.04%), and 67.99% (0, 93.78%), respectively. The effective rates were 30% at 3 months, 45% at 6 months, and 70% at 12 months. E-chess scores before the operation and at 3, 6, and 12 months after the operation were 10 (10, 10.75), 9 (9, 10), 9 (9, 9.75), and 9 (8.25, 9) (P < 0.05), respectively. GTE scores before surgery and at 12 months after the operation were 11 (9, 13) and 9 (7, 11) (P < 0.05), respectively. The mean intensity of VNS current was 1.76 ± 0.39 (range: 1.0–2.5) mA. No intraoperative complications or severe post-operative adverse effects were reported.

Conclusions

Our study shows that VNS can reduce the frequency and severity of seizure in patients with refractory PEE. VNS has a good application prospect in patients with refractory PEE.

Factors Affecting Vagus Nerve Stimulation Outcomes in Epilepsy

Epilepsy as a common neurological disease is mostly managed effectively with antiepileptic medications. One-third of patients do not respond to medical treatments requiring alternative therapies. Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) has been used in the last decades for the treatment of medically resistant epilepsy. Despite the extensive use of VNS in these patients, factors associated with clinical outcomes of VNS remain to be elucidated. In this study, we evaluated factors affecting VNS outcomes in epileptic patients to have a better understanding of patients who are better candidates for VNS therapy. Several databases including PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar were searched through June 2020 for relevant articles. The following factors were assessed in this review: previous surgical history, age at implantation and gender, types of epilepsy, duration of epilepsy, age at epilepsy onset, frequency of attacks, antiepileptic drugs, VNS parameters, EEG findings, MRI findings, and biomarkers. Literature data show that nonresponder rates range between 25% and 65%. Given the complexity and diversity of factors associated with response to VNS, more clinical studies are needed to establish better paradigm for selection of patients for VNS therapy.

Comparison of efficiency between VNS and ANT-DBS therapy in drug-resistant epilepsy: A one year follow up study

Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) and anterior thalamic deep brain stimulation (ANT-DBS) have both been used for treatments of drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE). However, there is no comparative study on the effectiveness of two methods from one single center. 17 patients with DRE who underwent VNS therapy and 18 patients who underwent DBS were enrolled. A retrospective study was performed starting from baseline before operation extending to 12 months after operation. The seizure types, duration of epilepsy, age at implantation, failed numbers of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) before operation, history of craniotomy, stimulation parameters and response rate were described. The analysis of liner regression on the age of onset, duration of epilepsy, numbers of AEDs, and the seizure reduction at 12 months after operation was applied. The mean seizure reduction in patients with DBS at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months after the operation was 57.22%, 61.61%, 63.94% and 65.28%, and that in cases with VNS was 36.06%, 39.94%, 45.24% and 48.35%, respectively. At 1 year after the operation, the patients with older operation age, focal seizures and older age of onset responded better to VNS; and those older operation age, focal generalized seizures, history of craniotomy and longer duration of disease responded better to DBS. The efficiency of ANT-DBS was higher than that of VNS at each follow up time point. Patients can choose the appropriate treatment according to the individual clinical characteristics.

Vagus Nerve Stimulation and Seizure Outcomes in Pediatric Refractory Epilepsy: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

We synthesized evidence for effectiveness of vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) as adjuvant therapy in pediatric drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) by obtaining pooled estimates for seizure outcomes and analyzing their determinants.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched up to July 2019 for original research on VNS in pediatric (≤18 years of age) epilepsy. The primary outcome was 50% responder rate (50% RR), the proportion of patients with ≥50% seizure reduction, at the last reported follow-up. Other outcomes included a 50% RR and proportion of seizure-free patients at additional reported time points. A random-effects meta-analysis with restricted maximum likelihood estimation was performed to obtain pooled effect estimates. Meta-regression using multiple linear models was performed to obtain determinants of seizure outcomes and sources of heterogeneity.

RESULTS

A total of 101 studies were included. The pooled prevalence estimates for a 50% RR and seizure freedom at last follow-up (mean 2.54 years) were 56.4% (95% confidence intervals [CIs] 52.4, 60.4) and 11.6% (95% CI 9.6, 13.9), respectively. Fewer antiseizure medications (ASMs) tried before VNS and later age at onset of seizures were associated with better seizure outcomes following VNS implantation. An effect of sex distribution of studies on long-term outcomes and a potential publication bias for short-term outcomes were also observed.

CONCLUSION

Pooled evidence supports possible effectiveness of VNS in pediatric DRE, although complete seizure freedom is less common. Early referral (fewer trials of ASMs) may be a modifiable factor for desirable seizure outcomes with VNS from a clinical perspective.

Early Implantation as a Main Predictor of Response to Vagus Nerve Stimulation in Childhood-Onset Refractory Epilepsy

OBJECTIVE

We describe a multicenter experience with vagus nerve stimulator implantation in pediatric patients with drug-resistant epilepsy. Our goal was to assess vagus nerve stimulation efficacy and identify potential predictors of favorable outcome.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study. Inclusion criteria: ≤18 years at time of vagus nerve stimulator implantation, at least 1 year of follow-up. All patients were previously found to be unsuitable for an excisional procedure. Favorable clinical outcome and effective vagus nerve stimulation therapy were defined as seizure reduction >50%. Outcome data were reviewed at 1, 2, 3, and 5 years after vagus nerve stimulator implantation. Fisher exact test and multiple logistic regression analysis were employed.

RESULTS

Eighty-nine patients met inclusion criteria. Responder rate (seizure frequency reduction >50%) at 1-year follow-up was 25.8% (4.5% seizure-free). At last follow-up, 31.5% had a favorable outcome and 5.2% were seizure free. The only factor significantly predicting favorable outcome was time to vagus nerve stimulator implantation, with the best outcome achieved when vagus nerve stimulator implantation was performed within 3 years of seizure onset. Implantation between 3 and 5 years after epilepsy onset correlated with better long-term seizure freedom (13.3% at T5). Overall, 65.2% of patients evidenced improved quality of life at last follow-up. However, 12.4% had adverse events, but most were mild and disappeared after 3-4 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Early vagus nerve stimulator implantation within 5 years of seizure onset was the only predictor of favorable clinical outcome in pediatric patients. Improved quality of life and a low incidence of significant adverse events were observed.

Subgroup analysis of seizure and cognitive outcome after vagal nerve stimulator implantation in children

OBJECTIVE

Vagal nerve stimulator (VNS) implantation at an early age seems to lead to improved quality of life and cognitive outcome. The aim of this analysis is to evaluate whether specific patient or seizure characteristics might lead to better seizure control, cognitive outcome, and higher quality of life in children undergoing VNS implantation.

METHODS

Primary outcome measure was reduction in seizure frequency. Secondary outcome measures were epilepsy outcome assessed by McHugh and Engel classifications, reduction in antiepileptic drugs (AED), developmental and cognitive outcome, as well as quality of life assessed through the pediatric quality of life (PEDSQL™) questionnaire and care giver impression (CGI) scale. Forty-five consecutive children undergoing VNS implantation were analyzed for the following subgroups: age (categorized to 1-2 years old, 3-5 years old, 6-12 years old, and 13-18 years old), sex, underlying cause (categorized to idiopathic, encephalitis, stroke, syndromic), duration of preoperative seizures (dichotomized to under or above 89 months, corresponding to the median of the whole cohort), and preoperative seizure frequency (dichotomized to under and above 360 seizures per month).

RESULTS

Encephalitis as the underlying cause for seizures was the only variable significantly associated with higher reduction rate of seizure frequency. Patients with VNS implantation at the age of ≤ 2 years showed a strong association with better developmental and cognitive outcome, as well as quality of life. Shorter duration of preoperative seizures and higher preoperative seizure frequency showed a strong association with better developmental outcome, as well as quality of life. Engel outcome scores were significantly better in patients with epilepsy due to encephalitis (100% Engel I-III). However, patients with epilepsy due to encephalitis showed significantly higher complication rates (71.4%, p = 0.045).

CONCLUSIONS

Children suffering from epilepsy due to encephalitis show higher seizure reduction rates after VNS implantation when compared with children suffering from epilepsy due to other causes. Developmental and cognitive outcomes as well as quality of life of children undergoing VNS implantation is strongly associated with shorter duration of preoperative seizures and implantation at a young age.

Vagus nerve stimulation in patients with therapy-resistant generalized epilepsy

BACKGROUND

For patients with generalized epilepsy who do not respond to antiseizure medications, the therapeutic options are limited. Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) is a treatment mainly approved for therapy-resistant focal epilepsy. There is limited information on the use of VNS on generalized epilepsies, including Lennox-Gastaut Syndrome (LGS) and genetic generalized epilepsy (GGE).

METHODS

We identified patients with a diagnosis of generalized epilepsy (including LGS and GGE), who underwent VNS implantation at the London Health Sciences Centre and Western University, London, Ontario, since this treatment became available in Canada in 1997 until July 2018. We assessed response to the treatment, including admissions to hospital and complications.

RESULTS

A total of 46 patients were included in this study with a history of therapy-resistant generalized epilepsy. The mean age at implantation was 24 years (interquartile range [IQR] = 17.8-31 years), significantly younger in the LGS group (p = 0.02) and 50% (n = 23) were female. The most common etiologies were GGE in 37% (n = 17) and LGS in 63% (n = 29). Median follow-up since VNS implantation was 63 months (IQR: 31-112.8 months). Of the LGS group 41.7% (n = 12) of patients had an overall seizure reduction of 50% or more, and 64.7% (n = 11) in the GGE group without statistical significance between the groups. The best response in seizure reduction was seen in generalized tonic-clonic seizures, with a significant reduction in the GGE group (p = 0.043). There was a reduction of seizure-related hospital admissions from 91.3% (N = 42) preimplantation, to 43.5% (N = 20) postimplantation (p < 0.05). The frequency of side effects due to the stimulation was almost equal in both groups (62.1% in LGS and 64.7% in GGE).

CONCLUSIONS

Vagus nerve stimulation should be considered as a treatment in patients with therapy-resistant generalized epilepsy, especially in cases with GGE.

Long-term effects of vagus nerve stimulation in refractory pediatric epilepsy: A single-center experience

INTRODUCTION

Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) has been used as an adjunctive therapy for both children and adults with refractory epilepsy, over the last two decades. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the long-term effects and tolerability of VNS in the pediatric drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) and to identify the predictive factors for responsiveness to VNS.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of pediatric patients who underwent VNS implantation between 1997 and 2018. Patients with ≥50% reduction of seizure frequency compared with the baseline were defined as "responders". The clinical characteristics of responders and nonresponders were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 58 children (male/female: 40/18) with a mean follow-up duration of 5.7 years (3 months to 20 years) were included. The mean age at implantation was 12.4 years (4.5 to 18.5 years). Approximately half (45%) of our patients were responders, including 3 patients (5.8%) who achieved seizure freedom during follow-up. The age of seizure-onset, duration of epilepsy, age at implantation, and etiologies of epilepsy showed no significant difference between responders and nonresponders. Responders were more likely to have focal or multifocal epileptiform discharges (63%) on interictal electroencephalogram (EEG), when compared to nonresponders (36%) (p = .07). Vocal disturbances and paresthesias were the most common side effects, and in two patients, VNS was removed because of local reaction.

CONCLUSION

Our series had a diverse etiological profile and patients with transition to adult care. Long-term follow-up showed that VNS is an effective and well-tolerated treatment modality for refractory childhood onset epilepsy. Age at implantation, duration of epilepsy and underlying etiology are not found to be predictors of responsiveness to VNS. Higher response rates were observed for a subset of patients with focal epileptiform discharges.

Health Technology Assessment Report on Vagus Nerve Stimulation in Drug-Resistant Epilepsy

Background: Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) is a palliative treatment for medical intractable epileptic syndromes not eligible for resective surgery. Health technology assessment (HTA) represents a modern approach to the analysis of technologies used for healthcare. The purpose of this study is to assess the clinical, organizational, financial, and economic impact of VNS therapy in drug-resistant epilepsies and to establish the congruity between costs incurred and health service reimbursement. Methods: The present study used an HTA approach. It is based on an extensive detailed bibliographic search on databases (Medline, Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane, sites of scientific societies and institutional sites). The HTA study includes the following issues: (a) social impact and costs of the disease; (b) VNS eligibility and clinical results; (c) quality of life (QoL) after VNS therapy; (d) economic impact and productivity regained after VNS; and (e) costs of VNS. Results: Literature data indicate VNS as an effective treatment with a potential positive impact on social aspects and on quality of life. The diagnosis-related group (DRG) financing, both on national and regional levels, does not cover the cost of the medical device. There was an evident insufficient coverage of the DRG compared to the full cost of implanting the device. Conclusions: VNS is a palliative treatment for reducing seizure frequency and intensity. Despite its economic cost, VNS should improve patients' quality of life and reduce care needs.

Can we predict response to vagus nerve stimulation in intractable epilepsy

BACKGROUND

Since vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). A number of studies show that VNS was effective to reduce seizure frequency. However, there was still some patients treated with VNS having poor or even no clinical effect.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of the present review was to identify factors predicting the effect of VNS therapy and to select patients suitable for VNS treatment.

METHOD

PubMed and Medline was searched with this terms "epilepsy," "vagus nerve stimulation," "vagal nerve stimulation," "VNS," "intractable," and "refractory".We selected studies by predefining inclusion and exclusion criteria.

RESULTS

the effectiveness of VNA was confirmed by a number of studies. We find many studies exploring the predictive factors to VNS. However there was no any study finding factors correlating clearly with the outcome of VNS. Although, we find these factors, such as post-traumatic epilepsy, temporal lobe epilepsy and focal interictal epileptiform discharges (IEDs), were favorable for the treatment of VNS, while comprehensive IEDs and neuronal migration disorders were indicative of the poor effect. Also, temporal lobe epilepsy was generally effectively controlled by this therapy and yougers seemed to get more benefit from VNS. Additionally, other indexes, such as cytokine profile, slow cortical potential (SCP) shift, preoperative heart rate variability (HRV), EEG reactivity and connectomic profiling, maybe predict the results of VNS.

CONCLUSION

In summary, these conventional and other new factors should be analyzed further by more science and rigorous experimental design to identify the clear correlation with the outcome of VNS therapy.

Vagal nerve stimulation is effective in pre-school children with intractable epilepsy: A report of two cases

There is lack of prospective evidence regarding vagal nerve stimulator (VNS) in younger children with intractable epilepsy. Here, we report the outcomes of using VNS in two pre-school patients for pediatric intractable epilepsy (VNS-PIE) study. Medical treatment was ineffective in both the patients, and they underwent VNS implantation. Seizure frequency, score on the Gesell scale, and heart rate variability (HRV) were assessed following VNS therapy. After 6 months VNS treatment, the seizure frequency in the two patients decreased by 50% from that at baseline, based on the records in their epileptic diary. Video electroencephalography (EEG) examinations showed that abnormal fast waves diminished in the background in Patient 1, and captured seizure frequency in Patient 2 remarkably decreased. The adaptability, language, and individual and social interaction on their Gesell scales increased slightly, suggesting that VNS had a positive effect on the development of these two children. Moreover, the changes in the different HRV indices indicated improved cardiac autonomic function. In conclusion, these two cases indicated that VNS may not only be a superior therapy for pre-school children with intractable epilepsy, but also may exert a positive effect on their mental development and cardiac autonomic function.

Vagus nerve stimulation for drug-resistant epilepsy

Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) is a neuromodulatory therapeutic option for drug-resistant epilepsy. In randomised controlled trials, VNS implantation has resulted in over 50% reduction in seizure frequency in 26%-40% of patients within 1 year. Long-term uncontrolled studies suggest better responses to VNS over time; however, the assessment of other potential predictive factors has led to contradictory results. Although initially designed for managing focal seizures, its use has been extended to other forms of drug-resistant epilepsy. In this review, we discuss the evidence supporting the use of VNS, its impact on seizure frequency and quality of life, and common adverse effects of this therapy. We also include practical guidance for the approach to and the management of patients with VNS in situ.

Efficienc y of vag us nerve stim ulation in epilepsy (literat ure review and case report )

Despite significant advances in epileptology, approximately one-third of patients suffer from drug-resistant epilepsy. Numerous approaches are currently available to treat epilepsy; however, there are still many patients with treatment-resistant epilepsy, in whom antiepileptic drugs are ineffective and surgical treatment is impossible. Thus, searching for new effective antiepileptic drugs and alternative treatments (such as vagus nerve stimulation) for these patients remains highly relevant. This literature review covers the indications for and the efficacy and tolerability of vagus nerve stimulation in patients with epilepsy. We also report a case of successful treatment of a patient with drug-resistant epilepsy using this method.

Vagus nerve stimulation for pediatric patients with intractable epilepsy between 3 and 6 years of age: study protocol for a double-blind, randomized control trial

BACKGROUND

Recent clinical observations have reported the potential benefit of vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) as an adjunctive therapy for pediatric epilepsy. Preliminary evidence suggests that VNS treatment is effective for seizure reduction and mental development in young participants between 3 and 6 years of age who suffer from intractable epilepsy. However, robust clinical evidence for quantifying the difference of the efficacy and safety of VNS treatment in this specific patient population has yet to be reported.

METHODS/DESIGN

A two-armed, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, prospective trial will be carried out to evaluate whether VNS is beneficial and safe for pediatric epilepsy. Pediatric participants aged between 3 to 6 years old with intractable epilepsy will be recruited and randomly assigned to experimental and control groups with a 1:1 allocation using a computer-generating randomization schedule. Before enrollment, informed consent will be signed by the parents of the participants and the study researchers. Participants in the experimental group will receive electrical stimulation over 24 weeks under standard stimulation parameters. Participants in the control group will not receive any stimulation during the 12 weeks of the double-blind period. The guardians of the participants are required to keep a detailed diary to record seizure activity. Outcome assessments including seizure frequency, Gesell Mental Developmental Scale scores, use of antiepileptic drugs and dosages, and adverse events will be collected at baseline, 6, 12, 18 and/or 24 weeks after electrical stimulation is initiated. The effects of treatment will be analyzed with time and treatment group comparisons.

DISCUSSION

This trial will evaluate quantitative differences in efficacy and safety with/without VNS treatment for pediatric participants aged between 3 to 6 years with intractable epilepsy and will explore whether the current age range of VNS therapy can be expanded.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT03062514 , Registered on 23 February 2017.

Invasive Neuromodulation for the Treatment of Pediatric Epilepsy

Neuromodulatory strategies are increasingly adopted for the treatment of intractable epilepsy in children. These encompass a wide range of treatments aimed at externally stimulating neural circuitry in order to decrease seizure frequency. In the current review, the authors discuss the evidence for invasive neuromodulation, namely vagus nerve and deep brain stimulation in affected children. Putative mechanisms of action and biomarkers of treatment success are explored and evidence of the efficacy of invasive neuromodulation is highlighted.

Improved quality of life and cognition after early vagal nerve stimulator implantation in children

OBJECTIVE

In patients with drug-resistant epilepsy, reduction of seizure duration and frequency at an early age is beneficial. Vagal nerve stimulator (VNS) was shown to reduce seizure frequency and duration in children; however, data in children under the age of 12 years are sparse. The aim of this study was to compare seizure outcome and quality of life after early (≤5 years of age) and late (>5 years of age) implantation of VNS in children.

METHODS

This study reviewed 45 consecutive children undergoing VNS implantation. Primary outcome measure was the reduction of seizure frequency. Secondary outcome measures were epilepsy outcome assessed by the McHugh and Engel classifications, reduction of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), psychomotor development, and quality of life measured by the Pediatric Quality of Life (PEDSQL™) questionnaire and caregiver impression (CGI) scale. The mean follow-up time was 72.3 months (±39.8 months).

RESULTS

Out of 45 patients included, in 14 (31.1%), VNS was implanted early and in 31, (68.9%) late. Reduction of seizure frequency, McHugh and Engel classifications, and reduction of AED were comparable in both groups. Quality of life measured by the CGI scale (2.1 ± 1.7 in the early group vs. 3.6 ± 1.6 in the late group; p = 0.004), as well as the difference of total PEDSQL™ Core scores (12.0 ± 24.0 in the early group vs. -5.2 ± 14.9 in the late group; p = 0.01) and cognitive PEDSQL™ Core (30.6 ± 32.0 in the early group vs. 2.4 ± 24.3 in the late group; p = 0.03) between preoperative and follow-up was significantly higher in the early implantation group.

CONCLUSION

Early VNS implantation in children leads to a significantly better quality of life and cognitive outcome compared with late implantation while reduction of seizure frequency and epilepsy outcome seems comparable. Therefore, in children with drug-resistant epilepsy, VNS implantation should be considered as early as possible.

The vagus afferent network: emerging role in translational connectomics

Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) is increasingly considered for the treatment of intractable epilepsy and holds potential for the management of a variety of neuropsychiatric conditions. The emergence of the field of connectomics and the introduction of large-scale modeling of neural networks has helped elucidate the underlying neurobiology of VNS, which may be variably expressed in patient populations and related to responsiveness to stimulation. In this report, the authors outline current data on the underlying neural circuitry believed to be implicated in VNS responsiveness in what the authors term the “vagus afferent network.” The emerging role of biomarkers to predict treatment effect is further discussed and important avenues for future work are highlighted.

Early vagal nerve stimulator implantation in children: personal experience and review of the literature

AIM

Data concerning the benefit of vagal nerve stimulation (VNS) in children under the age of 12 years is sparse. It was shown that reduction of seizure frequency and duration at an early age could lead to better psychomotor development. We therefore compare the outcome between early (≤ 5 years of age) and late (> 5 years of age) implantation of VNS in children.

METHODS

This study is a prospective review of patients analyzing primarily the reduction of seizure frequency and secondarily epilepsy outcome assessed by the McHugh and Engel classification, reduction of antiepileptic drugs (AED), psychomotor development measured by the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scale (VABS), and quality of life using the caregiver impression (CGI) scale. Mean follow-up time was 36 and 31 months in the early and late group, respectively.

RESULTS

Out of 12 consecutive VNS implantations for therapy refractory epilepsy, 5 were early implantations and 7 late implantations. Reduction of seizure frequency, McHugh and Engel classification, quality of life, psychomotor development and reduction of AED were comparable in both groups. One patient in the late group suffered from a postoperative infection resulting in explanation of the VNS device and re-implantation on the opposite side, while mortality rate was 0%.

CONCLUSIONS

VNS seems to be a safe and feasible therapy in children even under the age of 5 years. Responder rate, quality of life, and psychomotor development do not seem to be influenced by the child's age at implantation; however, larger studies analyzing the outcome of early VNS implantation are warranted.

Rates and Predictors of Seizure Freedom With Vagus Nerve Stimulation for Intractable Epilepsy

Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text.

BACKGROUND:

Neuromodulation-based treatments have become increasingly important in epilepsy treatment. Most patients with epilepsy treated with neuromodulation do not achieve complete seizure freedom, and, therefore, previous studies of vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) therapy have focused instead on reduction of seizure frequency as a measure of treatment response.

OBJECTIVE:

To elucidate rates and predictors of seizure freedom with VNS.

METHODS:

We examined 5554 patients from the VNS therapy Patient Outcome Registry, and also performed a systematic review of the literature including 2869 patients across 78 studies.

RESULTS:

Registry data revealed a progressive increase over time in seizure freedom after VNS therapy. Overall, 49% of patients responded to VNS therapy 0 to 4 months after implantation (≥50% reduction seizure frequency), with 5.1% of patients becoming seizure-free, while 63% of patients were responders at 24 to 48 months, with 8.2% achieving seizure freedom. On multivariate analysis, seizure freedom was predicted by age of epilepsy onset >12 years (odds ratio [OR], 1.89; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.38-2.58), and predominantly generalized seizure type (OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.01-1.82), while overall response to VNS was predicted by nonlesional epilepsy (OR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.06-1.81). Systematic literature review results were consistent with the registry analysis: At 0 to 4 months, 40.0% of patients had responded to VNS, with 2.6% becoming seizure-free, while at last follow-up, 60.1% of individuals were responders, with 8.0% achieving seizure freedom.

CONCLUSION:

Response and seizure freedom rates increase over time with VNS therapy, although complete seizure freedom is achieved in a small percentage of patients.

ABBREVIATIONS:

AED, antiepileptic drug

VNS, vagus nerve stimulation

An interictal EEG can predict the outcome of vagus nerve stimulation therapy for children with intractable epilepsy

PURPOSE

This study aimed to evaluate the long-term efficacy of vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) in children and adolescents with intractable epilepsy and identify predictive factors for responsiveness to VNS.

METHODS

Medical records of pediatric patients who underwent VNS implantation at two Korean tertiary centers were reviewed. At 0.5, 1, 3, and 5 years post-VNS implantation, the frequency of the most disabling seizures in each patient was assessed. Responders were defined as showing an overall 50 % reduction from baseline seizure frequency during follow-up. The clinical characteristics of responders and non-responders were compared.

RESULTS

Among 58 patients, approximately half (29/58) were responders. The mean age at implantation was 10.9 years (range, 2.7-20.9) and the mean follow-up duration after VNS implantation was 8.4 years (range, 1-15.5). At 0.5, 1, 3, and 5 years after implantation, 43.1, 50.0, 56.9, and 58.1 % of patients exhibited ≥50 % seizure frequency reduction disabling seizures. The patients with focal or multifocal epileptiform discharges were more likely to be responders than those with generalized epileptiform activities by video or conventional EEG at the time of VNS implantation (Pearson's and χ ² test, p = 0.001). No other clinical variables were found to be associated with seizure outcomes. Wound infections caused VNS removal in two cases. All other adverse events, including cough and hoarseness, were tolerable.

CONCLUSION

VNS is a well-tolerated and effective adjuvant therapy in pediatric patients with intractable epilepsy. Notably, patients with focal epileptiform discharges alone rather than those with generalized epileptiform discharges maybe better candidates for VNS.

Neuromodulation Therapy with Vagus Nerve Stimulation for Intractable Epilepsy: A 2-Year Efficacy Analysis Study in Patients under 12 Years of Age

To study the efficacy of vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) therapy as an adjunctive treatment for intractable epilepsy in patients under 12 years of age, we analyzed 2-year postimplant data of 35 consecutive patients. Of the 35 patients, 18 (51.4%) at 6 months, 18 (51.4%) at 12 months, and 21 (60.1%) at 24 months showed ≥50% reduction in seizure frequency (responders). Although incremental seizure freedom was noted, no patient remained seizure-free throughout the 3 study periods. Partial response (≥50% seizure reduction in 2 or less study periods) was seen in 8 (22.9%) patients. Twelve patients (34.3%) were nonresponders. Out of 29 patients with primary generalized epilepsy, 20 (68.9%) and, out of 6 patients with focal epilepsy, 3 (50%) had ≥50% seizure control in at least one study period. No major complications or side effects requiring discontinuation of VNS therapy were encountered. We conclude that (1) patients with intractable primary generalized epilepsy respond better to VNS therapy, (2) cumulative effect of neuromodulation with improving responder rate to seizure freedom with continuation of VNS therapy is noted, and (3) VNS therapy is safe and is well tolerated in children receiving implant under 12 years of age.

Polymorphism of ABCB1/MDR1 C3435T in children and adolescents with partial epilepsy is due to different criteria for drug resistance - preliminary results

Background

The diagnosis of “drug resistance” in epilepsy can be defined and interpreted in various ways. This may be due to discrepant definitions of drug resistance to pharmacotherapy.

The aim of our study was to investigate the relationship between C3435T polymorphism of the MDR1 gene and drug resistance in epilepsy with the consideration of 4 different criteria for qualification to groups sensitive and resistant to applied pharmacotherapy.

Material/Methods

Evaluation of C3435T polymorphism of MDR1/ABCB1 gene was conducted on a group of 82 white children and young adolescents up to 18 years old. While qualifying the patients to the group of sensitive or drug resistant, the following 4 definitions of drug resistance were applied: the ILAE’s, Appleton’s, Siddiqui’s, and Berg’s.

Results

A detailed analysis of genotypes of the MDR1 gene did not show any significant discrepancies between the groups of patients resistant and sensitive to antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) in 4 consecutive comparisons taking into consideration various criteria of sensitivity and resistance to pharmacotherapy.

Conclusions

The obtained results clearly confirm the lack of a connection between the occurrence of drug-resistant epilepsy and C435T polymorphism of the MDR1 gene irrespective of the definition of drug resistance applied to the patient.

Evidence-based guideline update: vagus nerve stimulation for the treatment of epilepsy: report of the guideline development subcommittee of the american academy of neurology

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the evidence since the 1999 assessment regarding efficacy and safety of vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) for epilepsy, currently approved as adjunctive therapy for partial-onset seizures in patients >12 years.

METHODS

We reviewed the literature and identified relevant published studies. We classified these studies according to the American Academy of Neurology evidence-based methodology.

RESULTS

VNS is associated with a >50% seizure reduction in 55% (95% confidence interval [CI] 50%-59%) of 470 children with partial or generalized epilepsy (13 Class III studies). VNS is associated with a >50% seizure reduction in 55% (95% CI 46%-64%) of 113 patients with Lennox-Gastaut syndrome (LGS) (4 Class III studies). VNS is associated with an increase in ≥50% seizure frequency reduction rates of ~7% from 1 to 5 years postim-plantation (2 Class III studies). VNS is associated with a significant improvement in standard mood scales in 31 adults with epilepsy (2 Class III studies). Infection risk at the VNS implantation site in children is increased relative to that in adults (odds ratio 3.4, 95% CI 1.0-11.2). VNS is possibly effective for seizures (both partial and generalized) in children, for LGS-associated seizures, and for mood problems in adults with epilepsy. VNS may have improved efficacy over time.

RECOMMENDATIONS

VNS may be considered for seizures in children, for LGS-associated seizures, and for improving mood in adults with epilepsy (Level C). VNS may be considered to have improved efficacy over time (Level C). Children should be carefully monitored for site infection after VNS implantation. Neurology® 2013;81:1-7.

Vagus nerve stimulation in refractory epilepsy: new indications and outcome assessment

Although vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) is an effective alternative option for patients with refractory epilepsy unsuitable for conventional resective surgery, predictors of a better control of seizure frequency and severity are still unavailable. This prospective study reports on 39 patients, including 4 children affected by epilepsia partialis continua (EPC), who underwent VNS for refractory epilepsy. The overall seizure frequency outcome was classified into three groups according to reduction rate: ≥75%, ≥50%, and <50%. Engel and McHugh classifications were also used. The median follow-up period was 36months. A seizure reduction rate ≥50% or EPC improvement was observed in 74% of the patients. Twenty-one out of 35 cases (60%) resulted in Engel classes II and III. Outcome, as defined by the McHugh scale, showed a responder rate of 71%. These results suggest that younger patient age and focal or multifocal epilepsy are related to a better seizure control and cognitive outcome. Vagus nerve stimulation could also be considered as an effective procedure in severe conditions, such as drug-refractory EPC.

Evidence-based guideline update: vagus nerve stimulation for the treatment of epilepsy: report of the Guideline Development Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the evidence since the 1999 assessment regarding efficacy and safety of vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) for epilepsy, currently approved as adjunctive therapy for partial-onset seizures in patients >12 years.

METHODS

We reviewed the literature and identified relevant published studies. We classified these studies according to the American Academy of Neurology evidence-based methodology.

RESULTS

VNS is associated with a >50% seizure reduction in 55% (95% confidence interval [CI] 50%-59%) of 470 children with partial or generalized epilepsy (13 Class III studies). VNS is associated with a >50% seizure reduction in 55% (95% CI 46%-64%) of 113 patients with Lennox-Gastaut syndrome (LGS) (4 Class III studies). VNS is associated with an increase in ≥ 50% seizure frequency reduction rates of ≈ 7% from 1 to 5 years postimplantation (2 Class III studies). VNS is associated with a significant improvement in standard mood scales in 31 adults with epilepsy (2 Class III studies). Infection risk at the VNS implantation site in children is increased relative to that in adults (odds ratio 3.4, 95% CI 1.0-11.2). VNS is possibly effective for seizures (both partial and generalized) in children, for LGS-associated seizures, and for mood problems in adults with epilepsy. VNS may have improved efficacy over time.

RECOMMENDATIONS

VNS may be considered for seizures in children, for LGS-associated seizures, and for improving mood in adults with epilepsy (Level C). VNS may be considered to have improved efficacy over time (Level C). Children should be carefully monitored for site infection after VNS implantation.

Long-term vagus nerve stimulation in children with focal epilepsy

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the study was to evaluate the long-term efficacy and hospitalization rates in children with refractory focal epilepsy treated by vagus nerve stimulation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 15 children with intractable focal epilepsy treated by vagus nerve stimulation (mean age of 14.6 ± 2.5 years at the time of implantation). We analyzed the treatment effectiveness at 1, 2, and 5 year follow-up visits. We counted the average number of urgent hospitalizations and number of days of urgent hospitalization per year for each patient before and after the VNS implantation.

RESULTS

The mean seizure reduction was 42.5% at 1 year, 54.9% at 2 years, and 58.3% at 5 years. The number of responders was 7 (46.7%) at 1 year and 9 (60%) at both 2 and 5 years. The mean number of urgent hospitalizations per patient was 1.0 ± 0.6 per year preoperatively and 0.3 ± 0.5 per year post-operatively (P < 0.0001). The mean number of days of urgent hospitalization per patient was 9.3 ± 6.1 per year preoperatively and 1.3 ± 1.8 per year post-operatively ( < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Vagus nerve stimulation is an effective method of treating children with refractory focal epilepsy. It leads to a substantial decrease in the number and duration of urgent hospitalizations.

Vagus nerve stimulation in drug-resistant epilepsies. Analysis of potential prognostic factors in a cohort of patients with long-term follow-up

BACKGROUND

The results of vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) for the treatment of drug-resistant epilepsies are highly variable due to the lack of defined patient's selection criteria and a follow-up of published studies being generally too short. Here we report the outcome of VNS in a series with long-term follow-up and try to identify subgroups of patients who could be better candidates for this procedure.

METHOD

We studied 53 patients (33 male, 20 female) with a prospectively recorded follow-up (mean, 55.96 ± 43.53 months). The monthly average seizure frequency for each patient at baseline, 3, 6, 12 months, and each year until the latest follow-up after implant was measured and the percentage of "responders" and response time (RT) were calculated. We investigated the following potential prognostic role of these factors: age of onset of epilepsy, pre-implant epilepsy duration, etiology, and age at implant.

RESULTS

Globally, 40 % of patients responded to VNS (mean RT, 14.85 ± 16.85 months). Lesional etiology (p = 0.0179, logrank test), particularly ischemia (p = 0.011, Fisher exact test) and tuberous sclerosis (p = 0.0229, Fisher exact test), and age at implant <18 years (p = 0.0242, logrank test) were associated to better response to VNS. In the lesional subgroup the best results were observed in patients with a pre-implant epilepsy duration <15 years (p = 0.0204, logrank test) and an age at implant <18 years (p = 0.0187 logrank test).

CONCLUSIONS

The best candidate to VNS seems to be a patient with lesional etiology epilepsy (particularly post-ischemic and tuberous sclerosis) and a short duration of epilepsy who undergo VNS younger than 18 years.

Vagal nerve stimulation for pharmacoresistant epilepsy in children

Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) is an adjunctive treatment for adult patients with pharmacoresistant epilepsy. Little is known about VNS therapy for children with epilepsy. This article will: (1) Review the contemporary medical literature related to VNS therapy in children with epilepsy, (2) describe the experience of VNS treatment in 153 children less than 18 years of age, in the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Pediatric Epilepsy Surgery Program, from 1998 to 2012, and (3) describe the surgical technique used for VNS implantation at UCLA. Review of the literature finds that despite different etiologies and epilepsy syndromes in children, VNS appears to show a similar profile of efficacy for seizure control compared to adults, and low morbidity and mortality. The UCLA experience is similar to that reported in the literature for children. VNS constitutes about 21% of our pediatric epilepsy surgery volume. We have implanted VNS in infants as young as six months of age and the most common etiology is the Lennox-Gastaut Syndrome. About 5% of the patients are seizure-free with VNS therapy and there is a low rate of surgically related complications. The UCLA surgical approach emphasizes minimal direct manipulation of the vagus nerve and adequate wire loops, to prevent a lead fracture. In summary, VNS is a viable palliative treatment for medically refractory epilepsy in children, with outcomes and complications equal to adult patients. Being a small child is not a contraindication for VNS therapy, if needed for refractory epilepsy.

Long-term results of vagus nerve stimulation in children and adolescents with drug-resistant epilepsy

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate long-term seizure reduction and on-demand magnet use in children and adolescents with drug-resistant epilepsy who were treated with vagus nerve stimulation therapy.

METHODS

Fifty-seven children and adolescents under 18 years of age with drug-resistant epilepsy were implanted with a vagus nerve stimulation therapy device. Seizure reduction was evaluated at 6, 12, 24, 36, and 48 months after implantation. Magnet effect on seizure frequency was evaluated during the first week after implantation and after 6, 12, 24, 36, and 48 months of treatment.

RESULTS

The mean reduction in seizure frequency compared with baseline was significant at all time points up to 48 months post-implantation. At 12 months, the average reduction in seizure frequency was 52.4%, and at 48 months, it was 53.1% (observed case analysis). The use of a magnet to deliver extra "on-demand" stimulation between cycles resulted in cessation of seizures in 16.1% of patients, partial effect in 73.2%, and no effect in 10.7%, when evaluated within 1 week of implantation. The magnet effect decreased slightly with increasing time after implantation. A sub-analysis of children ≤12 years of age (N = 34) showed similar results after 36 months of follow-up. The therapy was well tolerated regardless of age.

CONCLUSION

Vagus nerve stimulation therapy is a safe and effective adjunctive treatment for children and adolescents of all ages with drug-resistant epilepsy.

Lead breakage and vocal cord paralysis following blunt neck trauma in a patient with vagal nerve stimulator

Patients with medically intractable seizures who are not candidates for epilepsy surgery are left with few options. Vagal nerve stimulation therapy is often a viable alternative for these patients and can have a positive impact on quality of life. Rarely complications may occur. We report a case of mild blunt neck trauma resulting in VNS malfunction and delayed vocal cord paralysis. A systematic review of the literature on VNS malfunction, self-inflicted injuries, vagal nerve injury, and common side effects including voice changes was performed. Only a handful of relevant publications were found. Symptoms following VNS dysfunction include pain, dyspnea, and dysphonia. These symptoms are usually nonspecific, and in many cases, do not help differentiate from vagal nerve traction, lead breakage, or pulse generator malfunction. In our case, lead fracture and visible traction injury to the left vagus nerve were seen during surgical exploration. The vocal cord function completely recovered after revision of the leads. Prompt medical attention including appropriate diagnostic studies and early surgical exploration is necessary in cases of delayed vocal cord dysfunction and can help prevent long-term complications such as neuroma formation. The authors present a unique case of reversible vocal cord injury from blunt neck trauma leading to left vagus nerve damage.

Comparison of seizure control outcomes and the safety of vagus nerve, thalamic deep brain, and responsive neurostimulation: evidence from randomized controlled trials

Epilepsy is a devastating disease, often refractory to medication and not amenable to resective surgery. For patients whose seizures continue despite the best medical and surgical therapy, 3 stimulation-based therapies have demonstrated positive results in prospective randomized trials: vagus nerve stimulation, deep brain stimulation of the thalamic anterior nucleus, and responsive neurostimulation. All 3 neuromodulatory therapies offer significant reductions in seizure frequency for patients with partial epilepsy. A direct comparison of trial results, however, reveals important differences among outcomes and surgical risk between devices. The authors review published results from these pivotal trials and highlight important differences between the trials and devices and their application in clinical use.

Vagus nerve stimulation for epilepsy: a meta-analysis of efficacy and predictors of response

Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) was approved by the US FDA in 1997 as an adjunctive treatment for medically refractory epilepsy. It is considered for use in patients who are poor candidates for resection or those in whom resection has failed. However, disagreement regarding the utility of VNS in epilepsy continues because of the variability in benefit reported across clinical studies. Moreover, although VNS was approved only for adults and adolescents with partial epilepsy, its efficacy in children and in patients with generalized epilepsy remains unclear. The authors performed the first meta-analysis of VNS efficacy in epilepsy, identifying 74 clinical studies with 3321 patients suffering from intractable epilepsy. These studies included 3 blinded, randomized controlled trials (Class I evidence); 2 nonblinded, randomized controlled trials (Class II evidence); 10 prospective studies (Class III evidence); and numerous retrospective studies. After VNS, seizure frequency was reduced by an average of 45%, with a 36% reduction in seizures at 3-12 months after surgery and a 51% reduction after > 1 year of therapy. At the last follow-up, seizures were reduced by 50% or more in approximately 50% of the patients, and VNS predicted a ≥ 50% reduction in seizures with a main effects OR of 1.83 (95% CI 1.80-1.86). Patients with generalized epilepsy and children benefited significantly from VNS despite their exclusion from initial approval of the device. Furthermore, posttraumatic epilepsy and tuberous sclerosis were positive predictors of a favorable outcome. In conclusion, VNS is an effective and relatively safe adjunctive therapy in patients with medically refractory epilepsy not amenable to resection. However, it is important to recognize that complete seizure freedom is rarely achieved using VNS and that a quarter of patients do not receive any benefit from therapy.

Surgical treatment for refractory epilepsy: review of patient evaluation and surgical options

Treatment of epilepsy often imposes an exposure to various antiepileptic drugs and requires long-term commitment and compliance from the patient. Although many new medications are now available for the treatment of epilepsy, approximately 30% of epilepsy patients still experience recurrent seizures and many experience undesirable side effects. Treatment of epilepsy requires a multidisciplinary approach. For those patients with medically refractory seizures, surgical treatment has increased in prevalence as techniques and devices improve. With increased utilization, proper patient selection has become crucial in evaluating appropriateness of surgical intervention. Epilepsy syndromes in which surgery has shown to be effective include mesial temporal sclerosis, cortical dysplasia, many pediatric epilepsy syndromes, and vascular malformations. Monitoring in an epilepsy monitoring unit with continuous scalp or intracranial EEG is an important step in localization of seizure focus. MRI is the standard imaging technique for evaluation of anatomy. However, other imaging studies including SPECT and PET have become more widespread, often offering increased diagnostic value in select situations. In addition, as an alternative or adjunct to surgical resection, implantable devices such as vagus nerve stimulators, deep brain stimulators, and direct brain stimulators could be useful in seizure treatment.