Noninvasive neuromodulation in cluster headache

Electrical vagus nerve stimulation as a prophylaxis for SIRS and postoperative ileus

Abdominal surgery results in an activation of immune cells of the bowel wall and a consecutive cytokine and nitric oxide (NO) release leading to an inflammation of the muscularis externa and a bowel paralysis, the so-called postoperative ileus (POI). In addition to the local inflammation, major surgical trauma can also lead to a variable pronounced systemic inflammation up to its maximum variant, the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS), with hypotension, capillary leak and a breakdown of the intestinal barrier function followed by multi-organ dysfunction (MODS). Until now, neither for SIRS nor for POI, a prophylaxis or an evidence-based treatment exists. Since the pioneering work from Kevin Tracey and his group in the late 90s characterizing the role of the vagus nerve in inflammation and describing the cholinergic anti-inflammatory pathway (CAIP) for the first time, substantial efforts have been made in the research field of neuro-immune interactions. Today, the anti-inflammatory potential of vagus nerve stimulation is moving more and more into focus resulting in new therapeutic approaches. This review focuses on the role of the CAIP in the development of SIRS and POI. Furthermore, new therapeutic options like transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation are highlighted.

Vagus nerve stimulation for primary headache disorders: An anatomical review to explain a clinical phenomenon

BACKGROUND

Non-invasive stimulation of the vagus nerve has been proposed as a new neuromodulation therapy to treat primary headache disorders, as the vagus nerve is hypothesized to modulate the headache pain pathways in the brain. Vagus nerve stimulation can be performed by placing an electrode on the ear to stimulate the tragus nerve, which contains about 1% of the vagus fibers. Non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS) conventionally refers to stimulation of the cervical branch of the vagus nerve, which is made up entirely of vagal nerve fibers. While used interchangeably, most of the research to date has been performed with nVNS or an implanted vagus nerve stimulation device. However, the exact mechanism of action of nVNS remains hypothetical and no clear overview of the effectiveness of nVNS in primary headache disorders is available.

METHODS

In the present study, the clinical trials that investigated the effectiveness, tolerability and safety of nVNS in primary headache disorders were systematically reviewed. The second part of this study reviewed the central connections of the vagus nerve. Papers on the clinical use of nVNS and the anatomical investigations were included based on predefined criteria, evaluated, and results were reported in a narrative way.

RESULTS

The first part of this review shows that nVNS in primary headache disorders is moderately effective, safe and well-tolerated. Regarding the anatomical review, it was reported that fibers from the vagus nerve intertwine with fibers from the trigeminal, facial, glossopharyngeal and hypoglossal nerves, mostly in the trigeminal spinal tract. Second, the four nuclei of the vagus nerve (nuclei of the solitary tract, nucleus ambiguus, spinal nucleus of the trigeminal nerve and dorsal motor nucleus (DMX)) show extensive interconnections. Third, the efferents from the vagal nuclei that receive sensory and visceral input (i.e. nuclei of the solitary tract and spinal nucleus of the trigeminal nerve) mainly course towards the main parts of the neural pain matrix directly or indirectly via other vagal nuclei.

CONCLUSION

The moderate effectiveness of nVNS in treating primary headache disorders can possibly be linked to the connections between the trigeminal and vagal systems as described in animals.

Cluster headache and other TACs: Pathophysiology and neurostimulation options

BACKGROUND

The trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias (TACs) are highly disabling primary headache disorders. There are several issues that remain unresolved in the understanding of the pathophysiology of the TACs, although activation of the trigeminal-autonomic reflex and ipsilateral hypothalamic activation both play a central role. The discovery of the central role of the hypothalamus led to its use as a therapeutic target. After the good results obtained with hypothalamic stimulation, other peripheral neuromodulation targets were tried in the management of refractory cluster headache (CH) and other TACs.

METHODS

This review is a summary both of CH pathophysiology and of efficacy of the different neuromodulation techniques.

RESULTS

In chronic cluster headache (CCH) patients, hypothalamic deep brain stimulation (DBS) produced a decrease in attack frequency of more than 50% in 60% of patients. Occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) also elicited favorable outcomes with a reduction of more than 50% of attacks in around 70% of patients with medically intractable CCH. Stimulation of the sphenopalatine ganglion (SPG) with a miniaturized implanted stimulator produced a clinically significant improvement in 68% of patients (acute, preventive, or both). Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) with a portable device used in conjunction with standard of care in CH patients resulted in a reduction in the number of attacks. DBS and ONS have been used successfully in some cases of other TACs, including hemicrania continua (HC) and short-lasting unilateral headache attacks (SUNHA).

CONCLUSIONS

DBS has good results, but it is a more invasive technique and can generate serious adverse events. ONS has good results, but frequent and not serious adverse events. SPG stimulation (SPGS) is also efficacious in the acute and prophylactic treatment of refractory cluster headache. At this moment, ONS and SPG stimulation techniques are recommended as first line therapy in refractory cluster patients. New recent non-invasive approaches such as the non-invasive vagal nerve stimulator (nVNS) have shown efficacy in a few trials and could be an interesting alternative in the management of CH, but require more testing and positive randomized controlled trials.

Sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation in cluster headache and other types of headache

Objectives The cluster headache is the most excruciatingly painful primary headache. In some patients, neither preventive treatment nor acute treatment is effective or treatment is poorly tolerated. The sphenopalatine ganglion (SPG) has an important role in the pathophysiology of cluster headache and, for this reason, SPG stimulation has been used to treat cluster headache. Methods We have reviewed the published literature on the role of the SPG in cluster headache and the use of different treatments targeting the SPG. Results Multiple procedures have been used over the SPG to treat pain and trigemino-autonomic symptoms in patients with refractory cluster headache. After obtaining good results in a small number of patients, a miniaturized stimulator was developed. Stimulation of the SPG with this device proved to be efficacious in acute and preventive treatment in a clinical trial involving patients with chronic refractory cluster headache. Implantation of the device is minimally invasive and the most frequent side-effects are mild, such as paraesthesia and pain over the maxillary area. In patients who have used the SPG device for longer than one year, the therapeutic effect remains effective and the side-effects decrease. Conclusions The reported studies have demonstrated that SPG stimulation is a safe and effective treatment for chronic cluster headache. Long-term studies have shown that the effect remains over time and this treatment could be a good choice in patients with chronic refractory headache. We need more data about its potential use in other forms of headache, such as other trigemino-autonomic headaches or migraine.