1
|
Ashkan K, Velicu MA, Furlanetti L. Deep brain stimulation-induced neuroprotection: A critical appraisal. Eur J Paediatr Neurol 2022; 37:114-122. [PMID: 35189499 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejpn.2022.02.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/12/2021] [Revised: 01/31/2022] [Accepted: 02/04/2022] [Indexed: 10/19/2022]
Abstract
Over the last two decades deep brain stimulation (DBS) has become a widely used therapeutic alternative for a variety of neurological and psychiatric diseases. The extensive experience in the field of movement disorders has provided valuable knowledge and has led the path to its application to other hard-to-treat conditions. Despite the recognised symptomatic beneficial effects, its capacity to modify the course of a disease has been in constant debate. The ability to demonstrate neuroprotection relies on a thorough understanding of the functioning of both normal and pathological neural structures, as well as their stimulation induced alterations, all of which to this date remain incomplete. Consequently, there is no consensus over the definition of neuroprotection nor its means of quantification or evaluation. Additionally, neuroprotection has been indirectly addressed in most of the literature, challenging the efforts to narrow its interpretation. As such, a broad spectrum of evidence has been considered to demonstrate disease modifying interventions. This paper aims to provide a critical appraisal of the current evidence on potential neuroprotective effects of DBS in neurodegenerative brain disorders.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Keyoumars Ashkan
- Department of Neurosurgery, King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; Department of Basic and Clinical Neuroscience, IoPPN, King's College London, UK; King's Health Partners Academic Health Sciences Centre, London, UK
| | - Maria Alexandra Velicu
- Department of Neurosurgery, King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; King's Health Partners Academic Health Sciences Centre, London, UK
| | - Luciano Furlanetti
- Department of Basic and Clinical Neuroscience, IoPPN, King's College London, UK; King's Health Partners Academic Health Sciences Centre, London, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Xu SS, Malpas CB, Bulluss KJ, McDermott HJ, Kalincik T, Thevathasan W. Lesser-Known Aspects of Deep Brain Stimulation for Parkinson's Disease: Programming Sessions, Hardware Surgeries, Residential Care Admissions, and Deaths. Neuromodulation 2021; 25:836-845. [PMID: 34114293 DOI: 10.1111/ner.13466] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/12/2020] [Revised: 04/22/2021] [Accepted: 05/04/2021] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE The long-term treatment burden, duration of community living, and survival of patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) after deep brain stimulation (DBS) implantation are unclear. This study aims to determine the frequency of programming, repeat hardware surgeries (of the intracranial electrode, implantable pulse generator [IPG], and extension-cable), and the timings of residential care and death in patients with PD treated with DBS. MATERIALS AND METHODS In this cross-sectional, population-based study, individual-level data were collected from the Australian government covering a 15-year period (2002-2016) on 1849 patients with PD followed from DBS implantation. RESULTS The mean DBS implantation age was 62.6 years and mean follow-up 5.0 years. Mean annual programming rates were 6.9 in the first year and 2.8 in subsequent years. 51.4% of patients required repeat hardware surgery. 11.3% of patients had repeat intracranial electrode surgery (including an overall 1.1% of patients who were completely explanted). 47.6% of patients had repeat IPG/extension-cable surgery including for presumed battery depletion. 6.2% of patients had early repeat IPG/extension-cable surgery (within one year of any previous such surgery). Thirty-day postoperative mortality was 0.3% after initial DBS implantation and 0.6% after any repeat hardware surgery. 25.3% of patients were admitted into residential care and 17.4% died. The median interval to residential care and death was 10.2 years and 11.4 years, respectively. Age more than 65 years was associated with fewer repeat hardware surgeries for presumed complications (any repeat surgery of electrodes, extension-cables, and early IPG surgery) and greater rates of residential care admission and death. CONCLUSIONS Data from a large cohort of patients with PD treated with DBS found that the median life span after surgery is ten years. Repeat hardware surgery, including of the intracranial electrodes, is common. These findings support development of technologies to reduce therapy burden such as enhanced surgical navigation, hardware miniaturization, and improved battery efficiency.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- San San Xu
- Bionics Institute, East Melbourne, VIC, Australia.,Department of Medical Bionics, The University of Melbourne, East Melbourne, VIC, Australia.,Department of Neurology, Austin Hospital, Heidelberg, VIC, Australia
| | - Charles B Malpas
- CORe, Department of Medicine, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia.,Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia.,MS Centre, Department of Neurology, The Royal Melbourne Hospital, Parkville, VIC, Australia
| | - Kristian J Bulluss
- Bionics Institute, East Melbourne, VIC, Australia.,Department of Neurosurgery, St Vincent's Hospital Melbourne, Fitzroy, and Department of Neurosurgery, Austin Hospital, Heidelberg, VIC, Australia
| | - Hugh J McDermott
- Bionics Institute, East Melbourne, VIC, Australia.,Department of Medical Bionics, The University of Melbourne, East Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Tomas Kalincik
- CORe, Department of Medicine, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia.,MS Centre, Department of Neurology, The Royal Melbourne Hospital, Parkville, VIC, Australia
| | - Wesley Thevathasan
- Bionics Institute, East Melbourne, VIC, Australia.,Department of Neurology, Austin Hospital, Heidelberg, VIC, Australia.,Department of Medicine, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia.,Department of Neurology, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Parkville, VIC, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Fasano A, Merello M. Fading of Deep Brain Stimulation Efficacy Versus Disease Progression: Untangling a Gordian Knot. Mov Disord Clin Pract 2020; 7:747-749. [PMID: 33043072 PMCID: PMC7533966 DOI: 10.1002/mdc3.13041] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/07/2020] [Accepted: 07/15/2020] [Indexed: 01/12/2023] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Alfonso Fasano
- Edmond J. Safra Program in Parkinson's Disease, Morton and Gloria Shulman Movement Disorders ClinicToronto Western Hospital, UHNTorontoOntarioCanada
- Division of NeurologyUniversity of TorontoTorontoOntarioCanada
- Krembil Brain InstituteTorontoOntarioCanada
- Center for Advancing Neurotechnological Innovation to ApplicationTorontoOntarioCanada
| | - Marcelo Merello
- Edmond J. Safra Program in Parkinson's Disease, Movement Disorders Unit, Neuroscience DepartmentRaul Carrea Institute of Neurological Research, FLENIBuenos AiresArgentina
- Pontifical Catholic University of ArgentinaBuenos AiresArgentina
- National Scientific and Technological Research CouncilBuenos AiresArgentina
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Mahlknecht P, Peball M, Mair K, Werkmann M, Nocker M, Wolf E, Eisner W, Bajaj S, Quirbach S, Peralta C, Eschlböck S, Wenning GK, Willeit P, Seppi K, Poewe W. Has Deep Brain Stimulation Changed the Very Long-Term Outcome of Parkinson's Disease? A Controlled Longitudinal Study. Mov Disord Clin Pract 2020; 7:782-787. [PMID: 33033735 PMCID: PMC7533994 DOI: 10.1002/mdc3.13039] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/26/2020] [Accepted: 05/23/2020] [Indexed: 01/26/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The long-term impact of deep brain stimulation (DBS) on Parkinson's disease (PD) is difficult to assess and has not yet been rigorously evaluated in comparison to its natural history. OBJECTIVE Comparison of key disability milestones (recurrent falls, psychosis, dementia, and institutionalization) and death in patients with PD with versus without DBS. METHODS We collected retrospective information from clinical notes of patients with PD at our center that were implanted with subthalamic DBS >8 years ago (1999-2010) and a control group of PD patients without DBS similar in age at onset, age at baseline, sex distribution, and number of comorbidities at baseline (extracted from a registry study performed in 2004). Cox regression models were used to calculate hazard ratios, adjusted for potential baseline confounding variables (age, sex, disease duration, disease severity, and number of comorbidities). RESULTS A total of 74 DBS-treated and 61 control patients with PD were included. For a median observational period of 14 years, patients treated with DBS were at lower risk of experiencing recurrent falls (hazard ratio = 0.57; 95% confidence interval, 0.37-0.90; P = 0.015) and psychosis (hazard ratio = 0.26; 95% confidence interval, 0.12-0.59; P = 0.001) compared with control patients. There was no significant difference in risk for dementia, institutionalization, or death. Disease progression as assessed by Hoehn and Yahr scores was not slower in DBS-treated patients. CONCLUSIONS Treatment with chronic subthalamic DBS was associated with lower risk for recurrent falls and psychotic symptoms, effects that may be mediated through improved motor symptom control and reduction in dopaminergic therapies, respectively. There was no evidence for DBS effects on underlying disease progression.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Marina Peball
- Department of NeurologyInnsbruck Medical UniversityInnsbruckAustria
| | - Katherina Mair
- Department of NeurologyInnsbruck Medical UniversityInnsbruckAustria
| | - Mario Werkmann
- Department of NeurologyInnsbruck Medical UniversityInnsbruckAustria
| | - Michael Nocker
- Department of NeurologyInnsbruck Medical UniversityInnsbruckAustria
| | - Elisabeth Wolf
- Department of NeurologyInnsbruck Medical UniversityInnsbruckAustria
| | - Wilhelm Eisner
- Department of NeurosurgeryInnsbruck Medical UniversityInnsbruckAustria
| | - Sweta Bajaj
- Department of NeurosurgeryInnsbruck Medical UniversityInnsbruckAustria
| | | | - Cecilia Peralta
- Movement Disorder and Parkinson's Disease ProgramCEMIC (Centro de Educación Médica e Investigaciones Clínicas) University HospitalBuenos AiresArgentina
| | - Sabine Eschlböck
- Department of NeurologyInnsbruck Medical UniversityInnsbruckAustria
| | | | - Peter Willeit
- Department of NeurologyInnsbruck Medical UniversityInnsbruckAustria
- Department of Public Health and Primary CareUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUnited Kingdom
| | - Klaus Seppi
- Department of NeurologyInnsbruck Medical UniversityInnsbruckAustria
| | - Werner Poewe
- Department of NeurologyInnsbruck Medical UniversityInnsbruckAustria
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To compare long-term survival of Parkinson's disease (PD) patients with deep brain stimulation (DBS) to matched controls, and examine whether DBS was associated with differences in injurious falls, long-term care, and home care. METHODS Using administrative health data (Ontario, Canada), we examined DBS outcomes within a cohort of individuals diagnosed with PD between 1997 and 2012. Patients receiving DBS were matched with non-DBS controls by age, sex, PD diagnosis date, time with PD, and a propensity score. Survival between groups was compared using the log-rank test and marginal Cox proportional hazards regression. Cumulative incidence function curves and marginal subdistribution hazard models were used to assess effects of DBS on falls, long-term care admission, and home care use, with death as a competing risk. RESULTS There were 260 DBS recipients matched with 551 controls. Patients undergoing DBS did not experience a significant survival advantage compared to controls (log-rank test p = 0.50; HR: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.65-1.22). Among patients <65 years of age, DBS recipients had a significantly reduced risk of death (HR: 0.49, 95% CI: 0.28-0.84). Patients receiving DBS were more likely than controls to receive care for falls (HR: 1.56, 95% CI: 1.19-2.05) and home care (HR: 1.59, 95% CI: 1.32-1.90), while long-term care admission was similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS Receiving DBS may increase survival for younger PD patients who undergo DBS. Future studies should examine whether survival benefits may be attributed to effects on PD or the absence of comorbidities that influence mortality.
Collapse
|
6
|
Fabbri M, Zibetti M, Rizzone MG, Giannini G, Borellini L, Stefani A, Bove F, Bruno A, Calandra-Buonaura G, Modugno N, Piano C, Peppe A, Ardolino G, Romagnolo A, Artusi CA, Berchialla P, Montanaro E, Cortelli P, Luigi R, Eleopra R, Minafra B, Pacchetti C, Tufo T, Cogiamanian F, Lopiano L. Should We Consider Deep Brain Stimulation Discontinuation in Late-Stage Parkinson's Disease? Mov Disord 2020; 35:1379-1387. [PMID: 32449542 DOI: 10.1002/mds.28091] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/06/2020] [Revised: 04/08/2020] [Accepted: 04/15/2020] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Subthalamic deep brain stimulation (STN-DBS) effects may decrease with Parkinson's disease (PD) progression. There is no indication if, when, and how to consider the interruption of DBS treatment in late-stage PD. The objective of the current study was to investigate the percentage of "poor stimulation responders" among late-stage PD patients for elaborating an algorithm to decide whether and when DBS discontinuation may be considered. METHODS Late-stage PD patients (Hoehn Yahr stage ≥4 and Schwab and England Scale <50 in medication on/stimulation on condition) treated with STN-DBS for at least 5 years underwent a crossover, double-blind, randomized evaluation of acute effects of stimulation. Physicians, caregivers, and patients were blinded to stimulation conditions. Poor stimulation responders (MDS-UPDRS part III change <10% between stimulation on/medication off and stimulation off/medication off) maintained the stimulation off/medication on condition for 1 month for open-label assessment. RESULTS Thirty-six patients were included. The acute effect of stimulation was significant (17% MDS-UPDRS part III), with 80% of patients classified as "good responders." Seven patients were classified as "poor stimulation responders," and the stimulation was switched off, but in 4 cases the stimulation was switched back "on" because of worsening of parkinsonism and dysphagia with a variable time delay (up to 10 days). No serious adverse effects occurred. CONCLUSIONS The vast majority of late-stage PD patients (92%) show a meaningful response to STN-DBS. Effects of stimulation may take days to disappear after its discontinuation. We present a safe and effective decisional algorithm that could guide physicians and caregivers in making challenging therapeutic decisions in late-stage PD. © 2020 International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Margherita Fabbri
- Department of Neuroscience "Rita Levi Montalcini,", University of Torino, Turin, Italy.,Center CIC1436, Departments of Clinical Pharmacology and Neurosciences, NS-Park/FCRIN network and NeuroToul Center of Excellence for Neurodegeneration, INSERM, University Hospital of Toulouse and University of Toulouse, Toulouse, France.,Department of Neurosciences, Clinical Investigation Center CIC 1436, Parkinson Toulouse Expert Center, NS-Park/FCRIN Network and NeuroToul COEN Center, Toulouse University Hospital; INSERM; University of Toulouse 3, Toulouse, France
| | - Maurizio Zibetti
- Department of Neuroscience "Rita Levi Montalcini,", University of Torino, Turin, Italy
| | - Mario Giorgio Rizzone
- Department of Neuroscience "Rita Levi Montalcini,", University of Torino, Turin, Italy
| | - Giulia Giannini
- IRCCS Istituto delle Scienze Neurologiche di Bologna, Bologna, Italy.,Department of Biomedical and NeuroMotor Sciences (DIBINEM), Alma Mater Studiorum, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | - Linda Borellini
- U.O. Neurofisiopatologia, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milano, Italy
| | - Alessandro Stefani
- Department of System Medicine, UOSD Parkinson, University of Rome "Tor Vergata,", Rome, Italy
| | - Francesco Bove
- U.O.C. Neurologia, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy
| | | | - Giovanna Calandra-Buonaura
- IRCCS Istituto delle Scienze Neurologiche di Bologna, Bologna, Italy.,Department of Biomedical and NeuroMotor Sciences (DIBINEM), Alma Mater Studiorum, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | | | - Carla Piano
- U.O.C. Neurologia, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy
| | | | - Gianluca Ardolino
- U.O. Neurofisiopatologia, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milano, Italy
| | - Alberto Romagnolo
- Department of Neuroscience "Rita Levi Montalcini,", University of Torino, Turin, Italy
| | - Carlo Alberto Artusi
- Department of Neuroscience "Rita Levi Montalcini,", University of Torino, Turin, Italy
| | - Paola Berchialla
- Department of Clinical and Biological Sciences, University of Torino, Torino, Italy
| | - Elisa Montanaro
- Department of Neuroscience "Rita Levi Montalcini,", University of Torino, Turin, Italy
| | - Pietro Cortelli
- IRCCS Istituto delle Scienze Neurologiche di Bologna, Bologna, Italy.,Department of Biomedical and NeuroMotor Sciences (DIBINEM), Alma Mater Studiorum, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | - Romito Luigi
- Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Movement Disorders Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Neurologico Carlo Besta, Milan, Italy
| | - Roberto Eleopra
- Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Movement Disorders Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Neurologico Carlo Besta, Milan, Italy
| | - Brigida Minafra
- Parkinson and Movement Disorder Unit, IRCCS Mondino Foundation, Pavia, Italy
| | - Claudio Pacchetti
- Parkinson and Movement Disorder Unit, IRCCS Mondino Foundation, Pavia, Italy
| | - Tommaso Tufo
- U.O.C. Neurochirurgia, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy
| | - Filippo Cogiamanian
- U.O. Neurofisiopatologia, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milano, Italy
| | - Leonardo Lopiano
- Department of Neuroscience "Rita Levi Montalcini,", University of Torino, Turin, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Fischer DL, Sortwell CE. BDNF provides many routes toward STN DBS-mediated disease modification. Mov Disord 2018; 34:22-34. [PMID: 30440081 PMCID: PMC6587505 DOI: 10.1002/mds.27535] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/17/2018] [Revised: 09/18/2018] [Accepted: 09/23/2018] [Indexed: 01/05/2023] Open
Abstract
The concept that subthalamic nucleus deep brain stimulation (STN DBS) may be disease modifying in Parkinson's disease (PD) is controversial. Several clinical trials that enrolled subjects with late‐stage PD have come to disparate conclusions on this matter. In contrast, some clinical studies in early‐ to midstage subjects have suggested a disease‐modifying effect. Dopaminergic innervation of the putamen is essentially absent in PD subjects within 4 years after diagnosis, indicating that any neuroprotective therapy, including STN DBS, will require intervention within the immediate postdiagnosis interval. Preclinical prevention and early intervention paradigms support a neuroprotective effect of STN DBS on the nigrostriatal system via increased brain‐derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF). STN DBS‐induced increases in BDNF provide a multitude of mechanisms capable of ameliorating dysfunction and degeneration in the parkinsonian brain. A biomarker for measuring brain‐derived neurotrophic factor‐trkB signaling, though, is not available for clinical research. If a prospective clinical trial were to examine whether STN DBS is disease modifying, we contend the strongest rationale is not dependent on a preclinical neuroprotective effect per se, but on the myriad potential mechanisms whereby STN DBS‐elicited brain‐derived neurotrophic factor‐trkB signaling could provide disease modification. © 2018 The Authors. Movement Disorders published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- D Luke Fischer
- Department of Translational Science & Molecular Medicine, College of Human Medicine, Michigan State University, Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
| | - Caryl E Sortwell
- Department of Translational Science & Molecular Medicine, College of Human Medicine, Michigan State University, Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA.,Hauenstein Neuroscience Center, Mercy Health St. Mary's, Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
| |
Collapse
|