An Observational Report of Worsening Seizures with Increase in Total Charge Delivered Per Day by Vagus Nerve Stimulation in 4 Patients with Lennox–Gastaut Syndrome

Callosotomy vs Vagus Nerve Stimulation in the Treatment of Lennox-Gastaut Syndrome: A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Lennox-Gastaut syndrome (LGS) is a severe drug-resistant epileptic syndrome. Palliative treatments such as corpus callosotomy (CC) and vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) have emerged as treatments to reduce the number of seizures in patients. The aim of this study is to compare the effectiveness of CC and VNS in patients with LGS studied in the last 30 years.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis and collected papers from PubMed (MEDLINE), Ovidsp, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library data bases. The articles analyzed were published between January 1990 and December 2020. Keywords were chosen based on internal and external validation in the PubMed data base (the analysis is available in the Supplementary Data Supplementary Appendix). Prospective or retrospective case reports (n ≥ 2), case series, cohort studies, or case-control studies involving patients with LGS were included in the analysis. We selected studies that had no age or sex restriction and that provided data on seizures before and after treatments. Studies not written in English, published without peer review, or not indexed in the data bases were excluded. Other exclusion criteria were the absence of seizure data and the impossibility of extracting this information from the studies. To analyze the results, we used the random-effects model based on the assessment of heterogeneity (I² statistics) in two scenarios. In scenario 1, we assessed the incidence of patients with a seizure reduction ≥ 50%; in scenario 2, we assessed the incidence of patients with a seizure reduction > 0%.

RESULTS

Of the 7418 articles found using the keywords, 32 were considered eligible. Of these, 18 articles were on VNS (175 patients) and 14 on CC (107 patients). For scenario 1 (seizure reduction ≥ 50%), CC had an incidence of 65% (95% CI, 37%-94%), with an I² value of 82.7%; VNS had an incidence of 34% (95% CI, 11%-57%), with an I² value of 80.7%. For scenario 2 (seizure reduction > 0%), CC had an incidence of 80% (95% CI, 58%-100%), with an I² value of 84.7%; VNS had an incidence of 64% (95% CI, 38%-89%), with an I² value of 90.8%. There was an overlap of confidence intervals, with no statistical difference between the treatments in both scenarios.

DISCUSSION

Our analysis of LGS showed that the CC and VNS treatments are significantly beneficial to reducing seizures, without superiority between them.