1
|
Xie H, Ma J, Ji T, Liu Q, Cai L, Wu Y. Vagus nerve stimulation in children with drug-resistant epilepsy of monogenic etiology. Front Neurol 2022; 13:951850. [PMID: 36119689 PMCID: PMC9475310 DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2022.951850] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/24/2022] [Accepted: 08/15/2022] [Indexed: 11/24/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Han Xie
- Department of Pediatrics, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China
- Pediatric Epilepsy Center, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Jiayi Ma
- Department of Pediatrics, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China
- Pediatric Epilepsy Center, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Taoyun Ji
- Department of Pediatrics, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China
- Pediatric Epilepsy Center, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Qingzhu Liu
- Pediatric Epilepsy Center, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Lixin Cai
- Pediatric Epilepsy Center, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Ye Wu
- Department of Pediatrics, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China
- Pediatric Epilepsy Center, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China
- *Correspondence: Ye Wu
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Liu TT, Morais A, Takizawa T, Mulder I, Simon BJ, Chen SP, Wang SJ, Ayata C, Yen JC. Efficacy profile of noninvasive vagus nerve stimulation on cortical spreading depression susceptibility and the tissue response in a rat model. J Headache Pain 2022; 23:12. [PMID: 35062860 PMCID: PMC8903561 DOI: 10.1186/s10194-022-01384-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/12/2021] [Accepted: 12/29/2021] [Indexed: 11/23/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Noninvasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS) has recently emerged as a promising therapy for migraine. We previously demonstrated that vagus nerve stimulation inhibits cortical spreading depression (CSD), the electrophysiological event underlying migraine aura and triggering headache; however, the optimal nVNS paradigm has not been defined. Methods Various intensities and doses of nVNS were tested to improve efficacy on KCl-evoked CSD frequency and electrical threshold of CSD in a validated rat model. Chronic efficacy was evaluated by daily nVNS delivery for four weeks. We also examined the effects of nVNS on neuroinflammation and trigeminovascular activation by western blot and immunohistochemistry. Results nVNS suppressed susceptibility to CSD in an intensity-dependent manner. Two 2-minute nVNS 5 min apart afforded the highest efficacy on electrical CSD threshold and frequency of KCl-evoked CSD. Daily nVNS for four weeks did not further enhance efficacy over a single nVNS 20 min prior to CSD. The optimal nVNS also attenuated CSD-induced upregulation of cortical cyclooxygenase-2, calcitonin gene-related peptide in trigeminal ganglia, and c-Fos expression in trigeminal nucleus caudalis. Conclusions Our study provides insight on optimal nVNS parameters to suppress CSD and suggests its benefit on CSD-induced neuroinflammation and trigeminovascular activation in migraine treatment. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s10194-022-01384-1.
Collapse
|
4
|
Liu S, Xiong Z, Wang J, Tang C, Deng J, Zhang J, Guo M, Guan Y, Zhou J, Zhai F, Luan G, Li T. Efficacy and potential predictors of vagus nerve stimulation therapy in refractory postencephalitic epilepsy. Ther Adv Chronic Dis 2022; 13:20406223211066738. [PMID: 35070253 PMCID: PMC8771757 DOI: 10.1177/20406223211066738] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/19/2021] [Accepted: 11/24/2021] [Indexed: 01/08/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) is a therapeutic approach for patients with refractory postencephalitic epilepsy (PEE), which is characterized by drug resistance and disappointing surgical outcomes. However, the efficacy of VNS has not yet been studied in patients with refractory PEE. The present study aimed to demonstrate the efficacy of VNS and evaluate potential clinical predictors in patients with refractory PEE. METHODS We retrospectively collected the outcomes of VNS with at least a 1-year follow-up in all patients with refractory PEE. Subgroups were classified as responders and non-responders according to the efficacy of VNS (⩾50% or < 50% reduction in seizure frequency). Preoperative data were analyzed to screen for potential predictors of VNS responsiveness. RESULTS A total of 42 refractory PEE patients who underwent VNS therapy were enrolled, with an average age of 21.13 ± 9.70 years. Seizure frequency was reduced by more than 50% in 64.25% of patients, and 7.14% of patients achieved seizure-free events after VNS therapy. In addition, the response rates increased over time, with 40.5%, 50.0% and 57.1%, respectively at 6 months, 12 months, and 24 months after VNS therapy. Preoperative duration of epilepsy, monthly seizure frequency, and spatial distribution of interictal epileptic discharges (IEDs) were correlated with responders (p < 0.05) in the univariate analysis. Further multivariate regression analysis demonstrated that refractory PEE patients with high monthly seizure frequency or Focal IEDs (focal or multifocal epileptiform discharges) achieved better efficacy on VNS (p = 0.010, p = 0.003, respectively). CONCLUSION VNS is an effective palliative therapy for patients with refractory PEE. Focal IEDs (focal or multifocal epileptiform discharges) and high seizure frequency were potential preoperative predictors of effectiveness after VNS therapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Siqi Liu
- Department of Brain Institute, Center of Epilepsy, Beijing Institute for Brain Disorders, Beijing Key Laboratory of Epilepsy Research, Sanbo Brain Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China
| | - Zhonghua Xiong
- Department of Brain Institute, Center of Epilepsy, Beijing Institute for Brain Disorders, Beijing Key Laboratory of Epilepsy Research, Sanbo Brain Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China
| | - Jing Wang
- Department of Neurology, Center of Epilepsy, Beijing Institute for Brain Disorders, Sanbo Brain Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China
| | - Chongyang Tang
- Department of Brain Institute, Center of Epilepsy, Beijing Institute for Brain Disorders, Beijing Key Laboratory of Epilepsy Research, Sanbo Brain Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China
| | - Jiahui Deng
- Department of Brain Institute, Center of Epilepsy, Beijing Institute for Brain Disorders, Beijing Key Laboratory of Epilepsy Research, Sanbo Brain Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China
| | - Jing Zhang
- Department of Brain Institute, Center of Epilepsy, Beijing Institute for Brain Disorders, Beijing Key Laboratory of Epilepsy Research, Sanbo Brain Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China
| | - Mengyi Guo
- Department of Brain Institute, Center of Epilepsy, Beijing Institute for Brain Disorders, Beijing Key Laboratory of Epilepsy Research, Sanbo Brain Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China
| | - Yuguang Guan
- Department of Brain Institute, Center of Epilepsy, Beijing Institute for Brain Disorders, Beijing Key Laboratory of Epilepsy Research, Sanbo Brain Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China
| | - Jian Zhou
- Department of Brain Institute, Center of Epilepsy, Beijing Institute for Brain Disorders, Beijing Key Laboratory of Epilepsy Research, Sanbo Brain Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China
| | - Feng Zhai
- Department of Brain Institute, Center of Epilepsy, Beijing Institute for Brain Disorders, Beijing Key Laboratory of Epilepsy Research, Sanbo Brain Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China
| | - Guoming Luan
- Department of Brain Institute, Center of Epilepsy, Beijing Institute for Brain Disorders, Beijing Key Laboratory of Epilepsy Research, Sanbo Brain Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China
| | - Tianfu Li
- Department of Neurology, Center of Epilepsy, Beijing Institute for Brain Disorders, Sanbo Brain Hospital, Capital Medical University, XiangshanYikesong 50, Haidian District, Beijing 100093, China
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Mao H, Chen Y, Ge Q, Ye L, Cheng H. Short- and Long-Term Response of Vagus Nerve Stimulation Therapy in Drug-Resistant Epilepsy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Neuromodulation 2021; 25:327-342. [PMID: 35396068 DOI: 10.1111/ner.13509] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/12/2021] [Revised: 06/22/2021] [Accepted: 06/29/2021] [Indexed: 01/24/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To compare the short- and long-term efficacies as well as tolerability of vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) for the patients with drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) in comparison with status at baseline. MATERIALS AND METHODS We conducted a specific and systematic search in online data bases for relevant literature published prior to December 2020. The literature retrieved, including randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies, were then reviewed, and analyzed. A fixed-effect model was used to evaluate the pooled odds ratio (OR) of responder rates and complications associated with RCTs. A random-effect model was used to generate overall responder rates and overall incidences of complication. RESULTS A total of 61 studies, featuring 5223 patients, were included in our study. The pooled ORs of responder rates, hoarseness/voice change, throat pain, coughing, dyspnea, paresthesia, muscle pain, and headache during the short-term phase were 2.195 (p = 0.001), 5.527 (p = 0.0001), 0.935 (p = 0.883), 1.119 (p = 0.655), 2.901 (p = 0.005), 1.775 (p = 0.061), 3.606 (p = 0.123), and 0.928 (p = 0.806), respectively. The overall responder rates in 3, 6, 12, 24, 36, 48, and 60 months postoperatively were 0.421, 0.455, 0.401, 0.451, 0.482, 0.502, and 0.508, respectively. The overall incidences of complication were 0.274 for hoarseness/voice change, 0.099 for throat pain, 0.133 for coughing, 0.099 for dyspnea, 0.102 for paresthesia, 0.062 for muscle pain, 0.101 for headache, 0.015 for dysphagia, 0.013 for neck pain, 0.040 for infection, 0.030 for lead fracture, 0.019 for vocal cord palsy, and 0.020 for device malfunction, respectively. CONCLUSIONS The estimating of efficacy and tolerability, using data from the existing literature, indicated VNS therapy is a safe and effective treatment option for patients with DRE.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hongliang Mao
- Department of Neurosurgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Hefei, China.,First Clinical Medical College, Anhui Medical University, Hefei, China
| | - Yonghao Chen
- First Clinical Medical College, Anhui Medical University, Hefei, China
| | - Qintao Ge
- First Clinical Medical College, Anhui Medical University, Hefei, China
| | - Lei Ye
- Department of Neurosurgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Hefei, China
| | - Hongwei Cheng
- Department of Neurosurgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Hefei, China
| |
Collapse
|