Vagus nerve stimulation in pediatric epileptic syndromes

Efficacy and Safety of Vagus Nerve Stimulation in Lennox-Gastaut Syndrome: A Scoping Review

Lennox-Gastaut syndrome (LGS) is a severe developmental and epileptic encephalopathy characterized by drug-resistant seizures, cognitive impairments, and abnormal electroencephalographic patterns. Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) is a widely used neuromodulation therapy for LGS, but its effects on seizure outcomes, different seizure types, non-seizure outcomes, and adverse events in this population have not been comprehensively reviewed. To conduct a scoping review on the use of VNS in LGS, a literature search was performed in PubMed, OVID, Web of Science, and Embase from inception to 9 June 2024, using relevant keywords and without restrictions on study design. The search yielded forty eligible studies (twenty-four retrospective cohorts, fourteen prospective cohorts, and two registry analyses) comprising 1400 LGS patients treated with VNS. No randomized controlled trials were identified. Across studies, the median seizure reduction ranged from 20.6% to 65%, with 0% to 100% of patients achieving a ≥50% seizure reduction. No consistent preoperative biomarker of VNS responsiveness was identified in LGS. Although inconsistent among different studies, tonic, atonic, and tonic-clonic seizures responded best, while focal seizures responded worst. Improvements in seizure severity, alertness, and quality of life were reported in some studies, but cognitive and adaptive functioning generally remained unchanged. Adverse events were mostly mild and transient, including hoarseness, cough, and paresthesia. Device-related complications and infections were uncommon. In conclusion, further research is needed to better understand VNS's position in the evolving LGS treatment landscape and its cost effectiveness.

Rapid titration of VNS therapy reduces time-to-response in epilepsy

BACKGROUND

Common titration strategies for vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) prioritize monitoring of tolerability during small increases in stimulation intensity over several months. Prioritization of tolerability is partially based on how quickly side effects can be perceived and reported by patients, and the delayed onset of clinical benefits from VNS. However, many practices assess the clinical benefit of VNS at one year after implantation, and excessive caution during the titration phase can significantly delay target dosing or prevent a patient from reaching a therapeutic dose entirely.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to characterize the relationship between titration speed and the onset of clinical response to VNS.

METHODS

To assess differences between more aggressive titration strategies and more conservative ones, we analyzed the relationship between time-to-dose and time-to-response using a weighted Cox regression. The target dose was empirically defined as 1.625 mA output current delivered at 250 microsecond pulse widths at 20 Hz. Patient-level outcomes and dosing data were segregated into fast (<3 months), medium (3-6 months), and slow (>6 months) cohorts based on their titration speed.

RESULTS

The statistical model revealed a significant relationship between titration speed and onset of clinical response, defined as a 50% reduction from baseline in seizure frequency. Frequency of adverse events reported between each cohort trended toward higher rates of adverse events in adults who were titrated quickly; however, the pediatric population appeared to be more tolerant of titration at any speed.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis indicates that faster titration yields faster onset of clinical benefit and is especially practical in the pediatric population, though attempts to accelerate adult titration may still be warranted.

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.

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.

Up to What Extent Does Dravet Syndrome Benefit From Neurostimulation Techniques?

Background

Dravet syndrome (DS) is a refractory developmental and epileptic encephalopathy (EE) with a variety of comorbidities, including cognitive impairment, autism-like behavior, speech dysfunction, and ataxia, which can seriously affect the quality of life of patients and impose a great burden on society and their families. Currently, the pharmacological therapy is patient dependent and may work or not. Neuromodulation techniques, including vagus nerve stimulation (VNS), deep brain stimulation (DBS), transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), responsive neurostimulation (RNS), and chronic subthreshold cortical stimulation (CSCS), have become common adjuvant therapies for neurological diseases, but their efficacy in the treatment of DS is unknown.

Methods

We searched Web of Science, PubMed, and SpringerLink for all published cases related to the neuromodulation techniques of DS until January 15, 2022. The systematic review was supplemented with relevant articles from the references. The results reported by each study were summarized narratively.

Results

The Web of science, PubMed and SpringerLink search yielded 258 items. A total of 16 studies published between 2016 and 2021 met the final inclusion criteria. Overall, 16 articles (109 cases) were included in this study, among which fifteen (107 patients) were involved VNS, and one (2 patients) was involved DBS. After VNS implantation, seizures were reduced to ≥50% in 60 cases (56%), seizure free were found in 8 cases (7.5%). Only two DS patients received DBS treatment, and the initial outcomes of DBS implantation were unsatisfactory. The seizures significantly improved over time for both DBS patients after the addition of antiepileptic drugs.

Conclusion

More than half of the DS patients benefited from VNS, and VNS may be effective in the treatment of DS. However, it is important to note that VNS does not guarantee improvement of seizures, and there is a risk of infection and subsequent device failure. Although DBS is a safe and effective strategy for the treatment of refractory epilepsy, the role of DBS in DS needs further study, as the sample size was small. Thus far, there is no strong evidence for the role of DBS in DS.

The role of vagus nerve stimulation in genetic etiologies of drug-resistant epilepsy: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) affects many children. Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) may improve seizure control; however, its role in children with genetic etiologies of epilepsy is not well described. The authors systematically reviewed the literature to examine the effectiveness of VNS in this cohort.

METHODS

In January 2021, the authors performed a systematic review of the PubMed/MEDLINE, SCOPUS/Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases to investigate the impact of VNS on seizure outcomes in children with genetic etiologies of epilepsy. Primary outcomes included seizure freedom rate, ≥ 90% seizure reduction rate, and ≥ 50% seizure reduction rate. Secondary outcomes were seizure severity and quality of life (QOL), including cognitive, functional, and behavioral outcomes. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed.

RESULTS

The authors identified 125 articles, of which 47 with 216 nonduplicate patients were analyzed. Common diagnoses were Dravet syndrome (DS) (92/216 patients [42.6%]) and tuberous sclerosis complex (TSC) (63/216 [29.2%]). Seizure freedom was not reported in any patient with DS; the pooled proportion (95% CI) of patients with ≥ 50% seizure reduction was 41% (21%-58%). Secondary cognitive outcomes of VNS were variable in DS patients, but these patients demonstrated benefits in seizure duration and status epilepticus. In TSC patients, the pooled (95% CI) seizure freedom rate was 40% (12%-71%), ≥ 90% seizure reduction rate was 31% (8%-56%), and ≥ 50% reduction rate was 68% (48%-91%). Regarding the secondary outcomes of VNS in TSC patients, several studies reported decreased seizure severity and improved QOL outcomes. There was limited evidence regarding the use of VNS to treat patients with other genetic etiologies of epilepsy, such as mitochondrial disease, Rett syndrome, Doose syndrome, Landau-Kleffner syndrome, Aicardi syndrome, Angelman syndrome, ring chromosome 20 syndrome, and lissencephaly; variable responses were reported in a limited number of cases.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors conducted a systematic review of VNS outcomes in children with genetic etiologies of DRE. Among the most studied conditions, patients with TSC had substantial seizure reduction and improvements in QOL, whereas those with DS had less robust seizure reduction. Increased testing, diagnosis, and long-term follow-up studies are necessary to better characterize VNS response in these children.

Comparison of traditional and closed loop vagus nerve stimulation for treatment of pediatric drug-resistant epilepsy: A propensity-matched retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

For epilepsy patients with drug-resistant, unresectable epilepsy, vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) is an option for seizure control. Approximately 40-70% of patients will achieve ≥50% seizure reduction with VNS. New closed loop VNS models detect ictal tachycardia and responsively stimulate the vagus nerve. The effectiveness of closed loop VNS compared to traditional VNS for pediatric epilepsy is unknown.

METHODS

An 11-year retrospective electronic medical record review at Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh was performed. Patients with drug-resistant epilepsy who underwent VNS implantation were included. Patients were divided into groups based on VNS model: traditional versus closed loop. Those who transitioned from traditional to closed loop VNS were excluded. Given potential for selection bias, propensity scores matching was utilized to compare traditional to closed loop VNS patients. Patients with focal versus generalized epilepsy were also separately analyzed. The primary outcome was "VNS response", defined as at least 50% seizure frequency reduction from baseline.

RESULTS

A total of 320 patients were included in this sample. The percentage of matched patients (total n = 220: n = 179 traditional VNS, n = 41 closed loop VNS) who responded to VNS after one year of therapy was 43% for traditional VNS and 39% for closed loop VNS (p = 0.64). After two years of therapy, a higher proportion of closed loop VNS patients than traditional VNS patients responded to VNS among all subgroups, though no differences were statistically significant (p>0.05). Notably, for those with generalized epilepsy, 73% of closed loop patients responded to VNS compared to only 46% of traditional patients (p = 0.10). After two years of VNS therapy, patients were taking approximately the same quantity of antiseizure medications as baseline (change of +0.074 +/- 0.90 ) with no difference between VNS models (p = 0.87).

SIGNIFICANCE

Among pediatric patients with drug-resistant epilepsy, closed loop VNS trends towards a higher rate of VNS response after two years of treatment, especially among generalized epilepsy patients. Neither model of VNS allows patients to reduce antiseizure medication quantity after two years.

Long-term results of vagus nerve stimulation in children with Dravet syndrome: Time-dependent, delayed antiepileptic effect

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess the long-term outcomes of vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) in children with pharmaco-resistant Dravet syndrome (DS).

METHODS

We enrolled 22 patients with pharmaco-resistant DS who underwent VNS implantation at Severance Children's Hospital from March 2005 to October 2020. Efficacy and tolerability were assessed at 3, 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, and 36 months after VNS implantation. Efficacy was measured as the percentage reduction in seizure frequency at each follow-up compared with the baseline (pre-implantation) values.

RESULTS

Median patient age at VNS implantation was 10.0 years (interquartile range 7.7-13.3). The median follow-up period was 4.3 years (interquartile range 3.0-6.5) after VNS implantation. All cases were followed up for ≥2 years after VNS implantation. Three (13.6 %) patients maintained seizure freedom for ≥1 year. Among them, one achieved seizure freedom after 30 months of VNS. More than 50 % reduction in seizure frequency was observed in 36.4 % (8/22), 54.5 % (12/22), and 63.2 % (12/19) of the patients at 12, 24, and 36 months, respectively. The median percent reduction in seizure frequency was 18.8 %, 50.6 %, and 60.0 % at 12, 24, and 36 months, respectively. Compared with the baseline value, the seizure frequency was significantly lower at 24, 30, and 36 months, as well as at the longest follow-up period (p < 0.05, Wilcoxon signed-rank test). The symptom that was mostly associated with adverse events was hoarseness (4/22, 18.2 %); however, they had temporary or minimal effects on activities of daily living.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings demonstrate that VNS therapy allows long-term, progressive, and time-dependent improvement in seizure control for pharmaco-resistant DS. Clinicians should be aware of the delayed VNS efficacy over the years and should encourage long-term VNS maintenance by patients.

Saudi Arabian Consensus Statement on Vagus Nerve Stimulation for Refractory Epilepsy

Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) is an approved adjunctive therapy for refractory epilepsy and used in patients who are not candidates for resective epilepsy surgery. In Saudi Arabia, VNS device implantation is being performed since 2008 by several comprehensive epilepsy programs, but with variable protocols. Therefore, to standardize the use of VNS, a task force was established to create a national consensus. This group consisted of epileptologists, epilepsy surgeons and a VNS nurse coordinator working in comprehensive epilepsy centers and dealing with refractory epilepsy cases. The group intensively reviewed the literature using Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Library, in addition to physician's manual. Evidence is reported as three stages: preimplantation and patient selection, a perioperative phase involving all stakeholders and post-operative care with specific programming pathways.

Efficacy of vagus nerve stimulation for drug-resistant epilepsy in children age six and younger

OBJECTIVES

The objective of the study were to examine the safety and efficacy of vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) for reducing seizure frequency and antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) in children younger than six years and to examine long-term VNS efficacy for children who receive the device at ages 1-3 and at ages 4-6.

METHODS

We conducted a 10-year retrospective analysis of VNS implantations at UPMC Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh. Relevant data were collected within 12 months of VNS implantation and at six months, one, two, and four years after VNS implantation.

RESULTS

This analysis included 99 patients ages 0-3 (n = 40) and 4-6 (n = 59) at first VNS implantation. Eighty-six patients followed up for ≥4 years. There were no significant differences between age at VNS implant (0-3 vs. 4-6) and seizure etiology or most seizure semiologies. Patients took an average of 3.01 ± 1.29 AEDs prior to VNS and 3.84 ± 1.68 AEDs at their latest follow-up. The overall response to VNS therapy (≥50% seizure reduction) at one year, two years, and four years after VNS implantation was 55%, 60%, and 52%, respectively. At two years, 59% of 0- to 3-year-old patients responded to VNS and 52% of 4- to 6-year-old patients responded to VNS. The overall major complication rate was 5.6%, consistent with VNS use for older age groups.

SIGNIFICANCE

This study demonstrates the safety and efficacy of VNS for children with drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) younger than six. One, two, and four years after VNS implantation, 55%, 60%, and 52% of these patients, respectively, achieved ≥50% reduction in seizure frequency. The safety of VNS is also comparable with older, better studied, age groups. Based on these data, VNS therapy should be considered for children younger than six.

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.

Different modalities of invasive neurostimulation for epilepsy

Epilepsy affects 1% of the general population, about one-third of which is pharmacologically resistant. Uncontrolled seizures are associated with an increased risk of traumatic injury and sudden unexpected death of epilepsy. There is a considerable psychological and financial burden on caregivers of patients with epilepsy, particularly among pediatric patients. Epilepsy surgery, when indicated, is the most promising cure for epilepsy. However, when surgery is contraindicated or refused by the patient, neurostimulation is an alternative palliative approach, albeit with a lower chance of entirely curing patients of seizures. There are many options for neurostimulation. The three most commonly used invasive neurostimulation procedures that consistently show evidence of being safe and efficacious are vagal nerve stimulation, responsive neuro stimulation, or anterior thalamic nucleus deep brain stimulation. The goal of this review is to summarize the current evidence supporting the use of these three techniques, which are approved by most regulatory bodies, and discuss different factors that may enable epilepsy surgeons to choose the most appropriate modality for each patient.

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.

Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) therapy update

Epilepsy affects millions of people worldwide. Approximately one-third have pharmacoresistant epilepsy, and of these, the majority are not candidates for epilepsy surgery. Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) therapy has been an option to treat pharmacoresistant seizures for 30 years. In this update, we will review the clinical data that support the device's efficacy in children, adolescents, and adults. We will also review its side-effect profile, quality of life and cost benefits, and the impact the device has on sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP). We will then discuss candidate selection and provide guidance on dosing and future models. Vagus nerve stimulation therapy is an effective treatment for many seizure types and epilepsy syndromes with a predictable and benign side-effect profile that supports its role as the most commonly prescribed device to treat pharmacoresistant epilepsy. "This article is part of the Supplement issue Neurostimulation for Epilepsy."

Heart rate variability in neonatal patients with seizures

OBJECTIVE

Seizures are frequently observed in neurological conditions affecting newborns. Since autonomic alterations are commonly associated with neonatal seizures (NS), we investigated the utility of heart rate variability (HRV) indexes of cardiac autonomic regulation for NS detection.

METHODS

HRV analysis was conducted on ECG tracings recorded during video-EEG monitoring in newborns with NS and matched-controls. The effects of gestational age on HRV were also evaluated.

RESULTS

Newborns with NS showed lower resting state HRV compared to controls. Moreover, seizure episodes were characterized by a short-lasting increase in vagal indexes of HRV. Pre-term newborns with NS had a lower HRV than full-term at rest. In pre-term newborns, no changes in HRV were observed before and during NS. On the contrary, full-term newborns showed significantly higher HRV before and during NS compared to the respective baseline values.

CONCLUSION

Our data point to resting autonomic impairment in newborns with NS. In addition, an increment in HRV has been observed during NS only in full term newborns.

SIGNIFICANCE

Although these findings do not allow validation of HRV measures for NS prediction and detection, they suggest that a putative protective vagal mechanism might be adopted when an advanced maturation of autonomic nervous system is achieved.

Treatment Strategies for Dravet Syndrome

Dravet syndrome (DS) is a medically refractory epilepsy that onsets in the first year of life with prolonged seizures, often triggered by fever. Over time, patients develop other seizure types (myoclonic, atypical absences, drops), intellectual disability, crouch gait and other co-morbidities (sleep problems, autonomic dysfunction). Complete seizure control is generally not achievable with current therapies, and the goals of treatment are to balance reduction of seizure burden with adverse effects of therapies. Treatment of co-morbidities must also be addressed, as they have a significant impact on the quality of life of patients with DS. Seizures are typically worsened with sodium-channel agents. Accepted first-line agents include clobazam and valproic acid, although these rarely provide adequate seizure control. Benefit has also been noted with stiripentol, topiramate, levetiracetam, the ketogenic diet and vagal nerve stimulation. Several agents presently in development, specifically fenfluramine and cannabidiol, have shown efficacy in clinical trials. Status epilepticus is a recurring problem for patients with DS, particularly in their early childhood years. All patients should be prescribed a home rescue therapy (usually a benzodiazepine) but should also have a written seizure action plan that outlines when rescue should be given and further steps to take in the local hospital if the seizure persists despite home rescue therapy.

Health Care Utilization Following Vagus Nerve Stimulation Therapy in Pediatric Epilepsy Patients From a Pediatric Accountable Care Organization

BACKGROUND

Vagus nerve stimulation has been a therapy for epilepsy approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for patients 4 and older and shown efficacy and safety in younger pediatric patients.

METHODS

The authors performed a retrospective analysis utilizing Medicaid claims from an accountable care organization to measure the intervention of vagus nerve stimulation therapy in regard to unplanned health care utilization. Thirteen unique patients were included who had vagus nerve stimulation therapy who had at least 6 months of continuous enrollment in a managed Medicaid health plan. Comparison with 12 months of data before and after vagus nerve stimulation implantation was performed.

RESULTS

Patients had statistically significant fewer unplanned inpatient visits per patient per enrollment month after vagus nerve stimulation implantation.

CONCLUSION

Utilizing claims data, vagus nerve stimulation implantation demonstrates a reduction in unplanned hospitalizations.

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

Vagus Nerve Stimulation in children: A focus on intellectual disability

INTRODUCTION

Vagus Nerve Stimulation (VNS) can be an efficacious add-on treatment in patients with drug-resistant epilepsy, who are not eligible for surgery. Evidence of VNS efficacy in children with intellectual disability (ID) is scarce.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to review all available VNS data in the pediatric population (≤18 years old) and focus on the subpopulation with ID since appropriate treatment of these children is often challenging and complex.

METHODS

Cochrane, EMBASE, PubMed and MEDLINE were used to collect all research associated to VNS and ID (or synonyms) leading to a total of 37 studies. Seven studies showed the results of patients with ID and those without separately; thereby only these studies were included in the VNS meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Our meta-analysis showed that VNS was less effective in pediatric epilepsy patients with ID compared to those without ID (Mantel-Haenszel meta-analysis; p = 0.028, OR 0.18 (CI 95% 0.039-0.84)). However, there were no prospective controlled studies. Numerous studies reported quality of life (QoL) improvements in this subpopulation. The most common adverse events were transient and well tolerated. Side effects on cognition and behavior were not reported.

DISCUSSION

These results might be a reason to consider VNS early on in the treatment of this subgroup. The significantly greater amount of retrospective studies, differences in follow-up (FU), lack of control data, heterogeneous series and limited number of patients could have biased the outcome measurements. Hence, current data do not exclude VNS for children with drug-resistant epilepsy and ID but should be interpreted with caution.

Optimizing the Diagnosis and Management of Dravet Syndrome: Recommendations From a North American Consensus Panel

OBJECTIVES

To establish standards for early, cost-effective, and accurate diagnosis; optimal therapies for seizures; and recommendations for evaluation and management of comorbidities for children and adults with Dravet syndrome, using a modified Delphi process.

METHODS

An expert panel was convened comprising epileptologists with nationally recognized expertise in Dravet syndrome and parents of children with Dravet syndrome, whose experience and understanding was enhanced by their active roles in Dravet syndrome associations. Panelists were asked to base their responses to questions both on their clinical expertise and results of a literature review that was forwarded to each panelist. Three rounds of online questionnaires were conducted to identify areas of consensus and strength of that consensus, as well as areas of contention.

RESULTS

The panel consisted of 13 physicians and five family members. Strong consensus was reached regarding typical clinical presentation of Dravet syndrome, range of electroencephalography and magnetic resonance imaging findings, need for genetic testing, critical information that should be conveyed to families at diagnosis, priorities for seizure control and typical degree of control, seizure triggers and recommendations for avoidance, first- and second-line therapies for seizures, requirement and indications for rescue therapy, specific recommendations for comorbidity screening, and need for family support. Consensus was not as strong regarding later therapies, including vagus nerve stimulation and callosotomy, and for specific therapies of associated comorbidities. Beyond the initial treatment with benzodiazepines and use of valproate, there was no consensus on the optimal in-hospital management of convulsive status epilepticus.

CONCLUSIONS

We were able to identify areas where there was strong consensus that we hope will (1) inform health care providers on optimal diagnosis and management of patients with Dravet syndrome, (2) support reimbursement from insurance companies for genetic testing and Dravet syndrome-specific therapies, and (3) improve quality of life for patients with Dravet syndrome and their families by avoidance of unnecessary testing and provision of an early accurate diagnosis allowing optimal selection of therapeutic strategies.

Treatment of Dravet Syndrome

Dravet syndrome is among the most challenging electroclinical syndromes. There is a high likelihood of recurrent status epilepticus; seizures are medically refractory; and patients have multiple co-morbidities, including intellectual disability, behaviour and sleep problems, and crouch gait. Additionally, they are at significant risk of sudden unexplained death. This review will focus predominantly on the prophylactic medical management of seizures, addressing both first-line therapies (valproate and clobazam) as well as second-line (stiripentol, topiramate, ketogenic diet) or later options (levetiracetam, bromides, vagus nerve stimulation). Sodium channel agents-including carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine, phenytoin and lamotrigine-should be avoided, as they typically exacerbate seizures. Several agents in development may show promise, specifically fenfluramine and cannabidiol, but they need further evaluation in randomized, controlled trials. In addition to prophylactic treatment, all patients need home-rescue medication and a status epilepticus protocol that can be carried out in their local hospital. Families must be counselled on non-pharmacologic strategies to reduce seizure risk, including avoidance of triggers that commonly induce seizures (including hyperthermia, flashing lights and patterns). In addition to addressing seizures, holistic care for a patient with Dravet syndrome must involve a multidisciplinary team that includes specialists in physical, occupational and speech therapy, neuropsychology, social work and physical medicine.

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.

The neuropsychological outcome of pediatric patients with refractory epilepsy treated with VNS--A 24-month follow-up in Taiwan

OBJECTIVES

Multiple studies have reported the benefits of vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) on neuropsychological outcomes. The aim of this study was to investigate how VNS affects cognition and psychosocial adjustment in children with refractory epilepsy (RE), and to determine the efficacy of VNS in a Taiwanese population.

METHODS

We conducted a one-group pretest-posttest study on pediatric patients with RE. The study comprised 19 males and 18 females, all aged <18 years. We recorded seizure frequency at 3, 12, and 24 months after VNS device implantation. Intelligence quotients (IQ) were assessed using the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children - IV. The Parental Stress Index (PSI) scores were evaluated by a pediatric psychologist.

RESULTS

Vagus nerve stimulation device implantation significantly reduced seizure frequency at 3, 12 and 24 months, especially in young children (<12 years). No significant improvement in IQ test performance was observed, though there were significant improvements in the PSI, especially in young children.

CONCLUSIONS

Vagus nerve stimulation device implantation does not significantly improve cognition function, but it does significantly reduce seizure frequency and stress in parent-child relationships, especially in young children (<12 years). These findings suggest that VNS should be considered as an alternative therapy for patients proven to have seizures that are medically refractory, especially those younger than 12 years of age.

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.

Treatment of Generalized Convulsive Status Epilepticus in Pediatric Patients

Generalized convulsive status epilepticus (GCSE) is one of the most common neurologic emergencies and can be associated with significant morbidity and mortality if not treated promptly and aggressively. Management of GCSE is staged and generally involves the use of life support measures, identification and management of underlying causes, and rapid initiation of anticonvulsants. The purpose of this article is to review and evaluate published reports regarding the treatment of impending, established, refractory, and super-refractory GCSE in pediatric patients.

Vagus nerve stimulation for partial seizures

BACKGROUND

Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) is a neuromodulatory treatment that is used as an adjunctive therapy for treating people with medically refractory epilepsy. VNS consists of chronic intermittent electrical stimulation of the vagus nerve, delivered by a programmable pulse generator. The majority of people given a diagnosis of epilepsy have a good prognosis, and their seizures will be controlled by treatment with a single antiepileptic drug (AED), but up to 20%-30% of patients will develop drug-resistant epilepsy, often requiring treatment with combinations of AEDs. The aim of this systematic review was to overview the current evidence for the efficacy and tolerability of vagus nerve stimulation when used as an adjunctive treatment for people with drug-resistant partial epilepsy. This is an updated version of a Cochrane review published in Issue 7, 2010.

OBJECTIVES

To determine:(1) The effects on seizures of VNS compared to controls e.g. high-level stimulation compared to low-level stimulation (presumed sub-therapeutic dose); and(2) The adverse effect profile of VNS compared to controls e.g. high-level stimulation compared to low-level stimulation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group's Specialised Register (23 February 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 23 February 2015), MEDLINE (1946 to 23 February 2015), SCOPUS (1823 to 23 February 2015), ClinicalTrials.gov (23 February 2015) and ICTRP (23 February 2015). No language restrictions were imposed.

SELECTION CRITERIA

The following study designs were eligible for inclusion: randomised, double-blind, parallel or crossover studies, controlled trials of VNS as add-on treatment comparing high and low stimulation paradigms (including three different stimulation paradigms - duty cycle: rapid, mid and slow) and VNS stimulation versus no stimulation or a different intervention. Eligible participants were adults or children with drug-resistant partial seizures not eligible for surgery or who failed surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted data. The following outcomes were assessed: (a) 50% or greater reduction in total seizure frequency; (b) treatment withdrawal (any reason); (c) adverse effects; (d) quality of life; (e) cognition; (f) mood. Primary analyses were intention-to-treat. Sensitivity best and worst case analyses were also undertaken to account for missing outcome data. Pooled Risk Ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% Cl) were estimated for the primary outcomes of seizure frequency and treatment withdrawal. For adverse effects, pooled RRs and 99% CI's were calculated.

MAIN RESULTS

Five trials recruited a total of 439 participants and between them compared different types of VNS stimulation therapy. Baseline phase ranged from 4 to 12 weeks and double-blind treatment phases from 12 to 20 weeks in the five trials. Overall, two studies were rated as having a low risk of bias and three had an unclear risk of bias due to lack of reported information around study design. Effective blinding of studies of VNS is difficult due to the frequency of stimulation-related side effects such as voice alteration; this may limit the validity of the observed treatment effects. Four trials compared high frequency stimulation to low frequency stimulation and were included in quantitative syntheses (meta-analyses).The overall risk ratio (95% CI) for 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency across all studies was 1.73 (1.13 to 2.64) showing that high frequency VNS was over one and a half times more effective than low frequency VNS. For this outcome, we rated the evidence as being moderate in quality due to incomplete outcome data in one included study; however results did not vary substantially and remained statistically significant for both the best and worst case scenarios. The risk ratio (RR) for treatment withdrawal was 2.56 (0.51 to 12.71), however evidence for this outcome was rated as low quality due to imprecision of the result and incomplete outcome data in one included study. The RR of adverse effects were as follows: (a) voice alteration and hoarseness 2.17 (99% CI 1.49 to 3.17); (b) cough 1.09 (99% CI 0.74 to 1.62); (c) dyspnea 2.45 (99% CI 1.07 to 5.60); (d) pain 1.01 (99% CI 0.60 to 1.68); (e) paresthesia 0.78 (99% CI 0.39 to 1.53); (f) nausea 0.89 (99% CI 0.42 to 1.90); (g) headache 0.90 (99% CI 0.48 to 1.69); evidence of adverse effects was rated as moderate to low quality due to imprecision of the result and/or incomplete outcome data in one included study. No important heterogeneity between studies was found for any of the outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

VNS for partial seizures appears to be an effective and well tolerated treatment in 439 included participants from five trials. Results of the overall efficacy analysis show that VNS stimulation using the high stimulation paradigm was significantly better than low stimulation in reducing frequency of seizures. Results for the outcome "withdrawal of allocated treatment" suggest that VNS is well tolerated as withdrawals were rare. No significant difference was found in withdrawal rates between the high and low stimulation groups, however limited information was available from the evidence included in this review so important differences between high and low stimulation cannot be excluded . Adverse effects associated with implantation and stimulation were primarily hoarseness, cough, dyspnea, pain, paresthesia, nausea and headache, with hoarseness and dyspnea more likely to occur on high stimulation than low stimulation. However, the evidence on these outcomes is limited and of moderate to low quality. Further high quality research is needed to fully evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of VNS for drug resistant partial seizures.

The effects of vagus nerve stimulation on tryptophan metabolites in children with intractable epilepsy

BACKGROUND

The mechanism of action of vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) in intractable epilepsy is not entirely clarified. It is believed that VNS causes alterations in cytokines, which can lead to rebalancing the release of neurotoxic and neuroprotective tryptophan metabolites. We aimed to evaluate VNS effects on tryptophan metabolites and on epileptic seizures and investigated whether the antiepileptic effectiveness correlated with changes in tryptophan metabolism.

METHODS

Forty-one children with intractable epilepsy were included in a randomized, active-controlled, double-blind study. After a baseline period of 12 weeks, all children underwent implantation of a vagus nerve stimulator and entered a blinded active-controlled phase of 20 weeks. Half of the children received high-output (therapeutic) stimulation (n=21), while the other half received low-output (active control) stimulation (n=20). Subsequently, all children received high-output stimulation for another 19 weeks (add-on phase). Tryptophan metabolites were assessed in plasma and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) by use of liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) and compared between high- and low-output groups and between the end of both study phases and baseline. Seizure frequency was recorded using seizure diaries. Mood was assessed using Profile of Mood States (POMS) questionnaires.

RESULTS

Regarding tryptophan metabolites, anthranilic acid (AA) levels were significantly higher at the end of the add-on phase compared with baseline (p=0.002) and correlated significantly with improvement of mood (τ=-0.39, p=0.037) and seizure frequency reduction (τ=-0.33, p<0.01). No significant changes were found between high- and low-output groups regarding seizure frequency.

CONCLUSION

Vagus nerve stimulation induces a consistent increase in AA, a neuroprotective and anticonvulsant tryptophan metabolite. Moreover, increased AA levels are associated with improvement in mood and reduction of seizure frequency.

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.

Vagal nerve stimulation in children under 12 years old with medically intractable epilepsy

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to assess the efficacy and safety of vagal nerve stimulation (VNS) in children less than 12 years old operated on at the University Hospital Wales.

METHOD

Retrospective review of patients undergoing VNS insertion, over a 3-year period, was undertaken. All children had a minimum follow-up period of 2 years. Sixteen patients were identified via the paediatric epilepsy surgery database. A case note review and telephone evaluation was conducted. Seizure frequency using the McHugh classification was the primary outcome measure, with anti-epileptic drug (AED) use as a secondary outcome measure.

RESULTS

There were 10 males and 6 females. The mean time with epilepsy prior to surgery was 5.7 years and the mean age at the time of surgery was 7.6 years. Overall, nine (56 %) children experienced a reduction in their seizure frequency of 50 % or more. Of these, four (25 %) had a reduction of more than 80 %. Seven children (44 %) had no reduction in their seizure frequency, although two of these patients reported benefit regarding seizure control and post-ictal recovery. The VNS system was removed in two patients due to infection and no benefit, respectively. Half of the cohort (50 %) reduced the number of anti-epileptic drugs post-surgery, and there was an overall mean reduction of AED of 0.5.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that VNS is a safe and effective adjuvant therapy in children under 12 years old, with over half reporting significant benefit. Further studies are needed to enable preoperative selection of patients in order to maximise the potential benefit.

Surgical treatment of pediatric epileptic encephalopathies

Pediatric epileptiform encephalopathies are a group of neurologically devastating disorders related to uncontrolled ictal and interictal epileptic activity, with a poor prognosis. Despite the number of pharmacological options for treatment of epilepsy, many of these patients are drug resistant. For these patients with uncontrolled epilepsy, motor and/or neuropsychological deterioration is common. To prevent these secondary consequences, surgery is often considered as either a curative or a palliative option. Magnetic resonance imaging to look for epileptic lesions that may be surgically treated is an essential part of the workup for these patients. Many surgical procedures for the treatment of epileptiform encephalopathies have been reported in the literature. In this paper the evidence for these procedures for the treatment of pediatric epileptiform encephalopathies is reviewed.

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.

Efficacy of vagus nerve stimulation in brain tumor-associated intractable epilepsy and the importance of tumor stability

OBJECT

Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) is a viable option for patients with medically intractable epilepsy. However, there are no studies examining its effect on individuals with brain tumor-associated intractable epilepsy. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of VNS in patients with brain tumor-associated medically intractable epilepsy.

METHODS

Epilepsy surgery databases at 2 separate epilepsy centers were reviewed to identify patients in whom a VNS device was placed for tumor-related intractable epilepsy between January 1999 and December 2011. Preoperative and postoperative seizure frequency and type as well as antiepileptic drug (AED) regimens and degree of tumor progression were evaluated. Statistical analysis was performed using odds ratios and t-tests to examine efficacy.

RESULTS

Sixteen patients were included in the study. Eight patients (50%) had an improved outcome (Engel Class I, II, or III) with an average follow-up of 39.6 months. The mean reduction in seizure frequency was 41.7% (p = 0.002). There was no significant change in AED regimens. Seizure frequency decreased by 10.9% in patients with progressing tumors and by 65.6% in patients with stable tumors (p = 0.008).

CONCLUSIONS

Vagus nerve stimulation therapy in individuals with brain tumor-associated medically intractable epilepsy was shown to be comparably effective in regard to seizure reduction and response rates to the general population of VNS therapy patients. Outcomes were better in patients with stable as opposed to progressing tumors. The authors' findings support the recommendation of VNS therapy in patients with brain tumor-associated intractable epilepsy, especially in cases in which imminent tumor progression is not expected. Vagus nerve stimulation may not be indicated in more malignant tumors.

Long-term outcome after callosotomy or vagus nerve stimulation in consecutive prospective cohorts of children with Lennox-Gastaut or Lennox-like syndrome and non-specific MRI findings

PURPOSE

There is currently no resective (potentially curative) surgical option that is useful in patients with Lennox-Gastaut syndrome. Palliative procedures such as callosotomy (Cx), vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) or deep brain stimulation have been offered. We compared the outcomes after Cx or VNS in two consecutive prospective cohorts of patients with generalised epilepsy.

METHODS

Twenty-four patients underwent callosotomy from 2006 to 2007 (Group 1); 20 additional patients were submitted to VNS from 2008 to 2009 (Group 2). They had generalised epilepsy of the Lennox-Gastaut or Lennox-like type. They were submitted to a neurological interview and examination, interictal and ictal video-EEG, high resolution 1.5T MRI, and cognitive and quality of life evaluations. The two-year post-operative follow-up results were evaluated for each patient.

RESULTS

The final mean stimuli intensity was 3.0 mA in the Group 2 patients. Seizure-free patients accounted for 10% in Group 1 and none in Group 2. Ten and sixteen percent of the Group 1 and 2 patients, respectively, were non-responders. Improvements in attention and quality of life were noted in 85% of both Group 1 and 2 patients. Rupture of the secondary bilateral synchrony was noted in 85% of Group 1 patients; there was no EEG modification after VNS in Group 2. Both procedures were effective regarding the control of atypical absences and generalised tonic-clonic seizures. Both procedures were not effective in controlling tonic seizures. Callosotomy was very effective in reducing the frequency of atonic seizures, but VNS was ineffective. In contrast, callosotomy was not effective in reducing myoclonic seizures, whereas VNS was.

DISCUSSION

Callosotomy might be preferred as the primary treatment in children with Lennox-Gastaut syndrome, and no specific findings on MRI if atonic seizures prevail in the patient's clinical picture; when myoclonic seizures prevail, the same might hold true in favour of VNS. When atypical absence or generalised tonic-clonic seizures are the main concern, although both procedures carry similar effectiveness, VNS might be considered a good option as an initial approach, taking into account the adverse event profile. Patients should be advised that both procedures are not very effective in the treatment of tonic seizures.

lennox-Gastaut syndrome: an updateon treatment

Lennox-Gastaut syndrome (LGS) is a severe epileptic encephalopathy. Few current treatment options are effective in improving seizure control. This paper reviews the available treatments of LGS and discusses a new option in Canada, rufinamide. It is a wide spectrum anticonvulsant, approved in a number of countries for the treatment of LGS. In a randomized controlled trial in the LGS population, adjunctive rufinamide therapy has been shown to offer significantly greater reduction in total seizure frequency and tonic-atonic seizure frequency in comparison to placebo. Efficacy has been assessed over three years and appears to be sustained. Most adverse events were cognitive (e.g. somnolence) or gastrointestinal in nature and in many cases transient or mild. based on the efficacy and safety data on rufinamide obtained to date, this medication will provide additional benefits to patients with LGS in Canada and is an important consideration for our patients in the adjunctive treatment setting.

Behavioural and cognitive effects during vagus nerve stimulation in children with intractable epilepsy - a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND/AIMS

In addition to effects on seizure frequency in intractable epilepsy, multiple studies report benefits of vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) on behavioural outcomes and quality of life. The present study aims to investigate the effects of VNS on cognition, mood in general, depression, epilepsy-related restrictions and psychosocial adjustment in children with intractable epilepsy, as well as the relation between these effects and seizure reduction.

METHODS

We conducted a randomized, active-controlled, double-blinded, add-on study in 41 children (age 4-18) with medically refractory epilepsy. We performed cognitive and behavioural testing at baseline (12 weeks), at the end of the blinded phase (20 weeks) in children receiving either high-output or low-output (active control) stimulation, and at the end of the open label phase (19 weeks) with all children receiving high-output stimulation. Seizure frequency was recorded using seizure diaries.

RESULTS

VNS did not have a negative effect on cognition nor on psychosocial adjustment. At the end of the follow-up phase we noted an improvement of mood in general and the depression subscale for the entire group, unrelated to a reduction of seizure frequency. At the end of the blinded phase a ≥50% reduction of seizure frequency occurred in 16% of the high-stimulation group and 21% of the low-stimulation group. At the end of the open-label follow-up phase, 26% of the children experienced a seizure frequency reduction of 50% or more (responders).

CONCLUSIONS

VNS has additional beneficial effects in children with intractable epilepsy. As opposed to anti-epileptic drugs, there are no negative effects on cognition. Moreover, we observed an improvement of mood in general and depressed feelings in particular, irrespective of a reduction in seizure frequency. These beneficial effects should be taken into account when deciding whether to initiate or continue VNS treatment in these children.

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.

Vagus nerve stimulation for partial and generalized epilepsy from infancy to adolescence

OBJECT

Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) is approved by the FDA for the treatment of partial epilepsy in patients older than 12 years. Authors of the current study performed a large retrospective analysis and comparison of VNS outcomes in children with an age ≥ and < 12 years, including those with partial and generalized epilepsy.

METHODS

A retrospective review of the records of pediatric patients (age < 18 years) who had undergone primary VNS system implantation between 2001 and 2010 by a single pediatric neurosurgeon was undertaken. Considered data included demographics, epilepsy type (partial vs generalized), seizure frequency, seizure duration, postictal period duration, and antiepileptic medication use.

RESULTS

One hundred forty-six patients (49% female) were followed up for a mean of 41 months after VNS implantation. Thirty-two percent of patients had partial epilepsy and 68% had generalized epilepsy. After VNS system implantation, seizure frequency was reduced in 91% of patients, seizure duration in 50%, postictal period in 49%, and antiepileptic medication use in 75%. There was no significant difference in age, sex, or duration of follow-up according to epilepsy type. Neither was there any significant difference in seizure frequency reduction, seizure duration, postictal period, medication use, overall clinical improvement, or improvement in quality of life based on an age ≥ or < 12 years or epilepsy type.

CONCLUSIONS

Vagus nerve stimulation reduced both seizure frequency and antiepileptic medication use in the majority of pediatric patients regardless of sex, age cohort, or epilepsy type. Vagus nerve stimulation also reduced seizure duration and postictal period in approximately half of the pediatric patients. Contrary to expectation, children with partial epilepsy do not benefit from VNS at higher rates than those with generalized epilepsy.

Vagus nerve stimulation in children with intractable epilepsy: a randomized controlled trial

AIM

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) in children with intractable epilepsy on seizure frequency and severity and in terms of tolerability and safety.

METHOD

In this study, the first randomized active controlled trial of its kind in children, 41 children (23 males; 18 females; mean age at implantation 11y 2mo, SD 4y 2mo, range 3y 10mo-17y 8mo) were included. Thirty-five participants had localization-related epilepsy (25 symptomatic; 10 cryptogenic), while six participants had generalized epilepsy (four symptomatic; two idiopathic). During a baseline period of 12 weeks, seizure frequency and severity were recorded using seizure diaries and the adapted Chalfont Seizure Severity Scale (NHS3), after which the participants entered a blinded active controlled phase of 20 weeks. During this phase, half of the participants received high-output VNS (maximally 1.75mA) and the other half received low-output stimulation (0.25mA). Finally, all participants received high-output stimulation for 19 weeks. For both phases, seizure frequency and severity were assessed as during the baseline period. Overall satisfaction and adverse events were assessed by semi-structured interviews.

RESULTS

At the end of the randomized controlled blinded phase, seizure frequency reduction of 50% or more occurred in 16% of the high-output stimulation group and in 21% of the low-output stimulation group (p=1.00). There was no significant difference in the decrease in seizure severity between participants in the stimulation groups. Overall, VNS reduced seizure frequency by 50% or more in 26% of participants at the end of the add-on phase The overall seizure severity also improved (p<0.001).

INTERPRETATION

VNS is a safe and well-tolerated adjunctive treatment of epilepsy in children. Our results suggest that the effect of VNS on seizure frequency in children is limited. However, the possible reduction in seizure severity and improvement in well-being makes this treatment worth considering in individual children with intractable epilepsy.

Clinical outcomes, quality of life, and costs associated with implantation of vagus nerve stimulation therapy in pediatric patients with drug-resistant epilepsy

BACKGROUND

VNS (Vagus Nerve Stimulation Therapy) is approved in the USA to treat refractory epilepsy as adjunctive to antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) in patients ≥12 years with complex partial seizures.

AIMS

To evaluate clinical outcomes, quality-adjusted life years (QALY), and costs associated with VNS in pediatric patients with drug-resistant epilepsy in a real-world setting.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted using Medicaid data (USA). Patients had ≥1 neurologist visits with epilepsy diagnosis (ICD-9 345.xx, 780.3x), ≥1 procedure claims for VNS implantation, ≥1 AEDs, ≥6-months of Pre- and Post-VNS continuous enrollment. Pre-VNS period was 6-months and Post-VNS period extended from implantation until device removal, death, Medicaid disenrollment, or study end (up to 3 years). Incidence rate ratios (IRR) and costs ($2010) were estimated. QALYs were estimated using number of seizure-related events.

RESULTS

For patients 1-11 years old (N = 238), hospitalizations and emergency room visits were reduced Post-VNS vs. Pre-VNS (adjusted IRR = 0.73 [95% CI: 0.61-0.88] and 0.74 [95% CI: 0.65-0.83], respectively). Average total healthcare costs were lower Post-VNS vs. Pre-VNS ($18,437 vs. $18,839 quarterly [adjusted p = 0.052]). For patients 12-17 years old (N = 207), hospitalizations and status epilepticus events were reduced Post-VNS vs. Pre-VNS (adjusted IRR = 0.43 [95% CI: 0.34-0.54] and 0.25 [95% CI: 0.16-0.39], respectively). Average total healthcare costs were lower Post-VNS vs. Pre-VNS period ($14,546 vs. $19,695 quarterly [adjusted p = 0.002]). Lifetime QALY gain after VNS was 5.96 (patients 1-11 years) and 4.82 years (patients 12-17 years).

CONCLUSIONS

VNS in pediatric patients is associated with decreased resource use and epilepsy-related events, cost savings, and QALY gain.

Short-term results of vagus nerve stimulation in pediatric patients with refractory epilepsy

BACKGROUND

Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS), an alternative method to manage patients with medically intractable epilepsy, has shown favorable results in reducing seizure relapse and improvements in quality of life. In 1997, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the use of this device as an adjunctive therapy for intractable seizure in adults and adolescents older than 12 years of age.

METHODS

We present a preliminary study of pediatric patients, who suffered from medically intractable seizure and underwent VNS implantation after observation of the baseline seizure frequency. Classification of epileptic syndrome, seizure patterns, age of onset, seizure frequency reduction and adverse effects were recorded.

RESULTS

Patients who underwent VNS implantation included four adolescents and four children. The follow-up duration ranged from 9-33 months. All the patients were responders after the beginning of the stimulation. Five of the eight patients responded to VNS with a seizure frequency reduction rate > 50%, and four of the eight patients experienced a ≥ 90% seizure reduction. No significant adverse effects were noted in all patients during the observation period.

CONCLUSION

The effective management of medically intractable seizure remains challenging to most clinical physicians. In addition to ketogenic diet and epilepsy surgery, VNS provides an alternative way to manage this issue. Our results suggest that VNS is well tolerated in pediatric patients, and is a favorable and safe method of treating intractable seizure in common clinical practice.

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: the notre-dame hospital experience

PURPOSE

Retrospective study assessing the efficacy and tolerability of vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) for the treatment of refractory epilepsy at Notre-Dame Hospital.

METHODOLOGY

Chart review of all adult epileptic patients treated by VNS with ≥ 1 year follow-up. Responders were defined as patients with ≥ 50% reduction of baseline seizure frequency.

RESULTS

Thirty-four patients (14M; mean age = 29.9 yrs) received a VNS. Sub-pectoralis implantation (n = 25) was more frequent than subcutaneous (n = 9). Most patients suffered from intractable partial epilepsy. After 6 months, 12 months, 24 months, and 36 months, 14/34 patients (41%), 16/34 patients (47%), 17/30 patients (57%) and 12/20 patients (60%) respectively were responders. Two patients (6%) became seizure-free. Complications related to implantation were minor: eight cases of limited cervical hypoesthesia, two minor scar infections and one Horner syndrome. Adverse events (voice hoarseness, throat paresthesia, coughing) related to stimulation were generally mild and tended to wane over time. However, a reduction in seizure frequency did not translate into a reduction in medication, as only 9% of responders had less antiepileptic medication at last follow-up compared to baseline.

CONCLUSION

VNS as practiced at Notre-Dame hospital is an efficacious and safe treatment for refractory epilepsy. Quotas allotted to epilepsy centers in the province of Quebec should be lifted or increased to allow more patients to benefit from this therapeutic device.

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.

A new choice for the treatment of epilepsy: electrical auricula-vagus-stimulation

Preliminary reports have suggested that chronic, intermittent electrical stimulation of the cervical vagus nerve (VNS) is an effective treatment for patients who suffered from medically refractory epilepsy. But the traditional VNS is an invasive and implantable procedure that will bring some injury to the patient. Anatomic studies have confirmed the existence of auricular branch of the vagus nerve-Arnold nerve. The Arnold nerve mainly consists of afferent fibers and the superficial sites of the Arnold nerve are optimal for electrical stimulation. We hypothesized that electrical auricula-vagus-stimulation could be a new choice for the treatment of epilepsy.