Loss of long-term benefit from VIM-DBS in essential tremor: A secondary analysis of repeated measurements

Loss of Efficacy in Ventral Intermediate Nucleus Stimulation for Essential Tremor

OBJECTIVE

The primary aim of this study is to report long-term outcomes associated with deep brain stimulation (DBS) of the ventral intermediate nucleus (VIM) performed at our institution. We further aimed to elicit the factors associated with loss of efficacy and to discuss the need for exploring and establishing reliable rescue targets.

METHODS

To study long-term outcomes, we performed a retrospective chart review and extracted tremor scores of 43 patients who underwent VIM DBS lead implantation for essential tremor at our center. We further evaluated factors that could influence outcomes over time, including demographics, body mass index, duration of follow-up, degree of parenchymal atrophy indexed by the global cortical atrophy scale, and third ventricular width.

RESULTS

In this cohort, tremor scores on the latest follow-up (median 52.7 months) were noted to be worse than initial postoperative scores in 56% of DBS leads. Furthermore, 14% of leads were associated with clinically significant loss of benefit. Factors including the length of time since the lead implantation, age at the time of surgery, sex, body mass index, preoperative atrophy, and third ventricular width were not predictive of long-term outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study identified a substantial subgroup of VIM-DBS patient who experienced a gradual decline in treatment efficacy over time. We propose that this phenomenon can be attributed primarily to habituation and disease progression. Furthermore, we discuss the need to establish reliable and effective rescue targets for this subpopulation of patients, with ventral-oralis complex and dentate nucleus emerging as potential candidates.

Dual target deep brain stimulation for complex essential and dystonic tremor - A 5-year follow up

BACKGROUND

Essential tremor (ET) is characterized by action tremor of the upper limbs, head tremor and voice tremor. Dystonic tremor (DT) is produced by muscle contractions in a body affected by dystonia. Deep brain stimulation (DBS) of ventral intermediate nucleus of the thalamus (VIM) is the most well-known advanced treatment for medication-refractory tremor. However, decline in efficacy overtime has led to explore other targets. This study aimed to measure the efficacy of bilateral dual targeting ViM/caudal Zona Incerta (cZI) stimulation on tremor control. A secondary aim was to evaluate if there was a difference in the efficacy between ET and DT.

METHODS

36 patients were retrospectively recruited at the Walton NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK. Patients were assessed pre-operatively, and then at 1-year, 3-years, and 5-years post-operatively with the following scales: Fahn-Tolosa-Marin tremor rating (FTMTR) scale, EuroQol-5D, and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale.

RESULTS

Bilateral ViM-cZI DBS significantly improved overall tremor score by 45.1% from baseline to 3-years post-operatively (p < 0.001). It continued to show improvement in overall FTMTR score by 30.7% at 5-years but this failed to meet significance. However, there was no significant improvement of mood or quality of life (QoL) scores. ET group on average showed a significant better clinical outcome compared to the DT group (p > 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study found that bilateral ViM-cZI DBS treatment had a favourable effect on motor symptoms sustained over the 5-years in tremor patients, especially in ET group. There was limited effect on mood and QoL with similar trends in outcomes for both tremor types.

Which one is the superior target? A comparison and pooled analysis between posterior subthalamic area and ventral intermediate nucleus deep brain stimulation for essential tremor

Background/Aims

The efficacy and safety of posterior subthalamic area (PSA) and ventral intermediate nucleus (VIM) deep brain stimulation (DBS) in the treatment of essential tremor (ET) have not been compared in large‐scale studies. We conducted a secondary analysis to identify the superior target of ET‐DBS treatment.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar were searched for relevant studies before September 2021. The tremor‐suppression efficacy and rate of stimulation‐related complications (SRCR) after PSA‐DBS and VIM‐DBS treating ET were quantitatively compared. Secondary outcomes, including tremor subitem scores and quality of life results, were also analyzed. Subgroup analyses were further conducted to stratify by follow‐up (FU) periods and stimulation lateralities. This study was registered in Open Science Framework (DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/7VJQ8).

Results

A total of 23 studies including 122 PSA‐DBS patients and 326 VIM‐DBS patients were analyzed. The average follow‐up time was 12.81 and 14.66 months, respectively. For the percentage improvement of total tremor rating scale (TRS) scores, PSA‐DBS was significantly higher, when compared to VIM‐DBS in the sensitivity analysis (p = 0.030) and main analysis (p = 0.043). The SRCR after VIM‐DBS was higher than that of PSA‐DBS (p = 0.022), and bilateral PSA‐DBS was significantly superior to both bilateral and unilateral VIM‐DBS (p = 0.001).

Conclusions

This study provided level IIIa evidence that PSA‐DBS was more effective and safer for ET than VIM‐DBS in 12–24 months, although both PSA‐DBS and VIM‐DBS were effective in suppressing tremor in ET patients. Further prospective large‐scale randomized clinical trials are warranted in the future.