Deep Brain Stimulation for Intractable Chronic Cluster Headache: Proposals for Patient Selection

Cluster Headache, SUNCT, and SUNA

OBJECTIVE

This article reviews the epidemiology, clinical features, differential diagnosis, pathophysiology, and management of three types of trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias: cluster headache (the most common), short-lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache attacks with conjunctival injection and tearing (SUNCT), and short-lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache attacks with cranial autonomic symptoms (SUNA).

LATEST DEVELOPMENTS

The first-line treatments for trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias have not changed in recent years: cluster headache is managed with oxygen, triptans, and verapamil, and SUNCT and SUNA are managed with lamotrigine. However, new successful clinical trials of high-dose prednisone, high-dose galcanezumab, and occipital nerve stimulation provide additional options for patients with cluster headache. Furthermore, new genetic and imaging tests in patients with cluster headache hold promise for a better understanding of its pathophysiology.

ESSENTIAL POINTS

The trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias are a group of diseases that appear similar to each other and other headache disorders but have important differences. Proper diagnosis is crucial for proper treatment.

Association of Clinical and Neuroanatomic Factors With Response to Ventral Tegmental Area DBS in Chronic Cluster Headache

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) of the ventral tegmental area (VTA) is a surgical treatment option for selected patients with refractory chronic cluster headache (CCH). We aimed to identify clinical and structural neuroimaging factors associated with response to VTA DBS in CCH.

METHODS

This prospective observational cohort study examines consecutive patients with refractory CCH treated with VTA DBS by a multidisciplinary team in a single tertiary neuroscience center as part of usual care. Headache diaries and validated questionnaires were completed at baseline and regular follow-up intervals. All patients underwent T1-weighted structural MRI before surgery. We compared clinical features using multivariable logistic regression and neuroanatomic differences using voxel-based morphometry (VBM) between responders and nonresponders.

RESULTS

Over a 10-year period, 43 patients (mean age 53 years, SD 11.9), including 29 male patients, with a mean duration of CCH 12 years (SD 7.4), were treated and followed up for at least 1 year (mean follow-up duration 5.6 years). Overall, there was a statistically significant improvement in median attack frequency from 140 to 56 per month (Z = -4.95, p < 0.001), attack severity from 10/10 to 8/10 (Z = -4.83, p < 0.001), and duration from 110 to 60 minutes (Z = -3.48, p < 0.001). Twenty-nine (67.4%) patients experienced ≥50% improvement in attack frequency and were therefore classed as responders. There were no serious adverse events. The most common side effects were discomfort or pain around the battery site (7 patients) and transient diplopia and/or oscillopsia (6 patients). There were no differences in demographics, headache characteristics, or comorbidities between responders and nonresponders. VBM identified increased neural density in nonresponders in several brain regions, including the orbitofrontal cortex, anterior cingulate cortex, anterior insula, and amygdala, which were statistically significant (p < 0.001).

DISCUSSION

VTA DBS showed no serious adverse events, and, although there was no placebo control, was effective in approximately two-thirds of patients at long-term follow-up. This study did not reveal any reliable clinical predictors of response. However, nonresponders had increased neural density in brain regions linked to processing of pain and autonomic function, both of which are prominent in the pathophysiology of CCH.

Ten-Year Durability of Hypothalamic Deep Brain Stimulation in Treatment of Chronic Cluster Headaches: A Case Report and Literature Review

Chronic cluster headache (CCH) is a debilitating primary headache that causes excruciating pain without remission. Various medical and surgical treatments have been implemented over the years, yet many provide only short-term relief. Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is an emerging treatment alternative that has been shown to dramatically reduce the intensity and frequency of headache attacks. However, reports of greater than 10-year outcomes after DBS for CCH are scant. Here, we report the durability of DBS in the posterior inferior hypothalamus after 10 years on a patient with CCH. Our patient experienced an 82% decrease in the frequency of headaches after DBS, which was maintained for over 10 years. The side effects observed included depression, irritability, anxiety, and dizziness, which were alleviated by changing programming settings. In the context of current literature, DBS shows promise for long-term relief of cluster headaches when other treatments fail.

Management of cluster headache: Treatments and their mechanisms

BACKGROUND

The management of cluster headache is similar to that of other primary headache disorders and can be broadly divided into acute and preventive treatments. Acute treatments for cluster headache are primarily delivered via rapid, non-oral routes (such as inhalation, nasal, or subcutaneous) while preventives include a variety of unrelated treatments such as corticosteroids, verapamil, and galcanezumab. Neuromodulation is becoming an increasingly popular option, both non-invasively such as vagus nerve stimulation when medical treatment is contraindicated or side effects are intolerable, and invasively such as occipital nerve stimulation when medical treatment is ineffective. Clinically, this collection of treatment types provides a range of options for the informed clinician. Scientifically, this collection provides important insights into disease mechanisms.

METHODS

Two authors performed independent narrative reviews of the literature on guideline recommendations, clinical trials, real-world data, and mechanistic studies.

RESULTS

Cluster headache is treated with acute treatments, bridge treatments, and preventive treatments. Common first-line treatments include subcutaneous sumatriptan and high-flow oxygen as acute treatments, corticosteroids (oral or suboccipital injections) as bridge treatments, and verapamil as a preventive treatment. Some newer acute (non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation) and preventive (galcanezumab) treatments have excellent clinical trial data for episodic cluster headache, while other newer treatments (occipital nerve stimulation) have been specifically tested in treatment-refractory chronic cluster headache. Most treatments are suspected to act on the trigeminovascular system, the autonomic system, or the hypothalamus.

CONCLUSIONS

The first-line treatments have not changed in recent years, but new treatments have provided additional options for patients.

Primaries non-migraine headaches treatment: a review

In the "headache world," great attention has always been paid to migraine patients, especially for the research and development of new therapies. For the other forms of primary headaches, especially those of Chapters 2 and 3 of the classification, there are however therapies that, even if not specific, can give significant results. Tension-type headache recognizes in NSAIDs the most effective drugs to treat acute attack, while prevention is based on the use of tricyclic antidepressants and muscle relaxants. For TACs, the discussion is more complex: first of all, there are two forms of primary headache that respond absolutely to indomethacin. For these, the main problem is how to manage the possible side effects arising from prolonged treatments and possibly what to use as an alternative. For cluster headaches and short-lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache attacks, we have drugs with good efficacy as regards medical therapy, such as verapamil or lamotrigine, but in recent years, neuromodulation techniques, both surgical and non-invasive, have also been affirming themselves, which represent a more possibility for forms of headache that are often very disabling and resistant to common analgesics.

Neuromodulation in headache and craniofacial neuralgia: guidelines from the Spanish Society of Neurology and the Spanish Society of Neurosurgery

INTRODUCTION

Numerous invasive and non-invasive neuromodulation devices have been developed and applied to patients with headache and neuralgia in recent years. However, no updated review addresses their safety and efficacy, and no healthcare institution has issued specific recommendations on their use for these 2 conditions.

METHODS

Neurologists from the Spanish Society of Neurology's (SEN) Headache Study Group and neurosurgeons specialising in functional neurosurgery, selected by the Spanish Society of Neurosurgery (SENEC), performed a comprehensive review of articles on the MEDLINE database addressing the use of the technique in patients with headache and neuralgia.

RESULTS

We present an updated review and establish the first set of consensus recommendations of the SEN and SENC on the use of neuromodulation to treat headache and neuralgia, analysing the current levels of evidence on its effectiveness for each specific condition.

CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence supports the indication of neuromodulation techniques for patients with refractory headache and neuralgia (especially migraine, cluster headache, and trigeminal neuralgia) selected by neurologists and headache specialists, after pharmacological treatment options are exhausted. Furthermore, we recommend that invasive neuromodulation be debated by multidisciplinary committees, and that the procedure be performed by teams of neurosurgeons specialising in functional neurosurgery, with acceptable rates of morbidity and mortality.

Neurostimulation methods in the treatment of chronic pain

The goal of this narrative review was to give an up-to-date overview of the peripheral and central neurostimulation methods that can be used to treat chronic pain. Special focus has been given to three pain conditions: neuropathic pain, nociplastic pain and primary headaches. Both non-invasive and invasive techniques are briefly presented together with their pain relief potentials. For non-invasive stimulation techniques, data concerning transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), remote electrical neuromodulation (REN) and vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) are provided. Concerning invasive stimulation techniques, occipital nerve stimulation (ONS), vagus nerve stimulation (VNS), epidural motor cortex stimulation (EMCS), spinal cord stimulation (SCS) and deep brain stimulation (DBS) are presented. The action mode of all these techniques is only partly understood but can be very different from one technique to the other. Patients' selection is still a challenge. Recent consensus-based guidelines for clinical practice are presented when available. The development of closed-loop devices could be of interest in the future, although the clinical benefit over open loop is not proven yet.

Deep brain stimulation of chronic cluster headaches: Posterior hypothalamus, ventral tegmentum and beyond

OBJECTIVE

We present long-term follow-up results and analysis of stimulation sites of a prospective cohort study of six patients with chronic cluster headaches undergoing deep brain stimulation of the ipsilateral posterior hypothalamic region.

METHODS

The primary endpoint was the postoperative change in the composite headache severity score "headache load" after 12 months of chronic stimulation. Secondary endpoints were the changes in headache attack frequency, headache attack duration and headache intensity, quality of life measures at 12, 24, and 48 months following surgery. Stimulating contact positions were analysed and projected onto the steroetactic atlas of Schaltenbrand and Wahren.

RESULTS

There was a significant reduction of headache load of over 93% on average at 12 months postoperatively that persisted over the follow-up period of 48 months (p = 0.0041) and that was accompanied by a significant increase of reported quality of life measures (p = 0.03). Anatomical analysis revealed that individual stimulating electrodes were located in the red nucleus, posterior hypothalamic region, mesencephalic pretectal area and centromedian nucleus of the thalamus.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings confirming long-term effectiveness of deep brain stimulation for chronic cluster headaches suggest that the neuroanatomical substrate of deep brain stimulation-induced headache relief is probably not restricted to the posterior hypothalamic area but encompasses a more widespread area.

Managing cluster headache with sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation: a review

Cluster headache (CH) is a primary headache and considered as one of the worst pains known to man. The sphenopalatine ganglion (SPG) plays a pivotal role in cranial autonomic symptoms associated with pain. Lesioning procedures involving the SPG and experimental acute SPG stimulation have shown some degree of efficacy with regard to CH. A neuromodulation device, chronically implanted in the pterygopalatine fossa, has been specifically designed for acute on-demand SPG stimulation. In a pilot placebo-controlled study in 28 patients suffering from refractory chronic CH, alleviation of pain was achieved in 67.1% of full stimulation-treated attacks compared to 7% of sham stimulation-treated attacks (p<0.0001). Long-term results (24 months; 33 patients) confirmed the efficacy of SPG stimulation as an abortive treatment for CH attacks. Moreover, 35% of the patients observed a >50% reduction in attack frequency, suggesting that repeated use of SPG stimulation might act as a CH-preventive treatment. Globally, 61% of the patients were acute responders, frequency responders, or both, and 39% did not respond to SPG stimulation. The safety of SPG microstimulator implantation procedure was evaluated in a cohort of 99 patients; facial sensory disturbances were observed in 67% of the patients (46% of them being transient), transient allodynia in 3%, and infection in 5%. SPG stimulation appears as a promising innovative, efficient, and safe therapeutic solution for patients suffering from severe CH. It has shown its efficacy in aborting CH attacks compared to placebo stimulation, suggesting that it is particularly adapted for CH patients who are not sufficiently improved by abortive treatments such as sumatriptan and oxygen. However, further studies comparing SPG stimulation with standard abortive and/or preventive CH treatments will be necessary to define more precisely its place within the management of severe chronic and/or episodic CH.

Neurostimulation for Refractory Cervicogenic Headache: A Three-Year Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND

Occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) has been used for the treatment of neuropathic pain conditions and could be a therapeutic approach for refractory cervicogenic headache (CeH).

AIM

The aim of this study is to assess the efficacy and safety of unilateral ONS in patients suffering from refractory CeH.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective chart review on patients implanted from 2011 to 2013 at CHUM. The primary outcome was a 50% reduction in headache days per month. Secondary outcomes included change in EuroQol Group Visual Analog Scale rating of health-related quality of life (EQ VAS), six item headache impact test (HIT-6) score, hospital anxiety and depression scale (HADS) score, work status, and medication overuse.

RESULTS

Sixteen patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria; they had suffered from daily moderate to severe CeH for a median of 15 years. At one year follow-up, 11 patients were responders (69%). There was a statistically significant improvement in the EQ VAS score (median change: 40 point increase, p = 0.0013) and HIT-6 score (median change: 17.5 point decrease, p = 0.0005). Clinically significant anxiety and depression scores both resolved amongst 60% of patients. At three years, six patients were responders (37.5%). Out of the 11 responders at one-year post implantation, five had remained headache responders (R-R) and one additional patient became a responder (NR-R). There was a statistically significant improvement in the EQ VAS score (median change: 15 point increase, p = 0.019) and HIT-6 score (median change: 7.5 point decrease, p = 0.0017) compared with baseline. Clinically significant anxiety and depression scores both, respectively, resolved among 22.5% and 33.9% of patients. Five out of seven disabled patients were back to work.

CONCLUSION

ONS may be a safe and effective treatment modality for patients suffering from a refractory CeH. Further study may be warranted.

Deep Brain Stimulation for Neuropathic Cephalalgia

The aim of this study was to determine the efficacy of deep brain stimulation (DBS) in the treatment of various types of intractable head and facial pains. Seven patients underwent the insertion of DBS electrodes into the periventricular/periaqueductal grey region and/or the ventroposteromedial nucleus of the thalamus. We have shown statistically significant improvement in pain scores (visual analogue and McGill's) as well as health-related quality of life (SF-36v2) following surgery. There is wide variability in patient outcomes but, overall, DBS can be an effective treatment. Our results are compared with the published literature and electrode position for effective analgesia is discussed.

Long-term occipital nerve stimulation for drug-resistant chronic cluster headache

Introduction

Chronic cluster headache is rare and some of these patients become drug-resistant. Occipital nerve stimulation has been successfully employed in open studies to treat chronic drug-resistant cluster headache. Data from large group of occipital nerve stimulation-treated chronic cluster headache patients with long duration follow-up are advantageous.

Patients and methods

Efficacy of occipital nerve stimulation has been evaluated in an experimental monocentric open-label study including 35 chronic drug-resistant cluster headache patients (mean age 42 years; 30 men; mean illness duration: 6.7 years). The primary end-point was a reduction in number of daily attacks.

Results

After a median follow-up of 6.1 years (range 1.6–10.7), 20 (66.7%) patients were responders (≥50% reduction in headache number per day): 12 (40%) responders showed a stable condition characterized by sporadic attacks, five responders had a 60–80% reduction in headache number per day and in the remaining three responders chronic cluster headache was transformed in episodic cluster headache. Ten (33.3%) patients were non-responders; half of these have been responders for a long period (mean 14.6 months; range 2–48 months). Battery depletion (21 patients 70%) and electrode migration (six patients – 20%) were the most frequent adverse events.

Conclusions

Occipital nerve stimulation efficacy is confirmed in chronic drug-resistant cluster headaches even after an exceptional long-term follow-up. Tolerance can occur years after improvement.

The surgical management of cephalalgia

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Management of headache disorders is not part of most craniomaxillofacial surgery practices; however there are certain indications for surgical management of headaches by the craniomaxillofacial surgeon.

RECENT FINDINGS

Migraine headaches are the most amenable to surgical management and while the exact mechanism of migraine is unknown, a central or peripheral trigger such as compressive neuropathy of trigeminal nerve branches leading to neurogenic inflammation has been suggested. The primary management for episodic migraine headache should be lifestyle modification and medication, whereas for chronic migraine (>15 headache days/month) use of medication and botulinum neurotoxin is effective, whereas some patients may choose to explore surgical options. Trigger site decompression for chronic migraine surgically relieves anatomic impingement at various sites and has been shown to reduce by at least 50% the frequency, intensity, and duration of headaches in over 85% and elimination of headaches in almost 60%. Trigger points may also lead to exacerbation of cluster headaches and treatment with botulinum neurotoxin may reduce attacks.

SUMMARY

Trigger site decompression is an effective treatment for chronic migraine, as are botulinum neurotoxin injections in reducing attacks in cluster headaches. The craniomaxillofacial surgeon is uniquely qualified to treat these primary headache disorders.

Evidence-based treatments for cluster headache

Cluster headache (CH), one of the most painful syndromes known to man, is managed with acute and preventive medications. The brief duration and severity of the attacks command the use of rapid-acting pain relievers. Inhalation of oxygen and subcutaneous sumatriptan are the two most effective acute therapeutic options for sufferers of CH. Several preventive medications are available, the most effective of which is verapamil. However, most of these agents are not backed by strong clinical evidence. In some patients, these options can be ineffective, especially in those who develop chronic CH. Surgical procedures for the chronic refractory form of the disorder should then be contemplated, the most promising of which is hypothalamic deep brain stimulation. We hereby review the pathogenesis of CH and the evidence behind the treatment options for this debilitating condition.

Neurostimulation for Treatment of Migraine and Cluster Headache

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this narrative review is to summarize the current state of neurostimulation therapies for the treatment of migraine and/or cluster.

METHODS

For this narrative review, publications were identified by searching PubMed using the search terms "migraine" or "cluster" combined with "vagal nerve stimulation," "transcranial magnetic stimulation," "supraorbital nerve stimulation," "sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation," "occipital nerve stimulation," "deep brain stimulation," "neurostimulation," or "neuromodulation." Publications were chosen based on the quality of data that were provided and their relevance to the chosen topics of interest for this review. Reference lists of chosen articles and the authors' own files were used to identify additional publications. Current clinical trials were identified by searching clinicaltrials.org.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Neurostimulation of the vagal nerve, supraorbital nerve, occipital nerve and sphenopalatine ganglion, transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), and deep brain stimulation have been investigated for the treatment of migraine and/or cluster. Whereas invasive methods of neurostimulation would be reserved for patients with very severe and treatment refractory migraine or cluster, noninvasive methods of stimulation might serve as useful adjuncts to more conventional therapies. Currently, transcutaneous supraorbital nerve stimulation is FDA approved and commercially available for migraine prevention and TMS is FDA approved for the treatment of migraine with aura. The potential utility of each type of neurostimulation has yet to be completely defined.

Deep Brain Stimulation for Chronic Pain

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is a commonly performed procedure and has been used for the treatment of chronic pain since the early 1970s. A review of the literature was performed utilizing the PubMed database evaluating the use of DBS in the treatment of various pain syndromes. Literature over the last 30 years was included with a focus on those articles in the last 10 years dealing with pain conditions with the highest success as well as the targets utilized for treatment. DBS carries favorable results for the treatment of chronic pain, especially when other methods have not been successful such as medications, conservative measures, and extracranial procedures. Various chronic pain conditions reported in the literature respond to DBS including failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS), phantom limb pain, and peripheral neuropathic pain with a higher response rate for those with nociceptive pain compared to neuropathic pain. Cephaligias have promising results, with cluster headaches carrying the best success rates. DBS plays a role in the treatment of chronic pain conditions. Although considered investigational in the USA, it carries promising success rates in a recalcitrant patient population.

Surgery for treatment of refractory chronic cluster headache: toward standard procedures

The degree of disability due to chronic cluster headache refractory to conservative treatments justifies surgical procedures as second-line treatments. Many studies and reports nowadays confirm the efficacy of the two mostly used surgical techniques in such cases. Both deep brain stimulation and occipital nerve stimulation are in fact currently utilized for this purpose but the surgical technique has not yet been standardized. We describe the surgical steps of both procedures.

The appropriate use of neurostimulation: stimulation of the intracranial and extracranial space and head for chronic pain. Neuromodulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee

INTRODUCTION

The International Neuromodulation Society (INS) has identified a need for evaluation and analysis of the practice of neurostimulation of the brain and extracranial nerves of the head to treat chronic pain.

METHODS

The INS board of directors chose an expert panel, the Neuromodulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC), to evaluate the peer-reviewed literature, current research, and clinical experience and to give guidance for the appropriate use of these methods. The literature searches involved key word searches in PubMed, EMBASE, and Google Scholar dated 1970-2013, which were graded and evaluated by the authors.

RESULTS

The NACC found that evidence supports extracranial stimulation for facial pain, migraine, and scalp pain but is limited for intracranial neuromodulation. High cervical spinal cord stimulation is an evolving option for facial pain. Intracranial neurostimulation may be an excellent option to treat diseases of the nervous system, such as tremor and Parkinson's disease, and in the future, potentially Alzheimer's disease and traumatic brain injury, but current use of intracranial stimulation for pain should be seen as investigational.

CONCLUSIONS

The NACC concludes that extracranial nerve stimulation should be considered in the algorithmic treatment of migraine and other disorders of the head. We should strive to perfect targets outside the cranium when treating pain, if at all possible.

The present indication and future of deep brain stimulation

The use of electrical stimulation to treat pain in human disease dates back to ancient Rome or Greece. Modern deep brain stimulation (DBS) was initially applied for pain treatment in the 1960s, and was later used to treat movement disorders in the 1990s. After recognition of DBS as a therapy for central nervous system (CNS) circuit disorders, DBS use showed drastic increase in terms of adaptability to disease and the patient’s population. More than 100,000 patients have received DBS therapy worldwide. The established indications for DBS are Parkinson’s disease, tremor, and dystonia, whereas global indications of DBS expanded to other neuronal diseases or disorders such as neuropathic pain, epilepsy, and tinnitus. DBS is also experimentally used to manage cognitive disorders and psychiatric diseases such as major depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), Tourette’s syndrome, and eating disorders. The importance of ethics and conflicts surrounding the regulation and freedom of choice associated with the application of DBS therapy for new diseases or disorders is increasing. These debates are centered on the use of DBS to treat new diseases and disorders as well as its potential to enhance ability in normal healthy individuals. Here we present three issues that need to be addressed in the future: (1) elucidation of the mechanisms of DBS, (2) development of new DBS methods, and (3) miniaturization of the DBS system. With the use of DBS, functional neurosurgery entered into the new era that man can manage and control the brain circuit to treat intractable neuronal diseases and disorders.

Neuromodulation in cluster headache

Medically refractory chronic cluster headache (CH) is a severely disabling headache condition for which several surgical procedures have been proposed as a prophylactic treatment. None of them have been evaluated in controlled conditions, only open studies and case series being available. Destructive procedures (radiofrequency lesioning, radiosurgery, section) and microvascular decompression of the trigeminal nerve or the sphenopalatine ganglion (SPG) have induced short-term improvement which did not maintain on long term in most of the patients. They carried a high risk of complications, including severe sensory loss and neuropathic pain, and consequently should not be proposed in first intention.Deep brain stimulation (DBS), targeting the presumed CH generator in the retro-hypothalamic region or fibers connecting it, decreased the attack frequency >50 in 60 % of the 52 patients reported. Complications were infrequent: gaze disturbances, autonomic disturbances, and intracranial hemorrhage (2).Occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) was efficient (decrease of attack frequency >50 %) in about 70 % of the 60 patients reported, with a low risk of complications (essentially hardware related). Considering their respective risks, ONS should be proposed first and DBS only in case of ONS failure.New on-demand chronically implanted SPG stimulation seemed to be efficient to abort CH attacks in a pilot controlled trial, but its long-term safety needs to be further studied.

Stimulation of the sphenopalatine ganglion in intractable cluster headache: expert consensus on patient selection and standards of care

CONTEXT AND OVERVIEW

Chronic cluster headache (CCH) is a debilitating headache disorder with a significant impairment of the patients' lives. Within the past decade, various invasive neuromodulatory approaches have been proposed for the treatment of CCH refractory to standard preventive drug, but only very few randomized controlled studies exist in the field of neuromodulation for the treatment of drug-refractory headaches. Based on the prominent role of the cranial parasympathetic system in acute cluster headache attacks, high-frequency sphenopalatine ganglion (SPG) stimulation has been shown to abort ongoing attacks in some patients in a first small study. As preventive effects of SPG-stimulation have been suggested and the rate of long-term side effects was moderate, SPG stimulation appears to be a promising new treatment strategy.

AIMS AND CONCLUSION

As SPG stimulation is effective in some patients and the first commercially available CE-marked SPG neurostimulator system has been introduced for cluster headache, patient selection and care should be standardized to ensure maximal efficacy and safety. As only limited data have been published on SPG stimulation, standards of care based on expert consensus are proposed to ensure homogeneous patient selection and treatment across international headache centres. Given that SPG stimulation is still a novel approach, all expert-based consensus on patient selection and standards of care should be re-reviewed when more long-term data are available.

Supraorbital and supratrochlear stimulation for trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias

Trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias (TAC) is a rare primary headache disorder with challenging and limited treatment options for those unfortunate patients with severe and refractory pain. This article will review the conventional pharmacologic treatments as well as the new neuromodulation techniques designed to offer alternative and less invasive treatments. These techniques have evolved from the treatment of migraine headache, a much more common headache syndrome, and expanded towards application in patients with TAC. Specifically, the article will discuss the targeting of the supratrochlear and supraorbital nerves, both terminal branches of the trigeminal nerve.

Pearls and pitfalls: neurostimulation in headache

CONTEXT

A variety of neuromodulatory approaches available today has broadened our therapeutic options significantly especially in drug refractory patients with chronic cluster headache and chronic migraine.

OVERVIEW

It is a dynamic field with a current trend to non-invasive transcutaneous stimulation approaches. However, sound studies providing evidence for the widespread use of these novel approaches are sparse. For invasive approaches, occipital nerve stimulation is now widely considered the treatment of first choice in chronic trigeminal autonomic cephalgias and - with limitations - chronic migraine. Although equally effective, deep brain stimulation is considered second-line treatment in cluster headache because of its potentially life-threatening side effects. Most recently, stimulation of the sphenopalatine ganglion has also been shown to effectively abort acute cluster headache attacks. Interesting other upcoming approaches include transcutaneous supraorbital nerve stimulation and transcutaneous vagal nerve stimulation.

CONCLUSION

Pearls and pitfalls of common invasive and non-invasive neuromodulatory approaches and open questions are summarised in this review along with recommendations for future studies.

Role of trigeminal microvascular decompression in the treatment of SUNCT and SUNA

Short-lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache with conjunctival injection and tearing (SUNCT) and short-lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache attacks with cranial autonomic symptoms (SUNA) are primary headache disorders. Evidence suggests that SUNCT/SUNA have similar pathophysiology to the trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias and involves the trigeminal autonomic reflex. This review provides an overview of microvascular decompression of the trigeminal nerve and other surgical therapeutic options for SUNCT/SUNA. We have undertaken a mini-meta-analysis of available case reports and case series with the aim of providing recommendations for the use of such therapies in SUNCT/SUNA. There is some evidence supporting microvascular decompression of the trigeminal nerve in selected patients who have medically refractory SUNCT/SUNA and a demonstrable ipsilateral aberrant vessel on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). We also consider what further investigations could be undertaken to assess the role of surgical interventions in the treatment of these often debilitating conditions.

Neuromodulation of chronic headaches: position statement from the European Headache Federation

The medical treatment of patients with chronic primary headache syndromes (chronic migraine, chronic tension-type headache, chronic cluster headache, hemicrania continua) is challenging as serious side effects frequently complicate the course of medical treatment and some patients may be even medically intractable. When a definitive lack of responsiveness to conservative treatments is ascertained and medication overuse headache is excluded, neuromodulation options can be considered in selected cases. Here, the various invasive and non-invasive approaches, such as hypothalamic deep brain stimulation, occipital nerve stimulation, stimulation of sphenopalatine ganglion, cervical spinal cord stimulation, vagus nerve stimulation, transcranial direct current stimulation, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation are extensively published although proper RCT-based evidence is limited. The European Headache Federation herewith provides a consensus statement on the clinical use of neuromodulation in headache, based on theoretical background, clinical data, and side effect of each method. This international consensus further gives recommendations for future studies on these new approaches. In spite of a growing field of stimulation devices in headaches treatment, further controlled studies to validate, strengthen and disseminate the use of neurostimulation are clearly warranted. Consequently, until these data are available any neurostimulation device should only be used in patients with medically intractable syndromes from tertiary headache centers either as part of a valid study or have shown to be effective in such controlled studies with an acceptable side effect profile.

Neurostimulators for the treatment of primary headaches

Neurostimulation techniques have increased our therapeutic armamentarium, providing additional options for the treatment of patients with drug-resistant headache. Occipital nerve stimulation can be considered in drug-resistant chronic cluster headache and, with more caution, in drug-resistant chronic migraine. Approximately 12 years after its introduction, hypothalamic stimulation is a valid option for drug-resistant chronic cluster headache to be considered when occipital nerve stimulation fails. Several other peripheral stimulation approaches (in addition to occipital nerve stimulation) have been introduced in recent years; however, for the most part, appropriate studies supporting their efficacy are lacking. Transcranial magnetic stimulation, transcutaneous supraorbital nerve stimulation, sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation and vagal nerve stimulation have all been tried, but results are not wholly convincing, and more extensive evaluations are required.

Neurostimulation in cluster headache: A review of current progress

Purpose of review

Neurostimulation has emerged as a viable treatment for intractable chronic cluster headache. Several therapeutic strategies are being investigated including stimulation of the hypothalamus, occipital nerves and sphenopalatine ganglion. The aim of this review is to provide an overview of the rationale, methods and progress for each of these.

Latest findings

Results from a randomized, controlled trial investigating sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation have just been published. Reportedly the surgery is relatively simple and it is apparently the only therapy that provides relief acutely.

Summary

The rationale behind these therapies is based on growing evidence from clinical, hormonal and neuroimaging studies. The overall results are encouraging, but unfortunately not all patients have benefited. All the mentioned therapies require weeks to months of stimulation for a prophylactic effect to occur, suggesting brain plasticity as a possible mechanism, and only stimulation of the sphenopalatine ganglion has demonstrated an acute, abortive effect. Predictors of effect for all modes of neurostimulation still need to be identified and in the future, the least invasive and most effective strategy must be preferred as first-line therapy for intractable chronic cluster headache.

Drug-resistant cluster headache: long-term evaluation of pain control by posterior hypothalamic deep-brain stimulation

OBJECTIVE

On the basis of recent findings about the pathophysiology of cluster headache and through the experience reported in recent literature, we have reviewed the outcome of four patients affected by drug-resistant cluster headache treated in our department by posterior hypothalamic deep brain stimulation with a follow-up of more than 5 years.

METHODS

Between 2004 and 2006, we selected four patients affected by cluster headache. The diagnosis was based on the International Classification of Headache Disorders II criteria, and all patients were refractory to drug therapy. Under local anesthesia they underwent stereotactic positioning of a stimulation electrode within the posterior hypothalamus, ipsilateral to the site of pain. An intraoperative neurophysiological test stimulation was performed to assess possible side effects and symptoms related to hypothalamic neuronal activity. A second surgery was then performed with the patient under general anesthesia to implant the extension cable and the implantable pulse generator.

RESULTS

After 5 years of follow up, all patients had a valuable benefit with a reduction in episode frequency from 90% to 50% associated with a decrease in pain intensity perception.

CONCLUSION

The long-lasting pain reduction and the improvement in the patients' symptoms should be considered a real positive prospective, not only because there was uncertainty about the persistence of the beneficial effects at a long-term follow-up, but also for the improvement of the quality of life. The stimulation can restore important aspects concerning the psychic condition that very often constitutes an important limiting factor in normal daily life for this type of patient.

Neurostimulation for chronic cluster headache

Neurostimulation techniques for the treatment of primary headache syndromes, particularly of chronic cluster headache, have received much interest in recent years. Occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) has yielded favourable clinical results and, despite the limited numbers of published cases, is becoming a routine treatment for refractory chronic cluster headache in specialized centres. Meanwhile, other promising techniques such as spinal cord stimulation (SCS) or sphenopalate ganglion stimulation have emerged. In this article the current state of clinical research for neurostimulation techniques for chronic cluster headache is reviewed.

Hypothalamic deep brain stimulation in the treatment of chronic cluster headache

Cluster headache (CH) is a short-lasting unilateral headache associated with ipsilateral craniofacial autonomic manifestations. A positron emission tomography (PET) study has shown that the posterior hypothalamus is activated during CH attacks, suggesting that hypothalamic hyperactivity plays a key role in CH pathophysiology. On this basis, stimulation of the ipsilateral posterior hypothalamus was hypothesized to counteract such hyperactivity to prevent intractable CH. Ten years after its introduction, hypothalamic stimulation has been proved to successfully prevent attacks in more than 60% of 58 hypothalamic implanted drug-resistant chronic CH patients. The implantation procedure has generally been proved to be safe, although it carries a small risk of brain haemorrhage. Long-term stimulation is safe, and nonsymptomatic impairment of orthostatic adaptation is the only noteworthy change. Microrecording studies will make it possible to better identify the target site. Neuroimaging investigations have shown that hypothalamic stimulation activates ipsilateral trigeminal complex, but with no immediate perceived sensation within the trigeminal distribution. Other studies on the pain threshold in chronically stimulated patients showed increased threshold for cold pain in the distribution of the first trigeminal branch ipsilateral to stimulation. These studies suggest that activation of the hypothalamus and of the trigeminal system are both necessary, but not sufficient to generate CH attacks. In addition to the hypothalamus, other unknown brain areas are likely to play a role in the pathophysiology of this illness. Hypothalamus implantation is associated with a small risk of intracerebral haemorrhage and must be performed by an expert neurosurgical team, in selected patients.

Treatment of refractory chronic cluster headache by chronic occipital nerve stimulation

Background: Greater occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) has been recently proposed to treat severe chronic cluster headache patients (CCH) refractory to medical treatment. We report the results of a French multidisciplinary cohort study.

Methods: Thirteen CCH patients were operated and data were collected prospectively. All of them suffered from CCH according to the International Headache Society classification, lasting for more than 2 years, refractory to pharmacological prophylactic treatment with adequate trials, with at least one daily attack. Chronic ONS was delivered through a subcutaneous occipital electrode connected to an implanted generator, in order to induce paraesthesias perceived locally in the lower occipital region.

Results: After surgery (mean follow-up 14,6 months), the mean attack frequency and intensity decreased by 68% and 49%, respectively. At last follow-up, 10/13 patients were considered as responders (improvement >50%). Prophylactic treatment could be stopped or reduced in 8/13 cases. Local infection occurred in one patient, leading to hardware removal.

Conclusions: Our data confirmed the results of the 36 similar cases reported in the literature, suggesting that ONS may act as a prophylactic treatment in chronic CH. Considering their respective risks, ONS should be proposed before deep brain stimulation in severe refractory CCH patients.