BACKGROUND: Despite optimal medical treatment, including epilepsy surgery, many epilepsy patients have uncontrolled seizures. Since the 1970s interest has grown in invasive intracranial neurostimulation as a treatment for these patients. Intracranial stimulation includes both deep brain stimulation (DBS) (stimulation through depth electrodes) and cortical stimulation (subdural electrodes). This is an updated version of a previous Cochrane review published in 2014.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy, safety and tolerability of DBS and cortical stimulation for refractory epilepsy based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register on 29 September 2015, but it was not necessary to update this search, because records in the Specialized Register are included in CENTRAL. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2016, Issue 11, 5 November 2016), PubMed (5 November 2016), ClinicalTrials.gov (5 November 2016), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform ICTRP (5 November 2016) and reference lists of retrieved articles. We also contacted device manufacturers and other researchers in the field. No language restrictions were imposed.
SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs comparing deep brain or cortical stimulation versus sham stimulation, resective surgery, further treatment with antiepileptic drugs or other neurostimulation treatments (including vagus nerve stimulation).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Four review authors independently selected trials for inclusion. Two review authors independently extracted the relevant data and assessed trial quality and overall quality of evidence. The outcomes investigated were seizure freedom, responder rate, percentage seizure frequency reduction, adverse events, neuropsychological outcome and quality of life. If additional data were needed, the study investigators were contacted. Results were analysed and reported separately for different intracranial targets for reasons of clinical heterogeneity.
MAIN RESULTS: Twelve RCTs were identified, eleven of these compared one to three months of intracranial neurostimulation with sham stimulation. One trial was on anterior thalamic DBS (n = 109; 109 treatment periods); two trials on centromedian thalamic DBS (n = 20; 40 treatment periods), but only one of the trials (n = 7; 14 treatment periods) reported sufficient information for inclusion in the quantitative meta-analysis; three trials on cerebellar stimulation (n = 22; 39 treatment periods); three trials on hippocampal DBS (n = 15; 21 treatment periods); one trial on nucleus accumbens DBS (n = 4; 8 treatment periods); and one trial on responsive ictal onset zone stimulation (n = 191; 191 treatment periods). In addition, one small RCT (n = 6) compared six months of hippocampal DBS versus sham stimulation. Evidence of selective reporting was present in four trials and the possibility of a carryover effect complicating interpretation of the results could not be excluded in five cross-over trials without any or a sufficient washout period. Moderate-quality evidence could not demonstrate statistically or clinically significant changes in the proportion of patients who were seizure-free or experienced a 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency (primary outcome measures) after one to three months of anterior thalamic DBS in (multi)focal epilepsy, responsive ictal onset zone stimulation in (multi)focal epilepsy patients and hippocampal DBS in (medial) temporal lobe epilepsy. However, a statistically significant reduction in seizure frequency was found for anterior thalamic DBS (mean difference (MD), -17.4% compared to sham stimulation; 95% confidence interval (CI) -31.2 to -1.0; high-quality evidence), responsive ictal onset zone stimulation (MD -24.9%; 95% CI -40.1 to -6.0; high-quality evidence) and hippocampal DBS (MD -28.1%; 95% CI -34.1 to -22.2; moderate-quality evidence). Both anterior thalamic DBS and responsive ictal onset zone stimulation do not have a clinically meaningful impact on quality life after three months of stimulation (high-quality evidence). Electrode implantation resulted in postoperative asymptomatic intracranial haemorrhage in 1.6% to 3.7% of the patients included in the two largest trials and 2.0% to 4.5% had postoperative soft tissue infections (9.4% to 12.7% after five years); no patient reported permanent symptomatic sequelae. Anterior thalamic DBS was associated with fewer epilepsy-associated injuries (7.4 versus 25.5%; P = 0.01) but higher rates of self-reported depression (14.8 versus 1.8%; P = 0.02) and subjective memory impairment (13.8 versus 1.8%; P = 0.03); there were no significant differences in formal neuropsychological testing results between the groups. Responsive ictal-onset zone stimulation seemed to be well-tolerated with few side effects.The limited number of patients preclude firm statements on safety and tolerability of hippocampal DBS. With regards to centromedian thalamic DBS, nucleus accumbens DBS and cerebellar stimulation, no statistically significant effects could be demonstrated but evidence is of only low to very low quality.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Except for one very small RCT, only short-term RCTs on intracranial neurostimulation for epilepsy are available. Compared to sham stimulation, one to three months of anterior thalamic DBS ((multi)focal epilepsy), responsive ictal onset zone stimulation ((multi)focal epilepsy) and hippocampal DBS (temporal lobe epilepsy) moderately reduce seizure frequency in refractory epilepsy patients. Anterior thalamic DBS is associated with higher rates of self-reported depression and subjective memory impairment. There is insufficient evidence to make firm conclusive statements on the efficacy and safety of hippocampal DBS, centromedian thalamic DBS, nucleus accumbens DBS and cerebellar stimulation. There is a need for more, large and well-designed RCTs to validate and optimize the efficacy and safety of invasive intracranial neurostimulation treatments.
BACKGROUND: There is a growing body of evidence demonstrating that deep brain stimulation (DBS) of globus pallidus internus (GPi DBS) and subthalamic nucleus (STN DBS) are effective treatment for patients with Parkinson’s disease (PD). However, it remains controversial whether the best stimulation target for a PD patient is GPi or STN. METHODS: A computer literature search of PubMed was carried out. We included randomised studies with direct comparison between targets. The outcome of unified PD rating scale (UPDRS) III was expressed as the standardised mean difference (SMD) between targets in baseline to endpoint change. Pooled risk ratio (RR) between targets was also used to assess adverse events. RESULTS: Four studies, comprising a total sample size of 502 PD patients (254 GPi DBS, 248 STN DBS), were included in this meta-analysis. The overall effect of GPi DBS on UPDRS III was not significantly different from STN DBS (SMD = 0.19, 95% CI −0.2 to 0.58, p = 0.34, four studies, n = 448). This result was heterogeneous (p = 0.03, I² = 66%). In terms of adverse events, depression was significantly less frequent in patients with GPi DBS than STN DBS with homogeneous studies ( pooled RR = 0.53, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.90, p = 0.02, three studies, n = 479, I² = 48%). CONCLUSIONS: The effect of GPi DBS was similar to STN DBS except for depression, however, only three studies described depression as adverse events. We need additional randomised trials with direct comparison between targets based on unified scoring of adverse events. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)
OBJECT: Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is the surgical procedure of choice for patients with advanced Parkinson disease (PD). The globus pallidus internus (GPi) and the subthalamic nucleus (STN) are commonly targeted by this procedure. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy of DBS in each region.
METHODS: MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Knowledge, and the Cochrane Library were searched for English-language studies published before April 2013.
RESULTS: of studies investigating the efficacy and clinical outcomes of DBS of the GPi and STN for PD were analyzed.
RESULTS: Six eligible trials containing a total of 563 patients were included in the analysis. Deep brain stimulation of the GPi or STN equally improved motor function, measured by the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale Section III (UPDRSIII) (motor section, for patients in on- and off-medication phases), within 1 year postsurgery. The change score for the on-medication phase was 0.68 (95% CI - 2.12 to 3.47, p > 0.05; 5 studies, 518 patients) and for the off-medication phase was 1.83 (95% CI - 3.12 to 6.77, p > 0.05; 5 studies, 518 patients). The UPDRS Section II (activities of daily living) scores for patients on medication improved equally in both DBS groups (p = 0.97). STN DBS allowed medication dosages to be reduced more than GPi DBS (95% CI 129.27-316.64, p < 0.00001; 5 studies, 540 patients). Psychiatric symptoms, measured by Beck Depression Inventory, 2nd edition scores, showed greater improvement from baseline after GPi DBS than after STN DBS (standardized mean difference -2.28, 95% CI -3.73 to -0.84, p = 0.002; 3 studies, 382 patients).
CONCLUSIONS: GPi and STN DBS improve motor function and activities of daily living for PD patients. Differences in therapeutic efficacy for PD were not observed between the 2 procedures. STN DBS allowed greater reduction in medication for patients, whereas GPi DBS provided greater relief from psychiatric symptoms. An understanding of other symptomatic aspects of targeting each region and long-term observations on therapeutic effects are needed.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this analysis was to evaluate the effectiveness of deep brain stimulation (DBS) and vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) for the treatment of drug-resistant epilepsy in adults and children.
DATA SOURCES: A literature search was performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination database, for studies published from January 2007 until December 2012.
REVIEW METHODS: Systematic reviews, meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and observational studies (in the absence of RCTs) of adults or children were included. DBS studies were included if they specified that the anterior nucleus of thalamus was the area of the brain stimulated. Outcomes of interest were seizure frequency, health resource utilization, and safety. A cost analysis was also performed.
RESULTS: The search identified 6 studies that assessed changes in seizure frequency after electrical stimulation: 1 RCT on DBS in adults, 4 RCTs on VNS in adults, and 1 RCT on VNS in children. The studies of DBS and VNS in adults found significantly improved rates of seizure frequency, but the study of VNS in children did not find a significant difference in seizure frequency between the high and low stimulation groups. Significant reductions in hospitalizations and emergency department visits were found for adults and children who received VNS. No studies addressed the use of health resources for patients undergoing DBS. Five studies reported on adverse events, which ranged from serious to transient for both procedures in adults and were mostly transient in the 1 study of VNS in children.
LIMITATIONS: We found no evidence on DBS in children or on health care use related to DBS. The measurement of seizure frequency is self-reported and is therefore subject to bias and issues of compliance.
CONCLUSIONS: Based on evidence of low to moderate quality, both DBS and VNS seemed to reduce seizure frequency in adults. In children, VNS did not appear to be as effective at reducing seizure frequency, but children had significantly fewer hospitalizations and ED visits after VNS implantation. Despite the considerable risks associated with these invasive procedures, long-term adverse events appear to be limited.
PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Electrical stimulation of specific areas of the brain is a procedure used to control epileptic seizures when more conventional treatments are not working. Most adults and children with epilepsy are able to control their seizures with medication, but for some patients, drugs are not effective and surgery to remove the part of the brain where the seizures start is not an appropriate option. This study looked at the research available on the effectiveness, safety, and cost of two types of electrical stimulation devices currently licensed for treatment of epilepsy for adults and children in Canada: vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) and deep brain stimulation (DBS). Both approaches appear to be effective at reducing the frequency of seizures in adults. However, the evidence on DBS is limited to a single study with adults; we found no studies of DBS with children. Studies on VNS showed that both adults and children had fewer hospitalizations and emergency department visits after the procedure. Both procedures carry serious risks, but several longer-term studies have found that adverse events appear to be limited. The cost of VNS, including the process of assessing whether or not patients are good candidates for the procedure, is estimated to be about $40,000 per person (and higher for DBS because the device is more expensive and the operating time is longer). Of the 70,000 people in Ontario with epilepsy, about 1,400 (300 children and 1,110 adults) may be candidates for VNS to reduce their seizures.
Despite optimal medical treatment, including epilepsy surgery, many epilepsy patients have uncontrolled seizures. Since the 1970s interest has grown in invasive intracranial neurostimulation as a treatment for these patients. Intracranial stimulation includes both deep brain stimulation (DBS) (stimulation through depth electrodes) and cortical stimulation (subdural electrodes). This is an updated version of a previous Cochrane review published in 2014.
OBJECTIVES:
To assess the efficacy, safety and tolerability of DBS and cortical stimulation for refractory epilepsy based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
SEARCH METHODS:
We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register on 29 September 2015, but it was not necessary to update this search, because records in the Specialized Register are included in CENTRAL. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2016, Issue 11, 5 November 2016), PubMed (5 November 2016), ClinicalTrials.gov (5 November 2016), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform ICTRP (5 November 2016) and reference lists of retrieved articles. We also contacted device manufacturers and other researchers in the field. No language restrictions were imposed.
SELECTION CRITERIA:
RCTs comparing deep brain or cortical stimulation versus sham stimulation, resective surgery, further treatment with antiepileptic drugs or other neurostimulation treatments (including vagus nerve stimulation).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:
Four review authors independently selected trials for inclusion. Two review authors independently extracted the relevant data and assessed trial quality and overall quality of evidence. The outcomes investigated were seizure freedom, responder rate, percentage seizure frequency reduction, adverse events, neuropsychological outcome and quality of life. If additional data were needed, the study investigators were contacted. Results were analysed and reported separately for different intracranial targets for reasons of clinical heterogeneity.
MAIN RESULTS:
Twelve RCTs were identified, eleven of these compared one to three months of intracranial neurostimulation with sham stimulation. One trial was on anterior thalamic DBS (n = 109; 109 treatment periods); two trials on centromedian thalamic DBS (n = 20; 40 treatment periods), but only one of the trials (n = 7; 14 treatment periods) reported sufficient information for inclusion in the quantitative meta-analysis; three trials on cerebellar stimulation (n = 22; 39 treatment periods); three trials on hippocampal DBS (n = 15; 21 treatment periods); one trial on nucleus accumbens DBS (n = 4; 8 treatment periods); and one trial on responsive ictal onset zone stimulation (n = 191; 191 treatment periods). In addition, one small RCT (n = 6) compared six months of hippocampal DBS versus sham stimulation. Evidence of selective reporting was present in four trials and the possibility of a carryover effect complicating interpretation of the results could not be excluded in five cross-over trials without any or a sufficient washout period. Moderate-quality evidence could not demonstrate statistically or clinically significant changes in the proportion of patients who were seizure-free or experienced a 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency (primary outcome measures) after one to three months of anterior thalamic DBS in (multi)focal epilepsy, responsive ictal onset zone stimulation in (multi)focal epilepsy patients and hippocampal DBS in (medial) temporal lobe epilepsy. However, a statistically significant reduction in seizure frequency was found for anterior thalamic DBS (mean difference (MD), -17.4% compared to sham stimulation; 95% confidence interval (CI) -31.2 to -1.0; high-quality evidence), responsive ictal onset zone stimulation (MD -24.9%; 95% CI -40.1 to -6.0; high-quality evidence) and hippocampal DBS (MD -28.1%; 95% CI -34.1 to -22.2; moderate-quality evidence). Both anterior thalamic DBS and responsive ictal onset zone stimulation do not have a clinically meaningful impact on quality life after three months of stimulation (high-quality evidence). Electrode implantation resulted in postoperative asymptomatic intracranial haemorrhage in 1.6% to 3.7% of the patients included in the two largest trials and 2.0% to 4.5% had postoperative soft tissue infections (9.4% to 12.7% after five years); no patient reported permanent symptomatic sequelae. Anterior thalamic DBS was associated with fewer epilepsy-associated injuries (7.4 versus 25.5%; P = 0.01) but higher rates of self-reported depression (14.8 versus 1.8%; P = 0.02) and subjective memory impairment (13.8 versus 1.8%; P = 0.03); there were no significant differences in formal neuropsychological testing results between the groups. Responsive ictal-onset zone stimulation seemed to be well-tolerated with few side effects.The limited number of patients preclude firm statements on safety and tolerability of hippocampal DBS. With regards to centromedian thalamic DBS, nucleus accumbens DBS and cerebellar stimulation, no statistically significant effects could be demonstrated but evidence is of only low to very low quality.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:
Except for one very small RCT, only short-term RCTs on intracranial neurostimulation for epilepsy are available. Compared to sham stimulation, one to three months of anterior thalamic DBS ((multi)focal epilepsy), responsive ictal onset zone stimulation ((multi)focal epilepsy) and hippocampal DBS (temporal lobe epilepsy) moderately reduce seizure frequency in refractory epilepsy patients. Anterior thalamic DBS is associated with higher rates of self-reported depression and subjective memory impairment. There is insufficient evidence to make firm conclusive statements on the efficacy and safety of hippocampal DBS, centromedian thalamic DBS, nucleus accumbens DBS and cerebellar stimulation. There is a need for more, large and well-designed RCTs to validate and optimize the efficacy and safety of invasive intracranial neurostimulation treatments.
