Brain Responsive Neurostimulation Research Articles

The changing landscape of palliative epilepsy surgery for Lennox Gastaut Syndrome.

Lennox Gastaut Syndrome (LGS) is characterized by drug-resistant epilepsy that typically leads to decreased quality of life and deleterious neurodevelopmental comorbidities from medically refractory seizures. In recent years there has been a dramatic increase in the development and availability of novel treatment strategies for Lennox Gastaut Syndrome patient to improve seizure. Recent advances in neuromodulation and minimally invasive magnetic resonance guided laser interstitial thermal therapy (MRgLITT) have paved the way for new treatments strategies including deep brain stimulation (DBS), responsive neurostimulation (RNS), and MRgLITT corpus callosum ablation. These new strategies offer hope for children with drug-resistant generalized epilepsies, but important questions remain about the safety and effectiveness of these new approaches. In this review, we describe the opportunities presented by these new strategies and how each treatment strategy is currently being employed. Next, we will critically assess available evidence for these new approaches compared to traditional palliative epilepsy surgery approaches, such as vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) and open microsurgical corpus callosotomy (CC). Finally, we will describe future directions that would help define which of the available strategies should be employed and when.

Benchmarking signal quality and spatiotemporal distribution of interictal spikes in prolonged human iEEG recordings using CorTec wireless brain interchange

Neuromodulation through implantable pulse generators (IPGs) represents an important treatment approach for neurological disorders. While the field has observed the success of state-of-the-art interventions, such as deep brain stimulation (DBS) or responsive neurostimulation (RNS), implantable systems face various technical challenges, including the restriction of recording from a limited number of brain sites, power management, and limited external access to the assessed neural data in a continuous fashion. To the best of our knowledge, for the first time in this study, we investigated the feasibility of recording human intracranial EEG (iEEG) using a benchtop version of the Brain Interchange (BIC) unit of CorTec, which is a portable, wireless, and externally powered implant with sensing and stimulation capabilities. We developed a MATLAB/SIMULINK-based rapid prototyping environment and a graphical user interface (GUI) to acquire and visualize the iEEG captured from all 32 channels of the BIC unit. We recorded prolonged iEEG (~ 24 h) from three human subjects with externalized depth leads using the BIC and commercially available clinical amplifiers simultaneously in the epilepsy monitoring unit (EMU). The iEEG signal quality of both streams was compared, and the results demonstrated a comparable power spectral density (PSD) in all the systems in the low-frequency band (< 80 Hz). However, notable differences were primarily observed above 100 Hz, where the clinical amplifiers were associated with lower noise floor (BIC-17 dB vs. clinical amplifiers <  − 25 dB). We employed an established spike detector to assess and compare the spike rates in each iEEG stream. We observed over 90% conformity between the spikes rates and their spatial distribution captured with BIC and clinical systems. Additionally, we quantified the packet loss characteristic in the iEEG signal during the wireless data transfer and conducted a series of simulations to compare the performance of different interpolation methods for recovering the missing packets in signals at different frequency bands. We noted that simple linear interpolation has the potential to recover the signal and reduce the noise floor with modest packet loss levels reaching up to 10%. Overall, our results indicate that while tethered clinical amplifiers exhibited noticeably better noise floor above 80 Hz, epileptic spikes can still be detected successfully in the iEEG recorded with the externally powered wireless BIC unit opening the road for future closed-loop neuromodulation applications with continuous access to brain activity.

Disparities in Access to Deep Brain Stimulation and Responsive Neurostimulation Approaches to Drug-Resistant Epilepsy

BackgroundEpilepsy affects 1% to 2% of the global population, and those who are resistant to medical treatment may be candidates for neuromodulation. In select populations, brain stimulation approaches including deep brain stimulation (DBS) and responsive neurostimulation (RNS) are used. Although studies have shown that patients from Black, Hispanic, lower income, and rural communities have less access to epilepsy care and have lower rates of epilepsy surgery, disparities in the use of brain stimulation for epilepsy treatment are currently not known. Materials and MethodsWe queried the US National Inpatient Sample data base from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2019 for all patients discharged with an International Classification of Diseases (ICD) Ninth Revision or ICD Tenth Revision diagnosis of drug-resistant epilepsy. Among these patients discharged, the rates of brain stimulation treatment, including DBS and RNS, were reported in each subgroup of race, ethnicity, and insurance. To generate national estimates, all analyses were weighted. ResultsA total of 237,895 patients discharged with drug-resistant epilepsy were identified, of whom 4,925 (2.1%) received brain stimulation treatment for drug-resistant epilepsy. Black patients (n = 420, 0.9%, odds ratio [OR] = 0.51, 95% CI [0.40, 0.64]) were less likely to receive brain stimulation treatment than were White patients (n = 3300, 2.4%). There was no significant difference between Asian (n = 105, 2.3%, OR = 0.80, 95% CI [0.53, 1.33]) and Hispanic (n = 655, 2.6%, OR = 0.95, 95% CI [0.77, 1.17]) patients and White patients. No significant difference was observed between female (n = 2515, 2.1%, OR = 1.02, 95% CI [0.89, 1.17]) and male (n = 2410, 2.0%) patients either. Patients with Medicare (n = 1150, 1.2%, OR = 0.69, 95% CI [0.57, 0.84]) or Medicaid (n = 1150, 1.8%, OR = 0.52, 95% CI [0.44, 0.62]) were less likely to receive brain stimulation treatment than were those with private insurance as the primary payer (n = 2370, 3.9%). ConclusionsWe discovered significant disparities in the use of brain stimulation treatments for drug-resistant epilepsy based on race and insurance status. More research will be required to determine the cause of these disparities.

Stimulation of the pulvinar nucleus of the thalamus in epilepsy: A systematic review and individual patient data (IPD) analysis

Emerging neuromodulatory treatments, such as deep brain stimulation (DBS) and responsive neurostimulation (RNS), have shown promise in reducing drug-resistant seizures. While centromedian thalamic nucleus and anterior thalamic nucleus stimulation have been effective in certain types of seizures, limited research has explored pulvinar nucleus stimulation for epilepsy. To address this gap, we conducted a systematic review and individual patient data analysis. Of 78 resultant articles, 5 studies with transient stimulation and chronic stimulation of the pulvinar nucleus were included. Of the 20 patients reviewed, 65% of patients had temporal lobe seizures, while 20% had temporooccipital/occipital lobe seizures. Transient stimulation studies via stereoelectroencephalography (SEEG) showed pulvinar evoked potential response rates of 80% in the mesial temporal region, 76% in the temporal neocortex, and 67% in the TP junction. Another study reported clinically less severe seizures in 62.5% of patients with pulvinar stimulation. In chronic stimulation studies, 80% of patients responded to RNS or DBS, and 2 of 4 patients experienced > 90% seizure reduction. The pulvinar nucleus of the thalamus emerges as a potential target for chronic stimulation in drug-resistant epilepsy. However, knowledge regarding pulvinar connectivity and chronic stimulation remains limited. Further research should investigate specific subregions of the pulvinar for epilepsy treatment. Understanding the role of pulvinar stimulation and its cortical connectivity will advance therapeutic interventions for epilepsy patients.

Publication Rates and Characteristics of Clinical Trials in Deep Brain and Responsive Neurostimulation

Introduction: Prompt dissemination of clinical trial results is essential for ensuring the safety and efficacy of intracranial neurostimulation treatments, including deep brain stimulation (DBS) and responsive neurostimulation (RNS). However, the frequency and completeness of results publication, and reasons for reporting delays, are unknown. Moreover, the patient populations, targeted anatomical locations, and stimulation parameters should be clearly reported for both reproducibility and to identify lacunae in trial design. Here, we examine DBS and RNS trials from 1997 to 2022, chart their characteristics, and examine rates and predictors of results reporting. Methods: Trials were identified using <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://ClinicalTrials.gov" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">ClinicalTrials.gov</ext-link>. Associated publications were identified using <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://ClinicalTrials.gov" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">ClinicalTrials.gov</ext-link> and <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://PubMed.gov" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">PubMed.gov</ext-link>. Pearson’s χ² tests were used to assess differences in trial characteristics between published and unpublished trials. Results: Across 449 trials, representing a cumulative cohort of 42,769 patient interventions, there were 37 therapeutic indications and 44 stimulation targets. The most common indication and target were Parkinson’s disease (40.55%) and the subthalamic nucleus (35.88%), respectively. Only 0.89% of trials were in pediatric patients (11.58% were mixed pediatric and adult). Explored targets represented 75% of potential basal ganglia targets but only 29% of potential thalamic targets. Allowing a 1-year grace period after trial completion, 34/169 (20.12%) had results reported on <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://ClinicalTrials.gov" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">ClinicalTrials.gov</ext-link>, and 107/169 (63.31%) were published. ∼80% of published trials included details about stimulation parameters used. Published and unpublished trials did not significantly differ by trial characteristics. Conclusion: We highlight key knowledge and performance gaps in DBS and RNS trial research. Over one-third of trials remain unpublished >1 year after completion; pediatric trials are scarce; most of the thalamus remains unexplored; about one-in-five trials fail to report stimulation parameters; and movement disorders comprise the most studied indications.

Neurostimulation for childhood epilepsy.

The experience with neurostimulation for childhood epilepsy is far less extensive than for adults. Nevertheless, the implementation of these techniques could be of great value, especially considering the detrimental effects of ongoing seizures on the developing brain. In this review, we discuss the available evidence for neurostimulation for childhood epilepsy. Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) is the most studied neurostimulation modality in children. Based on mostly retrospective, open-label studies, we can conclude that VNS has a similar safety and efficacy profile in children compared to adults. Although there is little available evidence for deep brain stimulation (DBS) and responsive neurostimulation (RNS) in children, both DBS and RNS show promise in reducing seizure frequency with few complications. The implementation of non-invasive techniques with a more appealing safety profile has gained interest. Small randomized control trials and open-label studies have investigated transcranial direct current simulation for childhood epilepsy, demonstrating promising but inconsistent findings.

Ambulatory Local Field Potential Recordings from the Thalamus in Epilepsy: A Feasibility Study

Introduction: Stimulation of the thalamus is gaining favor in the treatment of medically refractory multifocal and generalized epilepsy. Implanted brain stimulators capable of recording ambulatory local field potentials (LFPs) have recently been introduced, but there is little information to guide their use in thalamic stimulation for epilepsy. This study sought to assess the feasibility of chronically recording ambulatory interictal LFP from the thalamus in patients with epilepsy. Methods: In this pilot study, ambulatory LFP was recorded from patients who underwent sensing-enabled deep brain stimulation (DBS, 2 participants) or responsive neurostimulation (RNS, 3 participants) targeting the anterior nucleus of the thalamus (ANT, 2 electrodes), centromedian nucleus (CM, 7 electrodes), or medial pulvinar (PuM, 1 electrode) for multifocal or generalized epilepsy. Time-domain and frequency-domain LFP was investigated for epileptiform discharges, spectral peaks, circadian variation, and peri-ictal patterns. Results: Thalamic interictal discharges were visible on ambulatory recordings from both DBS and RNS. At-home interictal frequency-domain data could be extracted from both devices. Spectral peaks were noted at 10–15 Hz in CM, 6–11 Hz in ANT, and 19–24 Hz in PuM but varied in prominence and were not visible in all electrodes. In CM, 10–15 Hz power exhibited circadian variation and was attenuated by eye opening. Conclusion: Chronic ambulatory recording of thalamic LFP is feasible. Common spectral peaks can be observed but vary between electrodes and across neural states. DBS and RNS devices provide a wealth of complementary data that have the potential to better inform thalamic stimulation for epilepsy.

Thalamic neuromodulation outcomes in drug-resistant refractory epilepsy with Deep Brain Stimulation and Responsive Neurostimulation (P5-1.003)

<h3>Objective:</h3> We aim to compare effects of thalamic Deep Brain Stimulator (DBS) and responsive neurostimulator (RNS) device therapy on seizure burden in drug-resistant epilepsy patients. <h3>Background:</h3> Intractable epilepsy unamenable to cortical resection is often treated with a device, either RNS or DBS provides intracranial stimulation. The devices are thought to reduce seizure frequency by reducing synchronization of cortical activity. The RNS provides more localized stimulation while the DBS does this by stimulating the anterior nucleus of the thalamus. At our institution a small number of patients have also undergone thalamic stimulation by using the RNS. <h3>Design/Methods:</h3> We performed retrospective analysis on seizure frequency pre-implant and at most recent follow-up for our cohort, 12 DBS and 6 RNS patients. <h3>Results:</h3> Average age of RNS implantation was 30 years (range 19–41) vs 42 years (range 18–66) for DBS. Thirteen (9 DBS, 4 RNS) of the 18 patients had stereo-EEG (SEEG) evaluation before device placement, SEEG ictal onset was broad or multifocal in all (DBS: 7 – bilateral and 2 – unilateral, RNS: 3 bilateral, 1 unilateral). Three out of five patients who did not have invasive EEG evaluation before device placement had suspected (2) or confirmed (1) genetic etiology, all five had non-localizing, non-lateralizing scalp ictal EEG. The electrodes were placed to the anterior nucleus of thalamus bilaterally in all DBS and four RNS patients, two RNS patients had centromedian nucleus of thalamus sampling. Twelve of our 18 patients (8 out of 12 DBS and 4 out of 6 RNS) were shown to be responders, achieving 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency. The average follow-up duration for RNS was 22 months (range 3–36), for DBS 13.5 months (range 2–29). <h3>Conclusions:</h3> This analysis demonstrates the potency of thalamic neuromodulation, both RNS and DBS, as therapies capable of seizure relief in wide breadths of epilepsy presentations. <b>Disclosure:</b> Dr. Das has received personal compensation for serving as an employee of Concentra. Dr. Das has received personal compensation in the range of $5,000-$9,999 for serving as an Expert Witness for janicek. The institution of an immediate family member of Dr. Das has received research support from NIH. irina podkorytova has nothing to disclose. Chijindu Iheanacho has nothing to disclose. Dr. Alick-Lindstrom has nothing to disclose. Dr. Agostini has nothing to disclose. Dr. Doyle has nothing to disclose. The institution of Dr. Ding has received research support from National Institute of Aging. The institution of Dr. Ding has received research support from NINDS. Dr. Hays has nothing to disclose. Dr. Perven has nothing to disclose. Dr. Dieppa has nothing to disclose. Dr. Zepeda Garcia has nothing to disclose.

504 Safety and Efficacy of Brain-Responsive Neurostimulation Treatment With Depth Leads Placed in the Neocortex

INTRODUCTION: Responsive neurostimulation (RNS) is efficacious in treating medically refractory epilepsy arising from neocortical foci. During clinical trials, most patients with neocortical seizure foci received cortical strip leads, perhaps due to intracranial monitoring with subdural grids/strips. Stereo-electroencephalography (sEEG) has become more widely utilized since the trials, resulting in increased placement of neocortical RNS depth leads. This is also an appealing approach when dural adhesions make strip lead implantation difficult. METHODS: We conducted retrospective chart review of adult patients with refractory epilepsy at seven institutions who underwent placement and connection of at least one RNS depth lead in the neocortex. RESULTS: 61 neocortical depth leads were connected to the RNS neurostimulator in 53 patients. 33 patients had additional depth leads in a non-neocortical focus, and 12 had an additional neocortical strip lead. Median follow-up was 2.2 years (range: 0.4 – 5.2 years). Median clinical seizure reduction in seizures was 63% at 1 y and 75% at last follow-up. 12 patients (23%) were seizure-free at last follow-up; a majority of these (83%) were seizure-free for &gt;6 mo, with five patients seizure-free for &gt;1 y. There were two (3.8%) scalp infections. One patient (1.9%) had each of the following: chemical meningitis, epidural hematoma, post-surgical status epilepticus (resolved with stimulation), new-onset non-epileptic seizures, and stimulation-related nausea (resolved with programming). CONCLUSIONS: Our multicenter series of 53 patients with neocortical-onset epilepsy treated with neocortical RNS depth leads demonstrated 75% median seizure reduction at 2 y of follow-up with a similar safety profile to placement of deep brain electrodes for movement disorders. Neocortical depth leads may be preferred with the RNS system following sEEG evaluation and/or if strip placement poses increased surgical risk.

Deep brain stimulation of thalamus for epilepsy

Neuromodulation (neurostimulation) is a relatively new and rapidly growing treatment for refractory epilepsy. Three varieties are approved in the US: vagus nerve stimulation (VNS), deep brain stimulation (DBS) and responsive neurostimulation (RNS). This article reviews thalamic DBS for epilepsy. Among many thalamic sub-nuclei, DBS for epilepsy has been targeted to the anterior nucleus (ANT), centromedian nucleus (CM), dorsomedial nucleus (DM) and pulvinar (PULV). Only ANT is FDA-approved, based upon a controlled clinical trial. Bilateral stimulation of ANT reduced seizures by 40.5% at three months in the controlled phase (p = .038) and 75% by 5 years in the uncontrolled phase. Side effects related to paresthesias, acute hemorrhage, infection, occasional increased seizures, and usually transient effects on mood and memory. Efficacy was best documented for focal onset seizures in temporal or frontal lobe. CM stimulation may be useful for generalized or multifocal seizures and PULV for posterior limbic seizures. Mechanisms of DBS for epilepsy are largely unknown, but animal work points to changes in receptors, channels, neurotransmitters, synapses, network connectivity and neurogenesis. Personalization of therapies, in terms of connectivity of the seizure onset zone to the thalamic sub- nucleus and individual characteristics of the seizures, might lead to improved efficacy. Many questions remain about DBS, including the best candidates for different types of neuromodulation, the best targets, the best stimulation parameters, how to minimize side effects and how to deliver current noninvasively. Despite the questions, neuromodulation provides useful new opportunities to treat people with refractory seizures not responding to medicines and not amenable to resective surgery.

Responsive neurostimulation with low-frequency stimulation.

Deep brain stimulation and responsive neurostimulation (RNS) use high-frequency stimulation (HFS) per the pivotal trials and manufacturer-recommended therapy protocols. However, not all patients respond to HFS. In this retrospective case series, 10 patients implanted with the RNS System were programmed with low-frequency stimulation (LFS) to treat their seizures; nine of these patients were previously treated with HFS (100 Hz or greater). LFS was defined as frequency < 10Hz. Burst duration was increased to at least 1000 ms. With HFS, patients had a median seizure reduction (MSR) of 13% (interquartile range [IQR] = -67 to 54) after a median of 19 months (IQR=8-49). In contrast, LFS was associated with a 67% MSR (IQR=13-95) when compared to HFS and 76% MSR (IQR=43-91) when compared to baseline prior to implantation. Charge delivered per hour and pulses per day were not significantly different between HFS and LFS, although time stimulated per day was longer for LFS (228 min) than for HFS (7min). There were no LFS-specific adverse effects reported by any of the patients. LFS could represent an alternative, effective method for delivering stimulation in focal drug-resistant epilepsy patients treated with the RNS System.

Thalamic stereoelectroencephalography in epilepsy surgery: a scoping literature review.

Stereoelectroencephalography (sEEG) is a well-established surgical method for defining the epileptogenic network. Traditionally reserved for identifying discrete cortical regions for resection or ablation, sEEG in current practice is also used for identifying more broadly involved subcortical epileptic network components, driven by the availability of brain-based neuromodulation strategies. In particular, sEEG investigations including thalamic nuclei are becoming more frequent in parallel with the increase in therapeutic strategies involving thalamic targets such as deep brain stimulation (DBS) and responsive neurostimulation (RNS). The objective to this study was to evaluate existing evidence and trends regarding the purpose, techniques, and relevant electrographic findings of thalamic sEEG. MEDLINE and Embase databases were systematically queried for eligible peer-reviewed studies involving sEEG electrode implantation into thalamic nuclei of patients with epilepsy. Available data were abstracted concerning preoperative workup and purpose for implanting the thalamus, thalamic targets and trajectories, and electrophysiological methodology and findings. sEEG investigations have included thalamic targets for both basic and clinical research purposes. Medial pulvinar, dorsomedial, anterior, and centromedian nuclei have been the most frequently studied. Few studies have reported any complications with thalamic sEEG implantation, and no studies have reported long-term complications. Various methods have been utilized to characterize thalamic activity in epileptic disorders including evoked potentials, power spectrograms, synchronization indices, and the epileptogenicity index. Thalamic intracranial recordings are beginning to be used to guide neuromodulation strategies including RNS and DBS, as well as to understand complex, network-dependent seizure disorders. Inclusion of thalamic coverage during sEEG evaluation in drug-resistant epilepsy is a growing practice and is amenable to various methods of electrographic data analysis. Further study is required to establish well-defined criteria for thalamic implantation during invasive investigations as well as safety and ethical considerations.

Deep Brain Stimulation and Responsive Neurostimulation Implantation for Medically Refractory Epilepsy: A Case Report Study of a Single-Center's Experience

Deep Brain Stimulation and Responsive Neurostimulation Implantation for Medically Refractory Epilepsy: A Case Report Study of a Single-Center's Experience

Surgical approaches to refractory central lobule epilepsy: a systematic review on the role of resection, ablation, and stimulation in the contemporary era.

Epilepsy originating from the central lobule (i.e., the primary sensorimotor cortex) is a challenging entity to treat given its involvement of eloquent cortex. The objective of this study was to review available evidence on treatment options for central lobule epilepsy. A comprehensive literature search (PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, and Scopus) was conducted for studies (1990 to date) investigating postoperative outcomes for central lobule epilepsy. The primary and secondary endpoints were seizure freedom at last follow-up and postoperative neurological deficit, respectively. The following procedures were included: open resection, multiple subpial transections (MSTs), laser and radiofrequency ablation, deep brain stimulation (DBS), responsive neurostimulation (RNS), and continuous subthreshold cortical stimulation (CSCS). A total of 52 studies and 504 patients were analyzed. Most evidence was based on open resection, yielding a total of 400 patients (24 studies), of whom 62% achieved seizure freedom at a mean follow-up of 48 months. A new or worsened motor deficit occurred in 44% (permanent in 19%). Forty-six patients underwent MSTs, of whom 16% achieved seizure freedom and 30% had a neurological deficit (permanent in 12%). There were 6 laser ablation cases (cavernomas in 50%) with seizure freedom in 4 patients and 1 patient with temporary motor deficit. There were 5 radiofrequency ablation cases, with 1 patient achieving seizure freedom, 2 patients each with Engel class III and IV outcomes, and 2 patients with motor deficit. The mean seizure frequency reduction at the last follow-up was 79% for RNS (28 patients), 90% for CSCS (15 patients), and 73% for DBS (4 patients). There were no cases of temporary or permanent neurological deficit in the CSCS or DBS group. This review highlights the safety and efficacy profile of resection, ablation, and stimulation for refractory central lobe epilepsy. Resection of localized regions of epilepsy onset zones results in good rates of seizure freedom (62%); however, nearly 20% of patients had permanent motor deficits. The authors hope that this review will be useful to providers and patients when tailoring decision-making for this intricate pathology.

Centromedian thalamic neuromodulation for the treatment of idiopathic generalized epilepsy.

Idiopathic generalized epilepsy (IGE) is a common type of epilepsy and despite an increase in the number of available anti-seizure medications, approximately 20–30% of people with IGE continue to experience seizures despite adequate medication trials. Unlike focal epilepsy, resective surgery is not a viable treatment option for IGE; however, neuromodulation may be an effective surgical treatment for people with IGE. Thalamic stimulation through deep brain stimulation (DBS) and responsive neurostimulation (RNS) have been explored for the treatment of generalized and focal epilepsies. Although the data regarding DBS and RNS in IGE is limited to case reports and case series, the results of the published studies have been promising. The current manuscript will review the published literature of DBS and RNS within the centromedian nucleus of the thalamus for the treatment of IGE, as well as highlight an illustrative case.

Anterior nucleus of the thalamus deep brain stimulation vs temporal lobe responsive neurostimulation for temporal lobe epilepsy.

Based on the promising results of randomized controlled trials, deep brain stimulation (DBS) and responsive neurostimulation (RNS) are used increasingly in the treatment of patients with drug-resistant epilepsy. Drug-resistant temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE) is an indication for either DBS of the anterior nucleus of the thalamus (ANT) or temporal lobe (TL) RNS, but there are no studies that directly compare the seizure benefits and adverse effects associated with these therapies in this patient population. We, therefore, examined all patients who underwent ANT-DBS or TL-RNS for drug-resistant TLE at our center. We performed a retrospective review of patients who were treated with either ANT-DBS or TL-RNS for drug-resistant TLE with at least 12 months of follow-up. Along with the clinical characteristics of each patient's epilepsy, seizure frequency was recorded throughout each patient's postoperative clinical course. Twenty-six patients underwent ANT-DBS implantation and 32 patients underwent TL-RNS for drug-resistant TLE. The epilepsy characteristics of both groups were similar. Patients who underwent ANT-DBS demonstrated a median seizure reduction of 58% at 12-15 months, compared to a median seizure reduction of 70% at 12-15 months in patients treated with TL-RNS (p > .05). The responder rate (percentage of patients with a 50% decrease or more in seizure frequency) was 54% for ANT-DBS and 56% for TL-RNS (p > .05). The incidence of complications and stimulation-related side effects did not significantly differ between therapies. We demonstrate in our single-center experience that patients with drug-resistant TLE benefit similarly from either ANT-DBS or TL-RNS. Selection of either ANT-DBS or TL-RNS may, therefore, depend more heavily on patient and provider preference, as each has unique capabilities and configurations. Future studies will consider subgroup analyses to determine if specific patients have greater seizure frequency reduction from one form of neuromodulation strategy over another.

Brain responsive neurostimulation device safety and effectiveness in patients with drug-resistant autoimmune-associated epilepsy

PurposeThis study examines the safety and effectiveness of brain-responsive neurostimulation (RNS System) therapy in patients with refractory autoimmune-associated epilepsy (AAE). MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed 85 medical records of patients who were treated with the RNS System at the three Mayo Clinic sites to identify patients with AAE. We collected clinical data including demographics, epilepsy history, prior evaluations and treatment, RNS implantation and lead information, long term ambulatory electrocorticography (ECoG) data, and patient-reported seizure details. Inclusion criteria included: (1) confirmed neural antibodies, or absent/negative autoimmune panel with Antibody Prevalence in Epilepsy (APE2) score ≥ 4 and (2) at least 6 months of follow up after RNS implantation. The primary outcomes measured were patient-reported seizure frequencies at last follow-up as compared to baseline, ECoG long-episode frequencies, and adverse events following RNS implantation. ResultsOf the 85 patients reviewed, nine (11 %) met the inclusion criteria. Three patients had GAD65 antibodies (mean serum titer = 816 ug/dl), one had Rasmussen’s encephalitis (biopsy proven), and five had absent/negative neuronal antibody panel but APE scores were ≥ 4. Six out of nine patients (67 %) reported improvement in clinical seizure frequency, all reported improvements in seizure duration and intensity. Four of 9 patients (44 %) showed trends of decreasing frequency of prolonged periods of epileptiform activity over time. One patient (11 %) developed a superficial wound infection at the implant site. ConclusionThe findings from our study suggest that adjunctive treatment with the RNS System may be a safe option for patients with refractory AAE.

Emerging Trends in Neuromodulation for Treatment of Drug-Resistant Epilepsy.

Epilepsy is a neurological disorder that affects more than 70 million people globally. A considerable proportion of epilepsy is resistant to anti-epileptic drugs (AED). For patients with drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE), who are not eligible for resective or ablative surgery, neuromodulation has been a palliative option. Since the approval of vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) in 1997, expansion to include other modalities, such as deep brain stimulation (DBS) and responsive neurostimulation (RNS), has led to improved seizure control in this population. In this article, we discuss the current updates and emerging trends on neuromodulation for epilepsy.

Analysis of Electrocorticography in Epileptic Patients With Responsive Neurostimulation Undergoing Scalp Electroencephalography Monitoring.

To describe the relationship of electrocorticography events detected by a brain-responsive neurostimulation system (RNS) and their association with ictal and interictal activity detected on simultaneous scalp EEG. We retrospectively identified patients with drug-resistant epilepsy implanted with RNS who subsequently underwent long-term scalp EEG monitoring. RNS detections were correlated to simultaneous activity recorded on scalp EEG to determine the characteristics of electrocorticography-stored long episodes associated with seizures or other findings on scalp EEG. Eleven patients were included with an average of 3.6 days of monitoring. Most RNS detections were of very brief duration (<10 seconds, 92.9%) and received one stimulation therapy (80.8%). A high proportion of long episodes (67.1%) were not identified as electrographic seizures on scalp EEG. Of those ictal-appearing (71.2%) long episodes, 68.2% had seizure correlates. Long episodes associated with seizures on scalp EEG had a longer median duration compared with those without (39.7 vs. 16.8 seconds, P < 0.002) and had broader spread pattern and were of higher amplitude on electrocorticography. Brief potentially ictal rhythmic discharges were the most common EEG findings associated with long episodes that did not have scalp EEG seizure correlates (100% for ictal- and 50% for non-ictal-appearing long episodes). Longer, broader spread and higher amplitude intracranial RNS detections are more likely to manifest as electrographic seizures on scalp EEG. Brief potentially ictal rhythmic discharges may serve as a scalp EEG biomarker of ictal intracranial episodes that are detected as long episodes by the RNS but not identified as electrographic seizures on scalp EEG.

335 Low Frequency Oscillations in the Ventral Nucleus Accumbens Region Guides Brain Responsive Neurostimulation for Loss of Control Eating: An Initial Review of the BITES Trial

INTRODUCTION: Loss of control (LOC) eating is pervasive in eating disorders and obesity. The presence of this phenotype appears to predict treatment-resistance, including gastric bypass surgery. Brain-responsive neurostimulation guided by low frequency changes in the nucleus accumbens (NAc-RNS) was previously found to block LOC eating behavior in mice. Following this novel preclinical work, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved an Investigational Device Exemption for a first-in-human study. METHODS: Two participants (female, 45 and 55 years old) with binge-eating disorder and morbid obesity (body mass index, 45 and 50 kg/m2) refractory to gastric bypass were surgically implanted with a brain-responsive neurostimulator (RNS System; NeuroPace, Inc.) connected to bilateral NAc depth leads. NAc field potentials were recorded postoperatively in the clinic while the participants completed eating tasks. Outside of the clinic, participants maintained a diary describing their LOC episodes, specifically describing craving and satiety severity (Likert scale), and triggered the neurostimulator to record timestamped NAc field potentials. NAc field potentials and bilateral NAc connectivity were analyzed for the development and implementation of a novel NAc-RNS paradigm. RESULTS: In the clinic, the left ventral NAc region activity showed increased delta (2-4 Hz)- and theta (4-8 Hz)-band power during anticipatory bites of highly caloric, palatable food when compared to standard meal bites. In the ambulatory setting, we observed increased bilateral ventral NAc delta band activity and connectivity that appeared selective for states of food craving. Therefore, the RNS System was programmed to detect brief bursts of low-frequency activity in the bilateral ventral NAc, and delivered bilateral, bipolar stimulation (∼1 μC/cm2 charge density per 10s stimulation bout). This paradigm resulted in decreased LOC episodes (∼25% in both participants) and subjective improvement in decision-making surrounding food choices. CONCLUSION: We present early findings of an electrographic signal associated with LOC eating with promising preliminary evidence of restored control using a NAc-RNS paradigm. Future directions include refining control signals, adaptive parameters, and examining the long-term effects of restoring inhibitory control on obesity.