反应性神经刺激的状态依赖效应取决于癫痫发作的定位。

IF 10.6 1区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Brain Pub Date : 2025-02-03 DOI:10.1093/brain/awae240
Sharon Chiang, Ankit N Khambhati, Thomas K Tcheng, Audra Plenys Loftman, Nicholas R Hasulak, Emily A Mirro, Martha J Morrell, Vikram R Rao
{"title":"反应性神经刺激的状态依赖效应取决于癫痫发作的定位。","authors":"Sharon Chiang, Ankit N Khambhati, Thomas K Tcheng, Audra Plenys Loftman, Nicholas R Hasulak, Emily A Mirro, Martha J Morrell, Vikram R Rao","doi":"10.1093/brain/awae240","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Brain-responsive neurostimulation (RNS) is firmly ensconced among treatment options for drug-resistant focal epilepsy, but over a quarter of patients treated with the RNS® System do not experience meaningful seizure reduction. Initial titration of RNS therapy is typically similar for all patients, raising the possibility that treatment response might be enhanced by consideration of patient-specific variables. Indeed, small, single-centre studies have yielded preliminary evidence that RNS System effectiveness depends on the brain state during which stimulation is applied. The generalizability of these findings remains unclear, however, and it is unknown whether state-dependent effects of responsive neurostimulation are also stratified by location of the seizure onset zone where stimulation is delivered. We aimed to determine whether state-dependent effects of the RNS System are evident in the large, diverse, multi-centre cohort of RNS System clinical trial participants and to test whether these effects differ between mesiotemporal and neocortical epilepsies. Eighty-one of 256 patients treated with the RNS System across 31 centres during clinical trials met the criteria for inclusion in this retrospective study. Risk states were defined in relation to phases of daily and multi-day cycles of interictal epileptiform activity that are thought to determine seizure likelihood. We found that the probabilities of risk state transitions depended on the stimulation parameter being changed, the starting seizure risk state and the stimulated brain region. Changes in two commonly adjusted stimulation parameters, charge density and stimulation frequency, produced opposite effects on risk state transitions depending on seizure localization. Greater variance in acute risk state transitions was explained by state-dependent responsive neurostimulation for bipolar stimulation in neocortical epilepsies and for monopolar stimulation in mesiotemporal epilepsies. Variability in the effectiveness of RNS System therapy across individuals may relate, at least partly, to the fact that current treatment paradigms do not account fully for fluctuations in brain states or locations of simulation sites. State-dependence of electrical brain stimulation may inform the development of next-generation closed-loop devices that can detect changes in brain state and deliver adaptive, localization-specific patterns of stimulation to maximize therapeutic effects.</p>","PeriodicalId":9063,"journal":{"name":"Brain","volume":" ","pages":"521-532"},"PeriodicalIF":10.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11788193/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"State-dependent effects of responsive neurostimulation depend on seizure localization.\",\"authors\":\"Sharon Chiang, Ankit N Khambhati, Thomas K Tcheng, Audra Plenys Loftman, Nicholas R Hasulak, Emily A Mirro, Martha J Morrell, Vikram R Rao\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/brain/awae240\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Brain-responsive neurostimulation (RNS) is firmly ensconced among treatment options for drug-resistant focal epilepsy, but over a quarter of patients treated with the RNS® System do not experience meaningful seizure reduction. Initial titration of RNS therapy is typically similar for all patients, raising the possibility that treatment response might be enhanced by consideration of patient-specific variables. Indeed, small, single-centre studies have yielded preliminary evidence that RNS System effectiveness depends on the brain state during which stimulation is applied. The generalizability of these findings remains unclear, however, and it is unknown whether state-dependent effects of responsive neurostimulation are also stratified by location of the seizure onset zone where stimulation is delivered. We aimed to determine whether state-dependent effects of the RNS System are evident in the large, diverse, multi-centre cohort of RNS System clinical trial participants and to test whether these effects differ between mesiotemporal and neocortical epilepsies. Eighty-one of 256 patients treated with the RNS System across 31 centres during clinical trials met the criteria for inclusion in this retrospective study. Risk states were defined in relation to phases of daily and multi-day cycles of interictal epileptiform activity that are thought to determine seizure likelihood. We found that the probabilities of risk state transitions depended on the stimulation parameter being changed, the starting seizure risk state and the stimulated brain region. Changes in two commonly adjusted stimulation parameters, charge density and stimulation frequency, produced opposite effects on risk state transitions depending on seizure localization. Greater variance in acute risk state transitions was explained by state-dependent responsive neurostimulation for bipolar stimulation in neocortical epilepsies and for monopolar stimulation in mesiotemporal epilepsies. Variability in the effectiveness of RNS System therapy across individuals may relate, at least partly, to the fact that current treatment paradigms do not account fully for fluctuations in brain states or locations of simulation sites. State-dependence of electrical brain stimulation may inform the development of next-generation closed-loop devices that can detect changes in brain state and deliver adaptive, localization-specific patterns of stimulation to maximize therapeutic effects.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9063,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Brain\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"521-532\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":10.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11788193/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Brain\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awae240\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Brain","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awae240","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

脑反应性神经刺激疗法是治疗耐药性局灶性癫痫的首选疗法之一,但超过四分之一的接受 RNS 系统治疗的患者发作次数并没有明显减少。RNS 治疗的初始滴定通常对所有患者都是相似的,这就提出了一种可能性,即通过考虑患者的特定变量来提高治疗反应。事实上,小型的单中心研究已经初步证明,RNS 系统的有效性取决于施加刺激时的大脑状态。然而,这些研究结果的推广性尚不明确,而且人们还不知道反应性神经刺激的状态依赖效应是否也会因刺激的发作起始区位置而分层。我们的目的是确定 RNS 系统的状态依赖性效应在 RNS 系统临床试验的大型、多样化、多中心队列中是否明显,并检验这些效应在中颞叶癫痫和新皮质癫痫之间是否存在差异。在临床试验期间,有 31 个中心的 256 名患者接受了 RNS 系统的治疗,其中 81 名患者符合这项回顾性研究的纳入标准。风险状态的定义与发作间期痫样活动的每日和多日周期阶段有关,这些阶段被认为决定了癫痫发作的可能性。我们发现,风险状态转换的概率取决于所改变的刺激参数、开始的癫痫发作风险状态和受刺激的脑区。电荷密度和刺激频率这两个通常调整的刺激参数的变化对风险状态转换产生了相反的影响,这取决于癫痫发作的定位。对于新皮层癫痫的双极刺激和对于中颞叶癫痫的单极刺激,急性危险状态转换的更大差异是由状态依赖性反应神经刺激所解释的。RNS 系统治疗效果的个体差异可能至少部分与以下事实有关,即当前的治疗范例并未充分考虑大脑状态或模拟点位置的波动。脑电刺激的状态依赖性可为下一代闭环设备的开发提供信息,这些设备可以检测大脑状态的变化,并提供适应性的、针对特定位置的刺激模式,以最大限度地提高治疗效果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
State-dependent effects of responsive neurostimulation depend on seizure localization.

Brain-responsive neurostimulation (RNS) is firmly ensconced among treatment options for drug-resistant focal epilepsy, but over a quarter of patients treated with the RNS® System do not experience meaningful seizure reduction. Initial titration of RNS therapy is typically similar for all patients, raising the possibility that treatment response might be enhanced by consideration of patient-specific variables. Indeed, small, single-centre studies have yielded preliminary evidence that RNS System effectiveness depends on the brain state during which stimulation is applied. The generalizability of these findings remains unclear, however, and it is unknown whether state-dependent effects of responsive neurostimulation are also stratified by location of the seizure onset zone where stimulation is delivered. We aimed to determine whether state-dependent effects of the RNS System are evident in the large, diverse, multi-centre cohort of RNS System clinical trial participants and to test whether these effects differ between mesiotemporal and neocortical epilepsies. Eighty-one of 256 patients treated with the RNS System across 31 centres during clinical trials met the criteria for inclusion in this retrospective study. Risk states were defined in relation to phases of daily and multi-day cycles of interictal epileptiform activity that are thought to determine seizure likelihood. We found that the probabilities of risk state transitions depended on the stimulation parameter being changed, the starting seizure risk state and the stimulated brain region. Changes in two commonly adjusted stimulation parameters, charge density and stimulation frequency, produced opposite effects on risk state transitions depending on seizure localization. Greater variance in acute risk state transitions was explained by state-dependent responsive neurostimulation for bipolar stimulation in neocortical epilepsies and for monopolar stimulation in mesiotemporal epilepsies. Variability in the effectiveness of RNS System therapy across individuals may relate, at least partly, to the fact that current treatment paradigms do not account fully for fluctuations in brain states or locations of simulation sites. State-dependence of electrical brain stimulation may inform the development of next-generation closed-loop devices that can detect changes in brain state and deliver adaptive, localization-specific patterns of stimulation to maximize therapeutic effects.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Brain
Brain 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
20.30
自引率
4.10%
发文量
458
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Brain, a journal focused on clinical neurology and translational neuroscience, has been publishing landmark papers since 1878. The journal aims to expand its scope by including studies that shed light on disease mechanisms and conducting innovative clinical trials for brain disorders. With a wide range of topics covered, the Editorial Board represents the international readership and diverse coverage of the journal. Accepted articles are promptly posted online, typically within a few weeks of acceptance. As of 2022, Brain holds an impressive impact factor of 14.5, according to the Journal Citation Reports.
期刊最新文献
p75NTR modulation prevents cellular, cortical activity and cognitive dysfunctions caused by perinatal hypoxia Post-mortem validation of in vivo TSPO PET as a microglial biomarker TSC2 loss in neural progenitor cells suppresses mRNA translation of neurodevelopmental genes Mendelian randomization identifies proteins involved in neurodegenerative diseases Converging and conflicting evidence for left temporal lobe regions in acoustic-phonetic perception
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1