Literature DB >> 11554887

Vagus nerve stimulation: analysis of device parameters in 154 patients during the long-term XE5 study.

C M DeGiorgio1, J Thompson, P Lewis, S Arrambide, D Naritoku, A Handforth, D Labar, P Mullin, C Heck.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To determine the effect of changes in device settings and duty cycle (on and off times) on the efficacy of vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) for refractory epilepsy. In the long-term XE5 study of VNS for intractable epilepsy, the median reduction in seizure frequency improved significantly after 1 year of follow-up. A central question is whether device changes improve efficacy. We analyzed the effects of device parameter changes on seizure frequency in 154 subjects who completed the study and who had complete data for analysis.
METHODS: Retrospective analysis of device changes during the XE5 long-term study of VNS. During the XE5 long-term follow-up study, the subject's device settings were modified within a Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved range of output current, pulse duration, frequency, on time, and off time. Significant changes in device settings occurred after 3 months. We investigated the relationship between percentage reduction in seizures and changes in device parameters between the 3- and 12-month visits. Within-group comparisons were performed for those who continued on standard on/off cycle of 30 s on and 5 min off, and those with the most common off times of 3, 1.8, and < 1.1 min.
RESULTS: Output current, pulse duration, frequency, and off time changed significantly between the 3- and 12-month long-term follow-ups. For the group as a whole, changes in device settings were not correlated with an improvement in efficacy. However, a significant improvement in efficacy occurred in a subgroup whose off time was reduced to < or = 1.1 min. In this group, the median reduction in seizures improved from 21% before the change in off time, to 39% after the change in off time (Wilcoxon Signed-Rank, p = 0.011). The responder rate (> 50% reduction in seizures) also significantly improved from 19 to 35% (McNemar's test, p = 0.046).
CONCLUSIONS: The data from this retrospective analysis indicate that device changes were not the primary determinant of increased efficacy at 12 months of long-term follow-up. In general, patients who remained on the original settings of 30 s on and 5 min off continued to respond or improve in their response over the 1-year period. However, some patients may benefit from reductions in off time (increases in duty cycle). In a subgroup initially resistant to VNS, a change in off time to < or = 1.1 min off did result in significant improvements in efficacy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11554887     DOI: 10.1046/j.1528-1157.2001.0420081017.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Epilepsia        ISSN: 0013-9580            Impact factor:   5.864


  18 in total

1.  Vagus Nerve Stimulation Applied with a Rapid Cycle Has More Profound Influence on Hippocampal Electrophysiology Than a Standard Cycle.

Authors:  Lars E Larsen; Wytse J Wadman; Daniele Marinazzo; Pieter van Mierlo; Jean Delbeke; Sofie Daelemans; Mathieu Sprengers; Lisa Thyrion; Wouter Van Lysebettens; Evelien Carrette; Paul Boon; Kristl Vonck; Robrecht Raedt
Journal:  Neurotherapeutics       Date:  2016-07       Impact factor: 7.620

2.  Vagus Nerve Stimulation: Rapid versus Slow Cycling in a Laboratory Model.

Authors:  Robert S Fisher
Journal:  Neurotherapeutics       Date:  2016-07       Impact factor: 7.620

3.  Vagus Nerve Stimulation As Treatment for Epileptic Seizures.

Authors:  Martin C. Salinsky
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Neurol       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 3.598

4.  Long-term results of vagus nerve stimulation in children and adolescents with drug-resistant epilepsy.

Authors:  Beata Majkowska-Zwolińska; Piotr Zwoliński; Marcin Roszkowski; Krzysztof Drabik
Journal:  Childs Nerv Syst       Date:  2012-01-06       Impact factor: 1.475

5.  Effect of vagus nerve stimulation in post-traumatic epilepsy and failed epilepsy surgery : preliminary report.

Authors:  Hai-Ong Lee; Eun-Jeong Koh; Young-Min Oh; Seung-Soo Park; Ki-Hun Kwon; Ha-Young Choi
Journal:  J Korean Neurosurg Soc       Date:  2008-10-30

6.  VEP indices of cortical lateral interactions in epilepsy treatment.

Authors:  Mary M Conte; Jonathan D Victor
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2008-06-24       Impact factor: 1.886

Review 7.  Stimulation of the nervous system for the management of seizures: current and future developments.

Authors:  Jerome V Murphy; Arunangelo Patil
Journal:  CNS Drugs       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 5.749

Review 8.  Expanding therapeutic options: devices and the treatment of refractory epilepsy.

Authors:  Steven Karceski; Paul Mullin
Journal:  Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 5.081

Review 9.  Invasive Neuromodulation for the Treatment of Pediatric Epilepsy.

Authors:  Laureen D Hachem; Han Yan; George M Ibrahim
Journal:  Neurotherapeutics       Date:  2019-01       Impact factor: 7.620

Review 10.  Empirically Based Guidelines for Selecting Vagus Nerve Stimulation Parameters in Epilepsy and Heart Failure.

Authors:  Eric D Musselman; Nicole A Pelot; Warren M Grill
Journal:  Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med       Date:  2019-07-01       Impact factor: 6.915

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.