OBJECTIVE: Clinical deep brain stimulation (DBS) systems typically utilize voltage-controlled stimulation and thus the voltage distribution generated in the brain can be affected by electrode impedance fluctuations. The goal of this study was to experimentally evaluate the theoretical advantages of using current-controlled pulse generators for DBS applications. METHODS: Time-dependent changes in the voltage distribution generated in the brain during voltage-controlled and current-controlled DBS were monitored with in vivo experimental recordings performed in non-human primates implanted with scaled-down clinical DBS electrodes. RESULTS: In the days following DBS lead implantation, electrode impedance progressively increased. Application of continuous stimulation through the DBS electrode produced a decrease in the electrode impedance in a time dependent manner, with the largest changes occurring within the first hour of stimulation. Over that time period, voltage-controlled stimuli exhibited an increase in the voltage magnitudes generated in the tissue near the DBS electrode, while current-controlled DBS showed minimal changes. CONCLUSION: Large electrode impedance changes occur during DBS. During voltage-controlled stimulation, these impedance changes were significantly correlated with changes in the voltage distribution generated in the brain. However, these effects can be minimized with current-controlled stimulation. SIGNIFICANCE: The use of current-controlled DBS may help minimize time-dependent changes in therapeutic efficacy that can complicate patient programming when using voltage-controlled DBS.
OBJECTIVE: Clinical deep brain stimulation (DBS) systems typically utilize voltage-controlled stimulation and thus the voltage distribution generated in the brain can be affected by electrode impedance fluctuations. The goal of this study was to experimentally evaluate the theoretical advantages of using current-controlled pulse generators for DBS applications. METHODS: Time-dependent changes in the voltage distribution generated in the brain during voltage-controlled and current-controlled DBS were monitored with in vivo experimental recordings performed in non-human primates implanted with scaled-down clinical DBS electrodes. RESULTS: In the days following DBS lead implantation, electrode impedance progressively increased. Application of continuous stimulation through the DBS electrode produced a decrease in the electrode impedance in a time dependent manner, with the largest changes occurring within the first hour of stimulation. Over that time period, voltage-controlled stimuli exhibited an increase in the voltage magnitudes generated in the tissue near the DBS electrode, while current-controlled DBS showed minimal changes. CONCLUSION: Large electrode impedance changes occur during DBS. During voltage-controlled stimulation, these impedance changes were significantly correlated with changes in the voltage distribution generated in the brain. However, these effects can be minimized with current-controlled stimulation. SIGNIFICANCE: The use of current-controlled DBS may help minimize time-dependent changes in therapeutic efficacy that can complicate patient programming when using voltage-controlled DBS.
Authors: Günther Deuschl; Jan Herzog; Galit Kleiner-Fisman; Cynthia Kubu; Andres M Lozano; Kelly E Lyons; Maria C Rodriguez-Oroz; Filippo Tamma; Alexander I Tröster; Jerrold L Vitek; Jens Volkmann; Valerie Voon Journal: Mov Disord Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 10.338
Authors: Justin C Williams; Joseph A Hippensteel; John Dilgen; William Shain; Daryl R Kipke Journal: J Neural Eng Date: 2007-11-27 Impact factor: 5.379
Authors: Scott F Lempka; Svjetlana Miocinovic; Matthew D Johnson; Jerrold L Vitek; Cameron C McIntyre Journal: J Neural Eng Date: 2009-06-03 Impact factor: 5.379
Authors: Svjetlana Miocinovic; Scott F Lempka; Gary S Russo; Christopher B Maks; Christopher R Butson; Ken E Sakaie; Jerrold L Vitek; Cameron C McIntyre Journal: Exp Neurol Date: 2008-12-11 Impact factor: 5.330
Authors: Andrea A Kühn; Florian Kempf; Christof Brücke; Louise Gaynor Doyle; Irene Martinez-Torres; Alek Pogosyan; Thomas Trottenberg; Andreas Kupsch; Gerd-Helge Schneider; Marwan I Hariz; Wim Vandenberghe; Bart Nuttin; Peter Brown Journal: J Neurosci Date: 2008-06-11 Impact factor: 6.167
Authors: Simeng Zhang; Allison T Connolly; Lauren R Madden; Jerrold L Vitek; Matthew D Johnson Journal: J Neural Eng Date: 2018-04-13 Impact factor: 5.379
Authors: Alexander R Kent; Brandon D Swan; David T Brocker; Dennis A Turner; Robert E Gross; Warren M Grill Journal: Brain Stimul Date: 2014-10-05 Impact factor: 8.955
Authors: C Lungu; P Malone; T Wu; P Ghosh; B McElroy; K Zaghloul; T Patterson; M Hallett; Z Levine Journal: J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry Date: 2013-11-11 Impact factor: 10.154