Leonardo Almeida1, Pawan V Rawal2, Benjamin Ditty2, Bryan L Smelser2, He Huang2, Michael S Okun1, Barton L Guthrie3, Harrison C Walker4. 1. University of Florida, Center for Movement Disorders and Neurorestoration. 2. University of Alabama at Birmingham, Department of Neurology. 3. University of Alabama at Birmingham, Department of Neurosurgery. 4. University of Alabama at Birmingham, Department of Neurology; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Department of Biomedical Engineering.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Deep brain stimulation is an effective treatment for movement disorders, but it is relatively complex, invasive, and costly. Little is known about whether stimulation mode alters pulse generator (battery) longevity in routine clinical care. OBJECTIVE: To compare battery longevity during monopolar versus bipolar stimulation in patients who underwent deep brain stimulation for movement disorders. METHODS: We evaluated 2,902 programming adjustments and calculated the average stimulator settings for 393 batteries in 200 unique patients with Parkinson's disease and essential tremor. We classified the pulse generators into different stimulation modes (monopolar, bipolar, tripolar, double monopolar) and compared battery longevity with Kaplan Meier survival analyses using the log rank test. We exclusively implanted the Medtronic 3387 lead with adjacent electrode contacts separated by 1.5 mm. RESULTS: The mean pulse generator longevity was 47.6±1.6 months regardless of diagnosis or stimulation mode. Bipolar stimulation mode was associated with greater longevity than monopolar stimulation (56.1±3.4 versus 44.2±2.1 months, p=0.006). This effect was most pronounced when stimulation parameters were at low to moderate intensity settings. Double monopolar configuration was associated with less pulse generator longevity than conventional stimulation modes (37.8±5.6 versus 49.7±1.9, p=0.014). CONCLUSION: IPGs initially programmed in bipolar mode provided one year of additional battery longevity versus monopolar mode in this large retrospective series of patients with essential tremor and Parkinson's disease. Given satisfactory efficacy for motor symptoms, bipolar stimulation mode is a feasible alternative programming strategy at the initiation of DBS therapy.
BACKGROUND: Deep brain stimulation is an effective treatment for movement disorders, but it is relatively complex, invasive, and costly. Little is known about whether stimulation mode alters pulse generator (battery) longevity in routine clinical care. OBJECTIVE: To compare battery longevity during monopolar versus bipolar stimulation in patients who underwent deep brain stimulation for movement disorders. METHODS: We evaluated 2,902 programming adjustments and calculated the average stimulator settings for 393 batteries in 200 unique patients with Parkinson's disease and essential tremor. We classified the pulse generators into different stimulation modes (monopolar, bipolar, tripolar, double monopolar) and compared battery longevity with Kaplan Meier survival analyses using the log rank test. We exclusively implanted the Medtronic 3387 lead with adjacent electrode contacts separated by 1.5 mm. RESULTS: The mean pulse generator longevity was 47.6±1.6 months regardless of diagnosis or stimulation mode. Bipolar stimulation mode was associated with greater longevity than monopolar stimulation (56.1±3.4 versus 44.2±2.1 months, p=0.006). This effect was most pronounced when stimulation parameters were at low to moderate intensity settings. Double monopolar configuration was associated with less pulse generator longevity than conventional stimulation modes (37.8±5.6 versus 49.7±1.9, p=0.014). CONCLUSION:IPGs initially programmed in bipolar mode provided one year of additional battery longevity versus monopolar mode in this large retrospective series of patients with essential tremor and Parkinson's disease. Given satisfactory efficacy for motor symptoms, bipolar stimulation mode is a feasible alternative programming strategy at the initiation of DBS therapy.
Entities:
Keywords:
Deep Brain Stimulation; Motor control; Parkinson’s disease; Tremor
Authors: Vincent J J Odekerken; Teus van Laar; Michiel J Staal; Arne Mosch; Carel F E Hoffmann; Peter C G Nijssen; Guus N Beute; Jeroen P P van Vugt; Mathieu W P M Lenders; M Fiorella Contarino; Marieke S J Mink; Lo J Bour; Pepijn van den Munckhof; Ben A Schmand; Rob J de Haan; P Richard Schuurman; Rob M A de Bie Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2012-11-16 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: Amy W Amara; David G Standaert; Stephanie Guthrie; Gary Cutter; Ray L Watts; Harrison C Walker Journal: Parkinsonism Relat Disord Date: 2011-09-15 Impact factor: 4.891
Authors: P R Schuurman; D A Bosch; P M Bossuyt; G J Bonsel; E J van Someren; R M de Bie; M P Merkus; J D Speelman Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2000-02-17 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Kenneth A Follett; Frances M Weaver; Matthew Stern; Kwan Hur; Crystal L Harris; Ping Luo; William J Marks; Johannes Rothlind; Oren Sagher; Claudia Moy; Rajesh Pahwa; Kim Burchiel; Penelope Hogarth; Eugene C Lai; John E Duda; Kathryn Holloway; Ali Samii; Stacy Horn; Jeff M Bronstein; Gatana Stoner; Philip A Starr; Richard Simpson; Gordon Baltuch; Antonio De Salles; Grant D Huang; Domenic J Reda Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-06-03 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Andreas Kupsch; Reiner Benecke; Jörg Müller; Thomas Trottenberg; Gerd-Helge Schneider; Werner Poewe; Wilhelm Eisner; Alexander Wolters; Jan-Uwe Müller; Günther Deuschl; Marcus O Pinsker; Inger Marie Skogseid; Geir Ketil Roeste; Juliane Vollmer-Haase; Angela Brentrup; Martin Krause; Volker Tronnier; Alfons Schnitzler; Jürgen Voges; Guido Nikkhah; Jan Vesper; Markus Naumann; Jens Volkmann Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2006-11-09 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Pawan V Rawal; Leonardo Almeida; Luke B Smelser; He Huang; Barton L Guthrie; Harrison C Walker Journal: Brain Stimul Date: 2014-01-18 Impact factor: 8.955
Authors: Harrison C Walker; Michael Lyerly; Gary Cutter; Johnson Hagood; Natividad P Stover; Stephanie L Guthrie; Barton L Guthrie; Ray L Watts Journal: Parkinsonism Relat Disord Date: 2009-03-09 Impact factor: 4.891
Authors: W M M Schuepbach; J Rau; K Knudsen; J Volkmann; P Krack; L Timmermann; T D Hälbig; H Hesekamp; S M Navarro; N Meier; D Falk; M Mehdorn; S Paschen; M Maarouf; M T Barbe; G R Fink; A Kupsch; D Gruber; G-H Schneider; E Seigneuret; A Kistner; P Chaynes; F Ory-Magne; C Brefel Courbon; J Vesper; A Schnitzler; L Wojtecki; J-L Houeto; B Bataille; D Maltête; P Damier; S Raoul; F Sixel-Doering; D Hellwig; A Gharabaghi; R Krüger; M O Pinsker; F Amtage; J-M Régis; T Witjas; S Thobois; P Mertens; M Kloss; A Hartmann; W H Oertel; B Post; H Speelman; Y Agid; C Schade-Brittinger; G Deuschl Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-02-14 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Kaihan Fakhar; Erin Hastings; Christopher R Butson; Kelly D Foote; Pam Zeilman; Michael S Okun Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-03-11 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Jessica Frey; Jackson Cagle; Kara A Johnson; Joshua K Wong; Justin D Hilliard; Christopher R Butson; Michael S Okun; Coralie de Hemptinne Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2022-03-09 Impact factor: 4.003
Authors: Joseph W Olson; Christopher L Gonzalez; Sarah Brinkerhoff; Maria Boolos; Melissa H Wade; Christopher P Hurt; Arie Nakhmani; Bart L Guthrie; Harrison C Walker Journal: Front Hum Neurosci Date: 2022-08-03 Impact factor: 3.473