| Literature DB >> 29951186 |
Ying Wang1, Yongsheng Li2, Xiaona Zhang1, Anmu Xie1.
Abstract
Bilateral deep brain stimulation of subthalamic nucleus (STN-DBS) has proven effective in improving motor symptoms in Parkinson's disease (PD) patients. However, psychiatric changes after surgery are controversial. In this study, we specifically analyzed apathy following bilateral STN-DBS in PD patients using a meta-analysis. Relevant articles utilized for this study were obtained through literature search on PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Embase databases. The articles included were those contained both pre- and postsurgery apathy data acquired using the Starkstein Apathy Scale or Apathy Evaluation Scale with patient follow-up of at least three months. A total of 9 out of 86 articles were included in our study through this strict screening process. Standardized mean difference (SMD), that is, Cohen's d, with a 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated to show the change. We found a significant difference between the presurgery stage and the postsurgery stage scores (SMD = 0.35, 95% CI: 0.17∼0.52, P < 0.001). STN-DBS seems to relatively worsen the condition of apathy, which may result from both the surgery target (subthalamic nucleus) and the reduction of dopaminergic medication. Further studies should focus on the exact mechanisms of possible postoperative apathy in the future.Entities:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29951186 PMCID: PMC5987292 DOI: 10.1155/2018/9756468
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Parkinsons Dis ISSN: 2042-0080
Figure 1Flow chart of eligible articles.
Characteristics of the eligible studies.
| Number | Author |
| Age | Disease duration | DBS programming | State in the evaluation | Scale | Follow-up | Preoperative score | Preoperative LEDD | Postoperative score | Postoperative LEDD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Houvenaghel et al. [ | 26 | 56.6 ± 7.4 | 11.47 ± 4.54 | Bilateral STN-DBS | Drug on and stimuli on | AES | 3 months | 31.8 ± 7.0 | 1271.2 ± 555.6 | 31.2 ± 7.7 | 758.0 ± 407.79 |
| 2 | Robert et al. [ | 44 | 56.3 ± 7.5 | 11.4 ± 4.1 | Bilateral STN-DBS | Drug on and stimuli on | AES | 3 months | 31.4 ± 6.4 | 1280.8 ± 632.4 | 31.6 ± 7.1 | 889.9 ± 209.3 |
| 3 | Lewis et al. [ | 27 | 61.1 ± 9.1 | 12.7 ± 6.7 | Bilateral STN-DBS | Drug on and stimuli on | AES | 1 year | 34.04 ± 9.58 | 831.5 ± 425.91 | 37.44 ± 8.71 | 359.23 ± 264.46 |
| 4 | Lewis et al. [ | 28 | 61.1 ± 8.9 | 12.43 ± 6.74 | Bilateral STN-DBS | Drug on and stimuli on | AES | 1 year | 33.85 ± 9.71 | 832 ± 426 | 37.0 ± 8.91 | 359.3 ± 264.5 |
| 5 | Lhommee et al. [ | 67 | 57.8 ± 7.2 | 10.5 ± 3.1 | Bilateral STN-DBS | Drug on and stimuli on | SAS | 1 year | 6.2 ± 3.5 | 1026 ± 459 | 9.4 ± 4.5 | 284 ± 312 |
| 6 | Chou et al. [ | 10 | 62.1 ± 6.5 | 9.1 ± 5.8 | Bilateral STN-DBS | Drug on and stimuli on | SAS | 6 months | 13.2 ± 8.6 | 1164.9 ± 752.9 | 13.6 ± 7.4 | 567.9 ± 512.4 |
| 7 | Drapier et al. [ | 17 | 56.9 ± 8.7 | 11.8 ± 2.6 | Bilateral STN-DBS | Drug on and stimuli on | AES | 3 months | 37.2 ± 5.5 | - | 42.5 ± 8.9 | - |
| 8 | Castelli et al. [ | 19 | 62.1 ± 4.2 | 14.7 ± 5.0 | Bilateral STN-DBS | Drug on and stimuli on | SAS | 17 months | 11.6 ± 4.1 | 1192.5 ± 415.7 | 12.6 ± 5.3 | 571.6 ± 274.8 |
| 9 | Drapier et al. [ | 15 | 59.7 ± 7.6 | 12.2 ± 2.8 | Bilateral STN-DBS | Drug on and stimuli on | SAS | 6 months | 13.0 ± 6.5 | 1448 ± 400 | 18.8 ± 9.7 | 1127 ± 482 |
AES: Apathy Evaluation Scale; SAS: Starkstein Apathy Scale.
MINORS scores of eligible studies.
| Number | A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 [ | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 11 |
| 2 [ | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 13 |
| 3 [ | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 10 |
| 4 [ | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 10 |
| 5 [ | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 11 |
| 6 [ | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 11 |
| 7 [ | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 11 |
| 8 [ | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 12 |
| 9 [ | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 10 |
A: a clearly stated aim; B: inclusion of consecutive patients; C: prospective collection of data; D: endpoints appropriate to the aim of the study; E: unbiased assessment of the study endpoint; F: follow-up period appropriate to the aim of the study; G: loss to follow-up less than 5%; H: prospective calculation of the sample size.
Figure 2Forest plot for the change in apathy observed presurgery and postsurgery.
Figure 3Funnel plot for publication bias in selection of studies.