| Literature DB >> 32140113 |
Emily R Weichart1, Per B Sederberg1, Francesco Sammartino2, Vibhor Krishna2, John D Corrigan3, Ali R Rezai2.
Abstract
Device titration is a major challenge when using deep brain stimulation (DBS) to treat behavioral disorders. Unlike in movement disorders, there is no reliable real-time clinical feedback for changes in complex behaviors resulting from DBS. Here, a female patient receiving DBS of the nucleus accumbens for the treatment of morbid obesity underwent cognitive testing via the flanker task alongside traditional methods of device titration. One set of stimulation parameters administered during titration resulted in acute cognitive improvement (p = 0.033) and increased frontal engagement as measured by electroencephalography (left anterior: p = 0.007, right anterior: p = 0.005) relative to DBS-OFF. The same parameters resulted in the most weight-loss during long-term continuous stimulation (47.8 lbs lost in 129 days) compared to the results of other stimulation settings. Diffusion tensor imaging analyses showed increased connectivity to dorsal attention networks and decreased connectivity to the default mode network for optimal parameters (p < 0.01). Our results provide evidence that targeted cognitive testing is a potentially useful tool for capturing acute effects of DBS stimulation during titration and predicting long-term treatment outcomes. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT01512134.Entities:
Keywords: cognitive testing; deep brain stimulation (DBS); diffusion tensor imaging (DTI); electroencephalography (EEG); inhibitory control abilities; morbid obesity; nucleus accumbens
Year: 2020 PMID: 32140113 PMCID: PMC7043267 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2020.00030
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychiatry ISSN: 1664-0640 Impact factor: 4.157
Figure 1Weight progression. Starting point is 335 lbs. at the pre-surgical baseline. Points correspond to individual weight measurements. Line colors correspond to the long-term device settings that were active in the period of time prior to each weight measurement. OTHER: Points 1–6 include pre-surgical baseline and post-surgery recovery when no stimulation occurred; stimulation parameters could not be verified between points 14 and 15 and between points 20 and 21; insufficient titration and long-term data for evaluating active stimulation parameters between points 9 and 11.
Figure 2Effects of stimulation on weight loss and flanker performance. (A): Rate of long term weight loss (mean lbs. per day) for each set of stimulation parameters. (B): The horizontal axis is the log-transformed trial number, which is an indicator of how much time had passed since the relevant stimulation parameter set became active. The vertical axis is the patient’s log-transformed reaction time on each trial, which was our dependent variable metric for the patient’s performance on the flanker task.
Figure 3T-statistics from EEG analysis. We performed an ANOVA at each electrode to predict EEG voltage. Log trial number and DBS status (ON, OFF) were factors. The interaction of the factors was a significant predictor of EEG voltage in the left and right frontal quadrants of the participant’s scalp. Swaths of color represent t-values from the ANOVA within 5 sub-windows of time after the stimulus appeared.
Figure 4DTI tractography. The probabilistic connectivity maps at optimal and optimal vs. suboptimal DBS settings are shown in sagittal and coronal projections with their respective 3D models. Panels (A–D): Significant voxels associated with optimal DBS settings (bilateral lower middle contacts, low amplitudes). Panels (E–H): Significant voxels comparing optimal vs. suboptimal DBS settings (bilateral lower middle contacts, high amplitudes).