Pereira Luisa Santos, Müller Vanessa Teixeira, da Mota Gomes Marleide, Rotenberg Alexander, Fregni Felipe
Spaulding Neuromodulation Center, Department of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02129, USA.
Institute of Neurology Deolindo Couto, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, RJ 22290-140, Brazil.
Epilepsy Behav. 2016 Apr;57(Pt A):167-176. doi: 10.1016/j.yebeh.2016.01.015. Epub 2016 Mar 10.
Approximately one-third of patients with epilepsy remain with pharmacologically intractable seizures. An emerging therapeutic modality for seizure suppression is repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS). Despite being considered a safe technique, rTMS carries the risk of inducing seizures, among other milder adverse events, and thus, its safety in the population with epilepsy should be continuously assessed. We performed an updated systematic review on the safety and tolerability of rTMS in patients with epilepsy, similar to a previous report published in 2007 (Bae EH, Schrader LM, Machii K, Alonso-Alonso M, Riviello JJ, Pascual-Leone A, Rotenberg A. Safety and tolerability of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in patients with epilepsy: a review of the literature. Epilepsy Behav. 2007; 10 (4): 521-8), and estimated the risk of seizures and other adverse events during or shortly after rTMS application. We searched the literature for reports of rTMS being applied on patients with epilepsy, with no time or language restrictions, and obtained studies published from January 1990 to August 2015. A total of 46 publications were identified, of which 16 were new studies published after the previous safety review of 2007. We noted the total number of subjects with epilepsy undergoing rTMS, medication usage, incidence of adverse events, and rTMS protocol parameters: frequency, intensity, total number of stimuli, train duration, intertrain intervals, coil type, and stimulation site. Our main data analysis included separate calculations for crude per subject risk of seizure and other adverse events, as well as risk per 1000 stimuli. We also performed an exploratory, secondary analysis on the risk of seizure and other adverse events according to the type of coil used (figure-of-8 or circular), stimulation frequency (≤ 1 Hz or > 1 Hz), pulse intensity in terms of motor threshold (<100% or ≥ 100%), and number of stimuli per session (< 500 or ≥ 500). Presence or absence of adverse events was reported in 40 studies (n = 426 subjects). A total of 78 (18.3%) subjects reported adverse events, of which 85% were mild. Headache or dizziness was the most common one, occurring in 8.9%. We found a crude per subject seizure risk of 2.9% (95% CI: 1.3-4.5), given that 12 subjects reported seizures out of 410 subjects included in the analysis after data of patients with epilepsia partialis continua or status epilepticus were excluded from the estimate. Only one of the reported seizures was considered atypical in terms of the clinical characteristics of the patients' baseline seizures. The atypical seizure happened during high-frequency rTMS with maximum stimulator output for speech arrest, clinically arising from the region of stimulation. Although we estimated a larger crude per subject seizure risk compared with the previous safety review, the corresponding confidence intervals contained both risks. Furthermore, the exclusive case of atypical seizure was the same as reported in the previous report. We conclude that the risk of seizure induction in patients with epilepsy undergoing rTMS is small and that the risk of other adverse events is similar to that of rTMS applied to other conditions and to healthy subjects. Our results should be interpreted with caution, given the need for adjusted analysis controlling for potential confounders, such as baseline seizure frequency. The similarity between the safety profiles of rTMS applied to the population with epilepsy and to individuals without epilepsy supports further investigation of rTMS as a therapy for seizure suppression.
约三分之一的癫痫患者药物治疗难以控制发作。重复经颅磁刺激(rTMS)是一种新兴的抑制癫痫发作的治疗方式。尽管rTMS被认为是一种安全的技术,但它有诱发癫痫发作的风险,以及其他一些较轻微的不良事件,因此,应持续评估其在癫痫患者群体中的安全性。我们对rTMS在癫痫患者中的安全性和耐受性进行了一项更新的系统评价,类似于2007年发表的一份报告(Bae EH, Schrader LM, Machii K, Alonso - Alonso M, Riviello JJ, Pascual - Leone A, Rotenberg A. 癫痫患者重复经颅磁刺激的安全性和耐受性:文献综述。癫痫行为。2007; 10(4): 521 - 8),并估计了rTMS应用期间或之后不久癫痫发作和其他不良事件的风险。我们检索了关于rTMS应用于癫痫患者的文献报告,没有时间或语言限制,获取了1990年1月至2015年8月发表的研究。共识别出46篇出版物,其中16篇是2007年上次安全性综述之后发表的新研究。我们记录了接受rTMS治疗的癫痫患者总数、药物使用情况、不良事件发生率以及rTMS方案参数:频率、强度、刺激总数、序列持续时间、序列间间隔、线圈类型和刺激部位。我们的主要数据分析包括分别计算每位受试者癫痫发作和其他不良事件的粗略风险,以及每1000次刺激的风险。我们还根据使用的线圈类型(8字形或圆形)、刺激频率(≤1Hz或>1Hz)、相对于运动阈值的脉冲强度(<100%或≥100%)以及每次治疗的刺激次数(<500或≥500),对癫痫发作和其他不良事件的风险进行了探索性的二次分析。40项研究(n = 426名受试者)报告了不良事件的发生情况。共有78名(18.3%)受试者报告了不良事件,其中85%为轻度。头痛或头晕最为常见,发生率为8.9%。我们发现,在排除部分性持续性癫痫或癫痫持续状态患者的数据后,纳入分析的410名受试者中有12名报告癫痫发作,每位受试者癫痫发作的粗略风险为2.9%(95%置信区间:1.3 - 4.5)。就患者基线癫痫发作的临床特征而言,报告的癫痫发作中只有1例被认为是非典型的。这例非典型癫痫发作发生在高频rTMS期间,刺激器最大输出用于言语抑制,临床上源于刺激区域。尽管与上次安全性综述相比,我们估计的每位受试者癫痫发作的粗略风险更大,但相应的置信区间包含了两种风险。此外,唯一的非典型癫痫发作病例与上次报告相同。我们得出结论,接受rTMS治疗的癫痫患者诱发癫痫发作的风险较小,其他不良事件的风险与rTMS应用于其他情况和健康受试者时相似。鉴于需要进行调整分析以控制潜在的混杂因素,如基线癫痫发作频率,我们的结果应谨慎解读。rTMS应用于癫痫患者群体和非癫痫个体的安全性概况相似,这支持进一步研究将rTMS作为一种抑制癫痫发作的治疗方法。