Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK Oxford Epilepsy Research Group, NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK.
Nuffield Department of Surgery, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK Department of Neurosurgery, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK.
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2016 Nov;87(11):1174-1182. doi: 10.1136/jnnp-2016-313297. Epub 2016 Aug 11.
For patients with pharmacoresistant focal epilepsy in whom surgical resection of the epileptogenic focus fails or was not feasible in the first place, there were few therapeutic options. Increasingly, neurostimulation provides an alternative treatment strategy for these patients. Vagal nerve stimulation (VNS) is well established. Deep brain stimulation (DBS) and cortical responsive stimulation (CRS) are newer neurostimulation therapies with recently published long-term efficacy and safety data. In this literature review, we introduce these therapies to a non-specialist audience. Furthermore, we compare and contrast long-term (5-year) outcomes of newer neurostimulation techniques with the more established VNS. A search to identify all studies reporting long-term efficacy (>5 years) of VNS, CRS and DBS in patients with refractory focal/partial epilepsy was conducted using PubMed and Cochrane databases. The outcomes compared were responder rate, percentage seizure frequency reduction, seizure freedom, adverse events, neuropsychological outcome and quality of life. We identified 1 study for DBS, 1 study for CRS and 4 studies for VNS. All neurostimulation technologies showed long-term efficacy, with progressively better seizure control over time. Sustained improvement in quality of life measures was demonstrated in all modalities. Intracranial neurostimulation had a greater side effect profile compared with extracranial stimulation, though all forms of stimulation are safe. Methodological differences between the studies mean that direct comparisons are not straightforward. We have synthesised the findings of this review into a pragmatic decision tree, to guide the further management of the individual patient with pharmacoresistant focal-onset epilepsy.
对于药物难治性局灶性癫痫患者,如果手术切除致痫灶失败或最初不可行,那么治疗选择很少。神经刺激越来越多地为这些患者提供了一种替代治疗策略。迷走神经刺激(VNS)已经得到很好的确立。深部脑刺激(DBS)和皮质反应性刺激(CRS)是较新的神经刺激疗法,最近发表了其长期疗效和安全性数据。在这篇文献综述中,我们向非专业人士介绍这些疗法。此外,我们还比较和对比了较新的神经刺激技术与更为成熟的 VNS 的长期(5 年)结果。使用 PubMed 和 Cochrane 数据库进行了搜索,以确定所有报告 VNS、CRS 和 DBS 在难治性局灶性/部分性癫痫患者中具有长期疗效(>5 年)的研究。比较的结果是应答率、癫痫发作频率降低百分比、无癫痫发作、不良事件、神经心理学结果和生活质量。我们确定了 1 项关于 DBS 的研究、1 项关于 CRS 的研究和 4 项关于 VNS 的研究。所有神经刺激技术都显示出长期疗效,随着时间的推移,癫痫控制逐渐改善。所有治疗模式都证明了生活质量测量的持续改善。与体外刺激相比,颅内神经刺激具有更大的副作用谱,但所有形式的刺激都是安全的。研究之间的方法学差异意味着无法直接进行比较。我们将本综述的发现综合成一个实用的决策树,以指导药物难治性局灶性癫痫患者的进一步个体化治疗。