Department of Neurology and Weill Institute for Neurosciences, University of California, San Francisco, CA 94143, USA.
Department of Neurology and Weill Institute for Neurosciences, University of California, San Francisco, CA 94143, USA.
Epilepsy Behav. 2018 Nov;88:388-395. doi: 10.1016/j.yebeh.2018.09.032. Epub 2018 Oct 22.
Responsive neurostimulation (RNS) has recently emerged as a safe and effective treatment for some patients with medically refractory focal epilepsy who are not candidates for surgical resection. Responsive neurostimulation involves an implanted neurostimulator and intracranial leads that detect incipient seizures and respond with electrical counterstimulation. Over 1800 patients have been treated with RNS since its FDA approval in 2013. Despite its widespread use, however, RNS presents distinct challenges for clinicians. What types of patients are most well-suited for treatment with RNS? Given the availability of two other neurostimulation modalities, vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) and thalamic deep brain stimulation (DBS), what patient characteristics favor or disfavor RNS? Once RNS candidates are identified, lead placement presents another challenge. Unlike VNS and thalamic DBS, which both involve prespecified electrode locations, RNS involves intracranial strip and/or depth electrodes that can be flexibly configured based on knowledge of the seizure onset zone. The efficacy of RNS may depend on optimal lead configuration, but there are few resources to guide clinicians in formulating lead placement strategies. Here, we address these challenges, first by reviewing clinical trial data supporting the safety and efficacy of RNS. Then, through a series of clinical vignettes from our center, we provide a framework for RNS patient selection. For each clinical scenario, we illustrate typical strategies for RNS lead placement. We outline considerations for choosing among available neurostimulation devices based on their intrinsic features. For example, a unique feature of RNS is that the neurostimulator provides chronic electrocorticography (ECoG), which has powerful diagnostic potential. We highlight emerging applications of chronic ECoG, and we discuss how the limitations of RNS will inform development of next-generation devices.
经颅磁刺激(TMS)在治疗一些药物难治性局灶性癫痫患者方面已经显示出安全有效的效果,这些患者不适合手术切除。经颅磁刺激包括植入的神经刺激器和颅内导联,这些导联可以检测到即将发生的癫痫发作,并通过电反向刺激来响应。自 2013 年获得 FDA 批准以来,已有超过 1800 名患者接受了经颅磁刺激治疗。尽管其应用广泛,但经颅磁刺激对临床医生来说也存在独特的挑战。哪些类型的患者最适合接受经颅磁刺激治疗?鉴于有两种其他的神经刺激模式,迷走神经刺激(VNS)和丘脑深部脑刺激(DBS),哪些患者特征有利于或不利于经颅磁刺激治疗?一旦确定了经颅磁刺激的候选者,导联的放置就提出了另一个挑战。与涉及预设电极位置的 VNS 和丘脑 DBS 不同,经颅磁刺激涉及颅内条状和/或深度电极,可以根据癫痫发作起始区的知识进行灵活配置。经颅磁刺激的疗效可能取决于最佳导联配置,但指导临床医生制定导联放置策略的资源很少。在这里,我们首先通过回顾支持经颅磁刺激安全性和有效性的临床试验数据来解决这些挑战。然后,通过我们中心的一系列临床病例,我们为经颅磁刺激患者选择提供了一个框架。对于每个临床情况,我们都展示了经颅磁刺激导联放置的典型策略。我们概述了根据其固有特征在可用的神经刺激设备之间进行选择的考虑因素。例如,经颅磁刺激的一个独特功能是神经刺激器提供慢性脑电图(EEG),这具有强大的诊断潜力。我们强调了慢性 EEG 的新兴应用,并讨论了经颅磁刺激的局限性将如何为下一代设备的发展提供信息。