Suppr超能文献

全身性癫痫中的神经刺激:一项系统评价和荟萃分析。

Neurostimulation in generalized epilepsy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

作者信息

Haneef Zulfi, Skrehot Henry C

机构信息

Department of Neurology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA.

Neurology Care Line, VA Medical Center, Houston, Texas, USA.

出版信息

Epilepsia. 2023 Apr;64(4):811-820. doi: 10.1111/epi.17524. Epub 2023 Feb 16.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

There are three neurostimulation devices available to treat generalized epilepsy: vagus nerve stimulation (VNS), deep brain stimulation (DBS), and responsive neurostimulation (RNS). However, the choice between them is unclear due to lack of head-to-head comparisons. A systematic comparison of neurostimulation outcomes in generalized epilepsy has not been performed previously. The goal of this meta-analysis was to determine whether one of these devices is better than the others to treat generalized epilepsy.

METHODS

Following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, a systematic review of PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science was performed for studies reporting seizure outcomes following VNS, RNS, and DBS implantation in generalized drug-resistant epilepsy between the first pivotal trial study for each modality through August 2022. Specific search criteria were used for VNS ("vagus", "vagal", or "VNS" in the title and "epilepsy" or "seizure"), DBS ("deep brain stimulation", "DBS", "anterior thalamic nucleus", "centromedian nucleus", or "thalamic stimulation" in the title and "epilepsy" or "seizure"), and RNS ("responsive neurostimulation" or "RNS" in the title and "epilepsy" or "seizure"). From 4409 articles identified, 319 underwent full-text reviews, and 20 studies were included. Data were pooled using a random-effects model using the meta package in R.

RESULTS

Sufficient data for meta-analysis were available from seven studies for VNS (n = 510) and nine studies for DBS (n = 87). Data from RNS (five studies, n = 18) were insufficient for meta-analysis. The mean (SD) follow-up durations were as follows: VNS, 39.1 (23.4) months; DBS, 23.1 (19.6) months; and RNS, 22.3 (10.6) months. Meta-analysis showed seizure reductions of 48.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 38.7%-57.9%) for VNS and 64.8% (95% CI = 54.4%-75.2%) for DBS (p = .02).

SIGNIFICANCE

Our meta-analysis indicates that the use of DBS may lead to greater seizure reduction than VNS in generalized epilepsy. Results from RNS use are promising, but further research is required.

摘要

目的

有三种神经刺激装置可用于治疗全身性癫痫:迷走神经刺激(VNS)、深部脑刺激(DBS)和反应性神经刺激(RNS)。然而,由于缺乏直接比较,它们之间的选择尚不明确。此前尚未对全身性癫痫的神经刺激结果进行系统比较。本荟萃分析的目的是确定这些装置中的一种在治疗全身性癫痫方面是否优于其他装置。

方法

按照PRISMA(系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目)指南,对PubMed、Embase和Web of Science进行系统检索,以查找在每种方式的首个关键试验研究至2022年8月期间,关于VNS、RNS和DBS植入全身性耐药性癫痫后发作结果的研究。针对VNS使用了特定的检索标准(标题中出现“迷走”“迷走神经”或“VNS”,以及“癫痫”或“发作”)、DBS(标题中出现“深部脑刺激”“DBS”“丘脑前核团”“中央中核”或“丘脑刺激”,以及“癫痫”或“发作”)和RNS(标题中出现“反应性神经刺激”或“RNS”,以及“癫痫”或“发作”)。从识别出的4409篇文章中,319篇进行了全文审查,纳入了20项研究。使用R语言中的meta包,采用随机效应模型汇总数据。

结果

有七项关于VNS的研究(n = 510)和九项关于DBS的研究(n = 87)提供了足够的荟萃分析数据。来自RNS的数据(五项研究,n = 18)不足以进行荟萃分析。平均(标准差)随访时间如下:VNS为39.1(23.4)个月;DBS为23.1(19.6)个月;RNS为22.3(10.6)个月。荟萃分析显示,VNS的发作减少率为48.3%(95%置信区间[CI] = 38.7% - 57.9%),DBS为64.8%(95% CI = 54.4% - 75.2%)(p = 0.02)。

意义

我们的荟萃分析表明,在全身性癫痫中,使用DBS可能比VNS导致更大程度的发作减少。使用RNS的结果很有前景,但需要进一步研究。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验