Suppr超能文献

患者对耐药性癫痫切除与反应性神经刺激的体验。

Patient experiences of resection versus responsive neurostimulation for drug-resistant epilepsy.

机构信息

UCSF Weill Institute for Neurosciences, United States.

UCSF Weill Institute for Neurosciences, United States; UCSF Bioethics, United States; UCSF Epilepsy Center, United States.

出版信息

Epilepsy Behav. 2024 Apr;153:109707. doi: 10.1016/j.yebeh.2024.109707. Epub 2024 Mar 1.

Abstract

This study explored illness experiences and decision-making among patients with epilepsy who underwent two different types of surgical interventions: resection versus implantation of the NeuroPace Responsive Neurostimulation System (RNS). We recruited 31 participants from a level four epilepsy center in an academic medical institution. We observed 22 patient clinic visits (resection: n = 10, RNS: n = 12) and conducted 18 in-depth patient interviews (resection: n = seven, RNS: n = 11); most visits and interviews included patient caregivers. Using an applied ethnographic approach, we identified three major themes in the experiences of resection versus RNS patients. First, for patients in both cohorts, the therapeutic journey was circuitous in ways that defied standardized first-, second-, and third- line of care models. Second, in conceptualizing risk, resection patients emphasized the permanent loss of "taking out" brain tissue whereas RNS patients highlighted the reversibility of "putting in" a device. Lastly, in considering benefit, resection patients perceived their surgery as potentially curative while RNS patients understood implantation as primarily palliative with possible additional diagnostic benefit from chronic electrocorticography. Insight into the perspectives of patients and caregivers may help identify key topics for counseling and exploration by clinicians.

摘要

本研究探讨了接受两种不同手术干预的癫痫患者的疾病经历和决策

切除与植入NeuroPace 反应性神经刺激系统(RNS)。我们从一家学术医疗机构的四级癫痫中心招募了 31 名参与者。我们观察了 22 次患者门诊就诊(切除:n = 10,RNS:n = 12),并进行了 18 次深入的患者访谈(切除:n = 7,RNS:n = 11);大多数就诊和访谈都包括患者护理人员。我们采用应用民族志方法,在切除与 RNS 患者的经历中确定了三个主要主题。首先,对于两个队列的患者来说,治疗过程曲折,不符合标准化的一线、二线和三线治疗模式。其次,在概念化风险时,切除患者强调了永久性丧失“切除”脑组织,而 RNS 患者则强调了“植入”设备的可逆性。最后,在考虑获益时,切除患者认为他们的手术有潜在的治愈性,而 RNS 患者则认为植入主要是姑息性的,慢性皮质电图可能有额外的诊断获益。了解患者和护理人员的观点可能有助于确定临床医生咨询和探索的关键主题。

相似文献

5
Responsive neurostimulation: Candidates and considerations.反应性神经刺激:候选者和考虑因素。
Epilepsy Behav. 2018 Nov;88:388-395. doi: 10.1016/j.yebeh.2018.09.032. Epub 2018 Oct 22.
9
The RNS System: brain-responsive neurostimulation for the treatment of epilepsy.RNS 系统:用于治疗癫痫的脑反应神经刺激。
Expert Rev Med Devices. 2021 Feb;18(2):129-138. doi: 10.1080/17434440.2019.1683445. Epub 2020 Sep 16.

本文引用的文献

3
New Ethical and Clinical Challenges in "Closed-Loop" Neuromodulation.“闭环”神经调节中的新伦理和临床挑战。
Neurology. 2021 Apr 27;96(17):799-804. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000011834. Epub 2021 Mar 16.
6
Epilepsy in adults.成人癫痫。
Lancet. 2019 Feb 16;393(10172):689-701. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32596-0. Epub 2019 Jan 24.

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