Pan Yuying, Xie Han, Ma Jiayi, Ji Taoyun, Liu Qingzhu, Cai Lixin, Jiang Yuwu, Zhang Kai, Zhang Jianguo, Wu Ye
Department of Pediatric Neurology, Children's Medical Center, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China.
Pediatric Epilepsy Center, Children's Medical Center, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China.
Epilepsia Open. 2025 Jun;10(3):831-841. doi: 10.1002/epi4.70043. Epub 2025 Apr 22.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of vagus nerve stimulation using different modes in patients with drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE). METHODS: Children with DRE who underwent vagus nerve stimulator implantation between March 2019 and December 2022 were prospectively enrolled at the Peking University First Hospital. Ninety-four children were randomly divided into the high pulse amplitude [pulse amplitude was gradually increased to maximum tolerance value (≤2.8 mA) and duty cycle was maintained at 10%] and high duty cycle groups [pulse amplitude was maintained at 1.5 mA and duty cycle was subsequently increased to maximum tolerance value (≤37%)]. At the 55-week follow-up, the responder rate, seizure-free rate, and adverse effects were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: Ninety-four children with DRE were included (47 patients each in the high pulse amplitude group and the high duty cycle group). For epileptic seizures, the responder rate of the high pulse amplitude group was 53.2% (25/47), while that of the high duty cycle group was 38.3% (18/47). High pulse amplitude had a higher responder rate of focal seizures (60.7% in the high pulse amplitude group vs. 29.2% in the high duty cycle group; chi-squared test, p = 0.023). Among children with a ≥ 75% reduction in epileptic spasms, the high duty cycle group had a higher responder rate than the high pulse amplitude group (54.5% vs. 16.7%; Fisher's exact test, p = 0.022). In addition, in the high duty cycle group, the responder rate in children with epileptic spasms was higher than that in children without epileptic spasms (59.1% vs. 20.0%; chi-square test, p = 0.011). Among children with implantation age <6 years, the responder rate of the high pulse amplitude group was higher (chi-square test, p = 0.024). The incidence of adverse effects in the two groups was not statistically different. SIGNIFICANCE: The overall responder rates in the two modes were similar. The high pulse amplitude mode may be more effective for focal seizures, whereas the high duty cycle mode may be more effective for epileptic spasms. Patients aged <6 years with DRE and VNS implantation may require a higher pulse amplitude to achieve better efficacy. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: This study compared the anti-seizure efficacy of two different vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) treatments. We found that the overall efficacy of the two treatments was similar. The high pulse amplitude mode may be more effective for focal seizures, whereas the high duty cycle mode may be more effective for epileptic spasms. Patients aged <6 years with drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) and VNS treatment may require a higher pulse amplitude to achieve better efficacy.
目的:比较不同模式的迷走神经刺激术在耐药性癫痫(DRE)患者中的疗效和安全性。 方法:前瞻性纳入2019年3月至2022年12月期间在北京大学生第一医院接受迷走神经刺激器植入术的DRE患儿。94名儿童被随机分为高脉冲幅度组(脉冲幅度逐渐增加至最大耐受值(≤2.8 mA),占空比维持在10%)和高占空比组(脉冲幅度维持在1.5 mA,随后占空比增加至最大耐受值(≤37%))。在55周随访时,比较两组的缓解率、无癫痫发作率和不良反应。 结果:纳入94例DRE患儿(高脉冲幅度组和高占空比组各47例)。对于癫痫发作,高脉冲幅度组的缓解率为53.2%(25/47),而高占空比组为38.3%(18/47)。高脉冲幅度对局灶性癫痫发作的缓解率更高(高脉冲幅度组为60.7%,高占空比组为29.2%;卡方检验,p = 0.023)。在癫痫痉挛减少≥75%的儿童中,高占空比组的缓解率高于高脉冲幅度组(54.5%对16.7%;Fisher精确检验,p = 0.022)。此外,在高占空比组中,有癫痫痉挛的儿童的缓解率高于无癫痫痉挛的儿童(59.1%对20.0%;卡方检验,p = 0.011)。在植入年龄<6岁的儿童中,高脉冲幅度组的缓解率更高(卡方检验,p = 0.024)。两组不良反应的发生率无统计学差异。 意义:两种模式的总体缓解率相似。高脉冲幅度模式可能对局灶性癫痫发作更有效,而高占空比模式可能对癫痫痉挛更有效。植入迷走神经刺激器的<6岁DRE患者可能需要更高的脉冲幅度以获得更好的疗效。 通俗易懂的总结:本研究比较了两种不同的迷走神经刺激(VNS)治疗的抗癫痫疗效。我们发现两种治疗的总体疗效相似。高脉冲幅度模式可能对局灶性癫痫发作更有效,而高占空比模式可能对癫痫痉挛更有效。植入迷走神经刺激器的<6岁耐药性癫痫(DRE)患者可能需要更高的脉冲幅度以获得更好的疗效。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022-7-14
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012-9-12
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017-10-5
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018-4-25
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023-1-23
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018-6-28
J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2022-3-18
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022-4-1
Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo). 2023-7-15
Brain Stimul. 2022
Neuroreport. 2020-3-4
Pract Neurol. 2020-5
J Neurophysiol. 2019-8-28
Neurosurg Clin N Am. 2019-4