CM‐Pf deep brain stimulation in polyneuromodulation for epilepsy
Objective Neuromodulation is a viable option for patients with drug‐resistant epilepsies. We reviewed the management of patients with two deep brain neurostimulators. In addition, patients implanted with a device targeting the centromedian‐parafascicular (CM‐Pf) nuclear complex supplements this repo...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Epileptic disorders 2024-10, Vol.26 (5), p.626-637 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Objective
Neuromodulation is a viable option for patients with drug‐resistant epilepsies. We reviewed the management of patients with two deep brain neurostimulators. In addition, patients implanted with a device targeting the centromedian‐parafascicular (CM‐Pf) nuclear complex supplements this report to provide an illustrative case to implantation and programming a patient with three active devices.
Methods
A narrative review using PubMed and Embase identified patients with drug‐resistant epilepsy implanted with more than one neurostimulator was performed. Combinations of vagus nerve stimulation (VNS), deep brain stimulation (DBS), and responsive neurostimulation (RNS) were identified. We provide a background of a newly reported case of an adult with a triple implant eventually responding to CM‐Pf DBS as the third implant following suboptimal benefit from VNS and RNS.
Results
In review of the literature, dual‐device therapy is increasing in reports of use with combinations of VNS, RNS, and DBS to treat patients with drug‐resistant epilepsy. We review dual‐device implants with thalamic DBS device combinations, functional neural networks, and programming patients with dual devices. CM‐Pf is a new target for DBS and has shown a variable response in focal epilepsy. We report the unique case of 28‐year‐old male with drug‐resistant focal epilepsy who experienced a 75% seizure reduction with CM‐Pf DBS as his third device after suboptimal responses to VNS and RNS. After 9 months, he also experienced seizure freedom from recurrent focal to bilateral tonic–clonic seizures. No medical or surgical complications or safety issues were encountered.
Conclusion
We demonstrate safety and feasibility in an adult combining active VNS, RNS, and CM‐Pf DBS. Patients with dual‐device therapy who experience a suboptimal response to initial device use at optimized settings should not be considered a neuromodulation “failure.” Strategies to combine devices require a working knowledge of brain networks. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1294-9361 1950-6945 1950-6945 |
DOI: | 10.1002/epd2.20255 |