Is vagus nerve stimulation a treatment option for patients with drug-resistant idiopathic generalized epilepsy?

2007 ◽  
Vol 115 (s187) ◽  
pp. 55-58 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. Kostov ◽  
P. G. Larsson ◽  
G. K. Røste
Keyword(s):  
Vagus Nerve ◽  
Treatment Option ◽  
Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Vagus Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Drug Resistant ◽  
Idiopathic Generalized Epilepsy ◽  
Generalized Epilepsy

scholarly journals Efficacy of Vagal Nerve Stimulation for Drug-Resistant Epilepsy: Is it the Stimulation or Medication?

2017 ◽  
Vol 44 (5) ◽  
pp. 532-537 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jaylynn Arcand ◽  
Karen Waterhouse ◽  
Lizbeth Hernandez-Ronquillo ◽  
Aleksander Vitali ◽  
Jose F. Tellez-Zenteno
Keyword(s):  
Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Vagus Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Drug Resistant ◽  
Idiopathic Generalized Epilepsy ◽  
Drug Resistant Epilepsy ◽  
Generalized Epilepsy ◽  
Patients With Epilepsy ◽  
Seizure Classification

AbstractBackground: Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) therapy has been widely recognized as an alternative for the treatment of drug-resistant epilepsy, although modification of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) during VNS treatment could explain the improvement in patients. Methods: We retrospectively assessed the efficacy of VNS in 30 adult patients with epilepsy treated with >6 months of follow-up. The criteria for implantation were the following: (1) not a candidate for resective epilepsy surgery, (2) drug-resistant epilepsy, (3) impairment of quality of life, (4) no other option of treatment, and (5) patients with idiopathic generalized epilepsy who fail to be controlled with appropriate AEDs. We assessed sociodemographics, seizure etiology, seizure classification, and AEDs used during treatment with VNS. We assessed adverse effects and efficacy. Responder rate was defined as >50% seizure improvement from baseline. Results: Thirty patients (females, 18; males, 12; age, 35.1±13.3 years) were included. After 6, 12, 24, and 36 months of follow-up, the response rates were: 13/30 (43%), 13/27 (48%), 9/22 (41%), and 8/16 (50%), respectively; none was seizure free. Fifty-seven percent, 33%, 59%, and 81% of patients had changes of medication type or dose at 6, 12, 24, and 36 months respectively. In the majority of patients, the change of medication consisted of an increase in the dose of AEDs. Conclusions: Our study shows that VNS is an effective therapy, although significant changes in medications were done along with the therapy; therefore, the real effect of VNS could be controversial.

Vagus nerve stimulation for drug-resistant epilepsy

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 189-198 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura Pérez-Carbonell ◽  
Howard Faulkner ◽  
Sean Higgins ◽  
Michalis Koutroumanidis ◽  
Guy Leschziner
Keyword(s):  
Vagus Nerve ◽  
Seizure Frequency ◽  
Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Vagus Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Therapeutic Option ◽  
Drug Resistant ◽  
Drug Resistant Epilepsy ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) is a neuromodulatory therapeutic option for drug-resistant epilepsy. In randomised controlled trials, VNS implantation has resulted in over 50% reduction in seizure frequency in 26%–40% of patients within 1 year. Long-term uncontrolled studies suggest better responses to VNS over time; however, the assessment of other potential predictive factors has led to contradictory results. Although initially designed for managing focal seizures, its use has been extended to other forms of drug-resistant epilepsy. In this review, we discuss the evidence supporting the use of VNS, its impact on seizure frequency and quality of life, and common adverse effects of this therapy. We also include practical guidance for the approach to and the management of patients with VNS in situ.

scholarly journals Effect of vagus nerve stimulation on adults with pharmacoresistant generalized epilepsy syndromes

Seizure ◽  
2004 ◽  
Vol 13 (5) ◽  
pp. 340-345 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark D Holmes ◽  
Daniel L Silbergeld ◽  
Diane Drouhard ◽  
Alan J Wilensky ◽  
Linda M Ojemann
Keyword(s):  
Vagus Nerve ◽  
Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Vagus Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Generalized Epilepsy

Vagus nerve stimulation for partial and generalized epilepsy from infancy to adolescence

2012 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 200-205 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric M. Thompson ◽  
Susan E. Wozniak ◽  
Colin M. Roberts ◽  
Amy Kao ◽  
Valerie C. Anderson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Vagus Nerve ◽  
Seizure Frequency ◽  
Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Vagus Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Pediatric Patients ◽  
Medication Use ◽  
Partial Epilepsy ◽  
Seizure Duration ◽  
Antiepileptic Medication ◽  
Generalized Epilepsy

Object Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) is approved by the FDA for the treatment of partial epilepsy in patients older than 12 years. Authors of the current study performed a large retrospective analysis and comparison of VNS outcomes in children with an age ≥ and < 12 years, including those with partial and generalized epilepsy. Methods A retrospective review of the records of pediatric patients (age < 18 years) who had undergone primary VNS system implantation between 2001 and 2010 by a single pediatric neurosurgeon was undertaken. Considered data included demographics, epilepsy type (partial vs generalized), seizure frequency, seizure duration, postictal period duration, and antiepileptic medication use. Results One hundred forty-six patients (49% female) were followed up for a mean of 41 months after VNS implantation. Thirty-two percent of patients had partial epilepsy and 68% had generalized epilepsy. After VNS system implantation, seizure frequency was reduced in 91% of patients, seizure duration in 50%, postictal period in 49%, and antiepileptic medication use in 75%. There was no significant difference in age, sex, or duration of follow-up according to epilepsy type. Neither was there any significant difference in seizure frequency reduction, seizure duration, postictal period, medication use, overall clinical improvement, or improvement in quality of life based on an age ≥ or < 12 years or epilepsy type. Conclusions Vagus nerve stimulation reduced both seizure frequency and antiepileptic medication use in the majority of pediatric patients regardless of sex, age cohort, or epilepsy type. Vagus nerve stimulation also reduced seizure duration and postictal period in approximately half of the pediatric patients. Contrary to expectation, children with partial epilepsy do not benefit from VNS at higher rates than those with generalized epilepsy.

Vagus nerve stimulation in patients with therapy-resistant generalized epilepsy

2020 ◽  
Vol 111 ◽  
pp. 107253
Author(s):  
Ana Suller Marti ◽  
Seyed Mohammad Mirsattari ◽  
Keith MacDougall ◽  
David Andrew Steven ◽  
Andrew Parrent ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Vagus Nerve ◽  
Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Vagus Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Generalized Epilepsy

scholarly journals Health Technology Assessment Report on Vagus Nerve Stimulation in Drug-Resistant Epilepsy

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (17) ◽  
pp. 6150
Author(s):  
Carlo Efisio Marras ◽  
Gabriella Colicchio ◽  
Luca De Palma ◽  
Alessandro De Benedictis ◽  
Giancarlo Di Gennaro ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Vagus Nerve ◽  
Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Vagus Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Palliative Treatment ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Drug Resistant

Background: Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) is a palliative treatment for medical intractable epileptic syndromes not eligible for resective surgery. Health technology assessment (HTA) represents a modern approach to the analysis of technologies used for healthcare. The purpose of this study is to assess the clinical, organizational, financial, and economic impact of VNS therapy in drug-resistant epilepsies and to establish the congruity between costs incurred and health service reimbursement. Methods: The present study used an HTA approach. It is based on an extensive detailed bibliographic search on databases (Medline, Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane, sites of scientific societies and institutional sites). The HTA study includes the following issues: (a) social impact and costs of the disease; (b) VNS eligibility and clinical results; (c) quality of life (QoL) after VNS therapy; (d) economic impact and productivity regained after VNS; and (e) costs of VNS. Results: Literature data indicate VNS as an effective treatment with a potential positive impact on social aspects and on quality of life. The diagnosis-related group (DRG) financing, both on national and regional levels, does not cover the cost of the medical device. There was an evident insufficient coverage of the DRG compared to the full cost of implanting the device. Conclusions: VNS is a palliative treatment for reducing seizure frequency and intensity. Despite its economic cost, VNS should improve patients’ quality of life and reduce care needs.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document