scholarly journals Parkinson’s Disease-Related Risk of Suicide and Effect of Deep Brain Stimulation: Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Juncong Du ◽  
Xi Liu ◽  
Xuan Zhou ◽  
Hui Wang ◽  
Wen Zhou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Parkinson’S Disease ◽  
Parkinson's Disease ◽  
Deep Brain Stimulation ◽  
Suicidal Ideation ◽  
Brain Stimulation ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Deep Brain

Background. Previous studies investigated the risk of suicide in patients with Parkinson’s disease (PD) but reported discrepant results. Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is an effective therapy for PD, while its effect on suicide risk has seldom been researched. This meta-analysis aimed to estimate the risk of suicide and/or suicidal ideation in PD patients and in PD patients who underwent DBS. Methods. Relevant articles published in the PubMed or EMBASE or CNKI database from 1990 to December 2019 were sourced, and the combined standardized mortality rate (SMR) or odds ratio (OR) was pooled. Result. A total of 1070 articles were found. After screening, 4 cross-sectional studies, 4 cohort studies, 2 randomized controlled trial studies, and 2 case-control studies were included in this meta-analysis. Pooled data indicated that PD patients may have increased risk of suicide (lnSMR, 0.459; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.286 to 0.632; p<0.001). No significant difference was found in the risk of suicide when comparing PD patients who underwent DBS with PD patients who received only drug therapy (OR = 2.844, 95%CI: 0.619 to 13.072, p=0.179). DBS may increase the risk of suicide and/or suicidal ideation in PD patients compared with general population (lnSMR = 3.383, 95%CI: 2.839 to 3.927, p<0.001). Conclusion. PD patients have higher risk of suicide and/or suicidal ideation compared with controls, while PD patients who received DBS tend to have an increased risk of suicide or suicidal ideation. Psychological evaluation is needed in PD patients, and pre- and post-operation evaluations are necessary for PD patients who underwent DBS.

Awake versus asleep deep brain stimulation for Parkinson’s disease: a critical comparison and meta-analysis

2017 ◽  
Vol 89 (7) ◽  
pp. 687-691 ◽  
Author(s):  
Allen L Ho ◽  
Rohaid Ali ◽  
Ian D Connolly ◽  
Jaimie M Henderson ◽  
Rohit Dhall ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Parkinson’S Disease ◽  
Parkinson's Disease ◽  
Deep Brain Stimulation ◽  
Side Effects ◽  
General Anaesthesia ◽  
Brain Stimulation ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Complication Rates ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Deep Brain

ObjectiveNo definitive comparative studies of the efficacy of ‘awake’ deep brain stimulation (DBS) for Parkinson’s disease (PD) under local or general anaesthesia exist, and there remains significant debate within the field regarding differences in outcomes between these two techniques.MethodsWe conducted a literature review and meta-analysis of all published DBS for PD studies (n=2563) on PubMed from January 2004 to November 2015. Inclusion criteria included patient number >15, report of precision and/or clinical outcomes data, and at least 6 months of follow-up. There were 145 studies, 16 of which were under general anaesthesia. Data were pooled using an inverse-variance weighted, random effects meta-analytic model for observational data.ResultsThere was no significant difference in mean target error between local and general anaesthesia, but there was a significantly less mean number of DBS lead passes with general anaesthesia (p=0.006). There were also significant decreases in DBS complications, with fewer intracerebral haemorrhages and infections with general anaesthesia (p<0.001). There were no significant differences in Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) Section II scores off medication, UPDRS III scores off and on medication or levodopa equivalent doses between the two techniques. Awake DBS cohorts had a significantly greater decrease in treatment-related side effects as measured by the UPDRS IV off medication score (78.4% awake vs 59.7% asleep, p=0.022).ConclusionsOur meta-analysis demonstrates that while DBS under general anaesthesia may lead to lower complication rates overall, awake DBS may lead to less treatment-induced side effects. Nevertheless, there were no significant differences in clinical motor outcomes between the two techniques. Thus, DBS under general anaesthesia can be considered at experienced centres in patients who are not candidates for traditional awake DBS or prefer the asleep alternative.

scholarly journals Apathy following Bilateral Deep Brain Stimulation of Subthalamic Nucleus in Parkinson’s Disease: A Meta-Analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 ◽  
pp. 1-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ying Wang ◽  
Yongsheng Li ◽  
Xiaona Zhang ◽  
Anmu Xie
Keyword(s):  
Parkinson’S Disease ◽  
Parkinson's Disease ◽  
Deep Brain Stimulation ◽  
Subthalamic Nucleus ◽  
Brain Stimulation ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Stn Dbs ◽  
Deep Brain ◽  
Stimulation Of

Bilateral deep brain stimulation of subthalamic nucleus (STN-DBS) has proven effective in improving motor symptoms in Parkinson’s disease (PD) patients. However, psychiatric changes after surgery are controversial. In this study, we specifically analyzed apathy following bilateral STN-DBS in PD patients using a meta-analysis. Relevant articles utilized for this study were obtained through literature search on PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Embase databases. The articles included were those contained both pre- and postsurgery apathy data acquired using the Starkstein Apathy Scale or Apathy Evaluation Scale with patient follow-up of at least three months. A total of 9 out of 86 articles were included in our study through this strict screening process. Standardized mean difference (SMD), that is, Cohen’s d, with a 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated to show the change. We found a significant difference between the presurgery stage and the postsurgery stage scores (SMD = 0.35, 95% CI: 0.17∼0.52, P<0.001). STN-DBS seems to relatively worsen the condition of apathy, which may result from both the surgery target (subthalamic nucleus) and the reduction of dopaminergic medication. Further studies should focus on the exact mechanisms of possible postoperative apathy in the future.

scholarly journals Depression and Anxiety Following Deep Brain Stimulation in Parkinson’s Disease: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2014 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 372 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Inês Couto ◽  
Ana Monteiro ◽  
Ana Oliveira ◽  
Nuno Lunet ◽  
João Massano
Keyword(s):  
Parkinson’S Disease ◽  
Parkinson's Disease ◽  
Depressive Symptoms ◽  
Deep Brain Stimulation ◽  
Medical Treatment ◽  
Brain Stimulation ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Stn Dbs ◽  
Deep Brain

<p><strong>Introduction:</strong> Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is effective in advanced Parkinson’s disease (PD), improving motor symptoms, fluctuations and quality of life. However, adverse psychiatric outcomes have been reported, albeit variably and in an unstandardized fashion. We aimed to summarize the published evidence on the outcomes of anxiety and depressive symptoms in Parkinson’s disease patients following DBS, through systematic review and meta-analysis.<br /><strong>Material and Methods:</strong> PubMed was searched until May 2012 to identify studies assessing anxiety and depressive symptoms in PD patients who underwent bilateral DBS of the subthalamic nucleus (STN) or globus pallidus internus (GPi). Random effects metaanalyses were conducted for groups of at least three studies that were homogeneous regarding the design and the instruments used.<br /><strong>Results:</strong> 63 references were selected; 98.4% provided data on depression, and 38.1% on anxiety assessment scales. Two studies did not discriminate the target; from the remaining 61 references, short-term evaluation was performed in 37 (60.7%), mid-term in 36 (59.0%) and long-term in 5 (8.2%). Data on pre to postop variation was available in 57 (93.4%) reports and 16 (26.2%) presented STNDBS versus different comparison groups: GPi-DBS (n = 4 studies, 25.0%), eligible for surgery (n = 6, 37.5%), and medical treatment (n = 7, 43.8%).<br /><strong>Discussion:</strong> Improvement of depression and anxiety is apparent after DBS, more pronounced in the short-term, an effect that seems to wane in later assessments. Concerning depression, STN-DBS shows superiority against medical treatment, but not when compared to eligible for surgery control groups. The opposite is apparent for anxiety, as results favor medical treatment over STN-DBS, and STNDBS over eligible for surgery control group. Superiority of one target over the other is not evident from the results, but data slightly favors GPi for both outcomes.<br /><strong>Conclusion:</strong> The pattern and course of depressive symptoms and anxiety following DBS in PD is not clear, although both seem to improve in the short-term, especially depression following STN-DBS. Results are highly heterogeneous. Efforts should be carried out to standardize assessment procedures across centers.<br /><strong>Keywords:</strong> Parkinson’s Disease; Deep Brain Stimulation; Anxiety; Depression; Meta-Analysis.</p>

scholarly journals Comparing two randomized deep brain stimulation trials for Parkinson’s disease

2020 ◽  
Vol 132 (5) ◽  
pp. 1376-1384 ◽  
Author(s):  
Günther Deuschl ◽  
Kenneth A. Follett ◽  
Ping Luo ◽  
Joern Rau ◽  
Frances M. Weaver ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Parkinson’S Disease ◽  
Parkinson's Disease ◽  
Deep Brain Stimulation ◽  
Brain Stimulation ◽  
Life Quality ◽  
Veterans Affairs ◽  
Best Medical Treatment ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Us ◽  
Deep Brain

OBJECTIVESeveral randomized studies have compared the effect of deep brain stimulation (DBS) of the subthalamic nucleus with the best medical treatment in large groups of patients. Important outcome measures differ between studies. Two such major studies, the life-quality study of the German Competence Network for Parkinson’s disease (LQ study) and the US Veterans Affairs/National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke trial (VA/NINDS trial), were compared here in order to understand their differences in outcomes.METHODSUnless otherwise noted, analyses were based on those subjects in each study who received a DBS implant (LQ study 76 patients, VA/NINDS trial 140 patients) and who had data for the measurement under consideration (i.e., no imputations for missing data), referred to hereafter as the “as-treated completers” (LQ 69 patients, VA/NINDS 125 patients). Data were prepared and analyzed by biostatisticians at the US Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Program Coordinating Center, the Coordinating Center for Clinical Trials Marburg, and Medtronic, under the direction of two authors (G.D. and K.A.F.). Data were extracted from the respective databases into SAS data sets and analyzed using SAS software. Analyses were based on the 6-month follow-up data from both studies because this was the endpoint for the LQ study.RESULTSPre-DBS baseline demographics differed significantly between the studies, including greater levodopa responsiveness (LDR) in the LQ study population than in the VA/NINDS group. After DBS, LQ subjects demonstrated greater improvement in motor function (Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale, Motor Examination [UPDRS-III]), activities of daily living (ADLs), and complications of therapy. Medication reduction and improvements in life quality other than ADLs were not significantly different between LQ and VA/NINDS subjects. When the two populations were compared according to pre-DBS LDR, the “full responders” to levodopa (≥ 50% improvement on UPDRS-III with medication) in the two studies showed no significant difference in motor improvement with DBS (LQ 18.5 ± 12.0–point improvement on UPDRS-III vs VA/NINDS 17.7 ± 15.6–point improvement, p = 0.755). Among levodopa full responders, ADLs improved slightly more in the LQ group, but scores on other UPDRS subscales and the Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire-39 were not significantly different between the two studies.CONCLUSIONSThis comparison suggests that patient selection criteria, especially preoperative LDR, are the most important source of differences in motor outcomes and quality of life between the two studies.

scholarly journals Deep brain stimulation outcomes in patients implanted under general anesthesia with frame-based stereotaxy and intraoperative MRI

2018 ◽  
Vol 129 (6) ◽  
pp. 1572-1578 ◽  
Author(s):  
Caio M. Matias ◽  
Leonardo A. Frizon ◽  
Sean J. Nagel ◽  
Darlene A. Lobel ◽  
André G. Machado
Keyword(s):  
Parkinson’S Disease ◽  
Parkinson's Disease ◽  
Deep Brain Stimulation ◽  
General Anesthesia ◽  
Brain Stimulation ◽  
Intraoperative Mri ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Preoperative Plan ◽  
Updrs Part ◽  
Deep Brain

OBJECTIVEThe authors’ aim in this study was to evaluate placement accuracy and clinical outcomes in patients who underwent implantation of deep brain stimulation devices with the aid of frame-based stereotaxy and intraoperative MRI after induction of general anesthesia.METHODSThirty-three patients with movement disorders (27 with Parkinson’s disease) underwent implantation of unilateral or bilateral deep brain stimulation systems (64 leads total). All patients underwent the implantation procedure with standard frame-based techniques under general anesthesia and without microelectrode recording. MR images were acquired immediately after the procedure and fused to the preoperative plan to verify accuracy. To evaluate clinical outcome, different scales were used to assess quality of life (EQ-5D), activities of daily living (Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale [UPDRS] part II), and motor function (UPDRS part III during off- and on-medication and off- and on-stimulation states). Accuracy was assessed by comparing the coordinates (x, y, and z) from the preoperative plan and coordinates from the tip of the lead on intraoperative MRI and postoperative CT scans.RESULTSThe EQ-5D score improved or remained stable in 71% of the patients. When in the off-medication/on-stimulation state, all patients reported significant improvement in UPDRS III score at the last follow-up (p < 0.001), with a reduction of 25.2 points (46.3%) (SD 14.7 points and 23.5%, respectively). There was improvement or stability in the UPDRS II scores for 68% of the Parkinson’s patients. For 2 patients, the stereotactic error was deemed significant based on intraoperative MRI findings. In these patients, the lead was removed and replaced after correcting for the error during the same procedure. Postoperative lead revision was not necessary in any of the patients. Based on findings from the last intraoperative MRI study, the mean difference between the tip of the electrode and the planned target was 0.82 mm (SD 0.5 mm, p = 0.006) for the x-axis, 0.67 mm (SD 0.5 mm, p < 0.001) for the y-axis, and 0.78 mm (SD 0.7 mm, p = 0.008) for the z-axis. On average, the euclidian distance was 1.52 mm (SD 0.6 mm). In patients who underwent bilateral implantation, accuracy was further evaluated comparing the first implanted side and the second implanted side. There was a significant mediolateral (x-axis) difference (p = 0.02) in lead accuracy between the first (mean 1.02 mm, SD 0.57 mm) and the second (mean 0.66 mm, SD 0.50 mm) sides. However, no significant difference was found for the y- and z-axes (p = 0.10 and p = 0.89, respectively).CONCLUSIONSFrame-based DBS implantation under general anesthesia with intraoperative MRI verification of lead location is safe, accurate, precise, and effective compared with standard implantation performed using awake intraoperative physiology. More clinical trials are necessary to directly compare outcomes of each technique.

Deep brain stimulation in Parkinson’s disease: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

2014 ◽  
Vol 261 (11) ◽  
pp. 2051-2060 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. Perestelo-Pérez ◽  
A. Rivero-Santana ◽  
J. Pérez-Ramos ◽  
P. Serrano-Pérez ◽  
J. Panetta ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Parkinson’S Disease ◽  
Parkinson's Disease ◽  
Deep Brain Stimulation ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Brain Stimulation ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Deep Brain
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document