Nociception specific supraorbital nerve stimulation may prevent cluster headache attacks: Serendipity in a blink reflex study

Cephalalgia ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 34 (11) ◽  
pp. 920-926 ◽  
Author(s):  
Danielle YP Haane ◽  
Peter J Koehler

Background In cluster headache, neuromodulation is offered when patients are refractory to pharmacological prophylaxis. Non-invasive peripheral neuromodulatory approaches are of interest. We will focus on these and particularly on nociception specific, transcutaneous supraorbital nerve stimulation. Methods In a study using the nociception specific blink reflex, we made a serendipitous discovery, notably the potential prophylactic effect of bilateral, time contingent, nociception specific, transcutaneous stimulation of the supraorbital nerve. Results We report on a case series of seven cluster headache patients, in whom attacks seemed to disappear during repeated stimulation of the supraorbital nerves. Three patients stopped experiencing attacks since study participation. Conclusions Bilateral, time contingent, nociception specific, transcutaneous supraorbital nerve stimulation may have a prophylactic effect in episodic and chronic cluster headache. Given its limited side effects and its non-invasive nature, further studies to investigate this potential peripheral neuromodulatory approach for both episodic and chronic cluster headache are warranted.

Cephalalgia ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 33 (8) ◽  
pp. 512-525 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tim P Jürgens ◽  
Massimo Leone

Context A variety of neuromodulatory approaches available today has broadened our therapeutic options significantly especially in drug refractory patients with chronic cluster headache and chronic migraine. Overview It is a dynamic field with a current trend to non-invasive transcutaneous stimulation approaches. However, sound studies providing evidence for the widespread use of these novel approaches are sparse. For invasive approaches, occipital nerve stimulation is now widely considered the treatment of first choice in chronic trigeminal autonomic cephalgias and – with limitations – chronic migraine. Although equally effective, deep brain stimulation is considered second-line treatment in cluster headache because of its potentially life-threatening side effects. Most recently, stimulation of the sphenopalatine ganglion has also been shown to effectively abort acute cluster headache attacks. Interesting other upcoming approaches include transcutaneous supraorbital nerve stimulation and transcutaneous vagal nerve stimulation. Conclusion Pearls and pitfalls of common invasive and non-invasive neuromodulatory approaches and open questions are summarised in this review along with recommendations for future studies.


2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (12) ◽  
pp. 973
Author(s):  
Yousef Hammad ◽  
Allison Mootz ◽  
Kevin Klein ◽  
John R. Zuniga

Background: The trigeminocardiac reflex (TCR) is a brainstem reflex following stimulation of the trigeminal nerve, resulting in bradycardia, asystole and hypotension. It has been described in maxillofacial and craniofacial surgeries. This case series highlights TCR events occurring during sphenopalatine ganglion (SPJ) neurostimulator implantation as part of the Pathway CH-2 clinical trial “Sphenopalatine ganglion Stimulation for Treatment of Chronic Cluster Headache”. Methods: This is a case series discussing sphenopalatine ganglion neurostimulator implantation in the pterygopalatine fossa as treatment for intractable cluster headaches. Eight cases are discussed with three demonstrating TCR events. All cases received remifentanil and desflurane for anesthetic maintenance. Results: Each patient with a TCR event experienced severe bradycardia. In two cases, TCR resolved with removal of the introducer, while the third case’s TCR event resolved with both anticholinergic treatment and surgical stimulation cessation. Conclusion: Each TCR event occurred before stimulation of the fixed introducer device, suggesting the cause for the TCR events was mechanical in origin. Due to heightened concern for further TCR events, all subsequent cases had pre-anesthesia external pacing pads placed. Resolution can occur with cessation of surgical manipulation and/or anticholinergic treatment. Management of TCR events requires communication between surgical teams and anesthesia providers, especially during sphenopalatine ganglion implantation when maxillary nerve stimulation is possible.


Cephalalgia ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 38 (5) ◽  
pp. 959-969 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter J Goadsby ◽  
Ilse F de Coo ◽  
Nicholas Silver ◽  
Alok Tyagi ◽  
Fayyaz Ahmed ◽  
...  

Background Clinical observations and results from recent studies support the use of non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS) for treating cluster headache (CH) attacks. This study compared nVNS with a sham device for acute treatment in patients with episodic or chronic CH (eCH, cCH). Methods After completing a 1-week run-in period, subjects were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive nVNS or sham therapy during a 2-week double-blind period. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of all treated attacks that achieved pain-free status within 15 minutes after treatment initiation, without rescue treatment. Results The Full Analysis Set comprised 48 nVNS-treated (14 eCH, 34 cCH) and 44 sham-treated (13 eCH, 31 cCH) subjects. For the primary endpoint, nVNS (14%) and sham (12%) treatments were not significantly different for the total cohort. In the eCH subgroup, nVNS (48%) was superior to sham (6%; p < 0.01). No significant differences between nVNS (5%) and sham (13%) were seen in the cCH subgroup. Conclusions Combing both eCH and cCH patients, nVNS was no different to sham. For the treatment of CH attacks, nVNS was superior to sham therapy in eCH but not in cCH. These results confirm and extend previous findings regarding the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of nVNS for the acute treatment of eCH.


2013 ◽  
Vol 3;16 (3;5) ◽  
pp. E181-E189 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oliver Mueller

Background: Stimulation of the greater occipital nerve has been employed for various intractable headache conditions for more than a decade. Still, prospective studies that correlate stimulation of the greater occipital nerve with outcome of patients with respect to alleviation of headache are sparsely found in literature. Objective: To identify anatomical landmarks for a reproducible stimulation of the greater occipital nerve. For the clinical implication, the individual response to therapy of patients with refractory chronic cluster headache undergoing occipital nerve stimulation was correlated with the postoperative localization of the electrodes and with the distribution of the stimulation field. Study Design: Prospective observational study, approved by the local research ethics board (09-4143). Setting: University hospital, departments of neurosurgery and neurology, institute of anatomy and radiology. Methods: Ten formaldehyde fixed human cadavers were dissected to identify the passage of the greater occipital nerve through the trapezius muscle. The distance to the external occipital protuberance was triangulated measuring the distance of the nerve from the nuchal midline and the protuberance. Between December 2008 and December 2011, 21 consecutive patients suffering from chronic cluster headache underwent surgery in terms of bilateral occipital nerve stimulation, with electrodes placed horizontally at the level of C1. The postoperative x-rays were compared with the acquired landmarks from the anatomical study. The distribution of the stimulation field was correlated to the individual response of each patient to the therapy and prospectively analyzed with regard to reduction of daily cluster attacks and relief of pain intensity at 3 months and at last follow-up. Results: The greater occipital nerve crosses the trapezius muscle at a mean distance of 31mm below the occipital external protuberance and 14mm lateral to the midline as found in the anatomical subjects. The electrodes were targeted at this level in all of our patients and stimulated the greater occipital nerve in all patients. Eighteen of the patients (85.7%) reported a significant reduction of the frequency of their cluster attacks and/or declined intensity of pain during the attacks. Yet, 3 of 21 patients (14.3%) did not benefit from the stimulation despite an adequate spread of the stimulation over the occiput. The spread of the stimulation-induced paraesthesias over the occiput was not correlated to a reduction of cluster attacks, to the intensity of attacks, or to the response to treatment at all. Limitations: Single center non-randomized non-blinded study. Conclusions: From our study we conclude that a reproducible stimulation of the greater occipital nerve can be achieved by placing the electrodes parallel to the atlas, at about 30mm distance to the external occipital protuberance. The response to the stimulation is not correlated to the field width of the paraesthesia. We, therefore, consider stimulation of the main trunk of the greater occipital nerve to be more important than a large field of stimulation on the occiput. Still, an individual response to the occipital nerve stimulation cannot be predicted even by optimal electrode placement. Key words: Greater occipital nerve, occipital nerve stimulation, anatomical study, chronic cluster headache


2021 ◽  
Vol 25 (12) ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefan Evers ◽  
Oliver Summ

Abstract Purpose of Review In this narrative review, the current literature on neurostimulation methods in the treatment of chronic cluster headache is evaluated. These neurostimulation methods include deep brain stimulation, vagus nerve stimulation, greater occipital nerve stimulation, sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation, transcranial magnetic stimulation, transcranial direct current stimulation, supraorbital nerve stimulation, and cervical spinal cord stimulation. Recent Findings Altogether, only nVNS and SPG stimulation are supported by at least one positive sham-controlled clinical trial for preventive and acute attack (only SPG stimulation) treatment. Other clinical trials either did not control at all or controlled by differences in the stimulation technique itself but not by a sham-control. Case series report higher responder rates. Summary The evidence for these neurostimulation methods in the treatment of chronic cluster headache is poor and in part contradictive. However, except deep brain stimulation, tolerability and safety of these methods are good so that in refractory situations application might be justified in individual cases.


Cephalalgia ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 39 (8) ◽  
pp. 967-977 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ilse F de Coo ◽  
Juana CA Marin ◽  
Stephen D Silberstein ◽  
Deborah I Friedman ◽  
Charly Gaul ◽  
...  

Background Two randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled trials (ACT1, ACT2) evaluated non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS) as acute treatment for cluster headache. We analyzed pooled ACT1/ACT2 data to increase statistical power and gain insight into the differential efficacy of nVNS in episodic and chronic cluster headache. Methods Data extracted from ACT1 and ACT2 were pooled using a fixed-effects model. Main outcome measures were the primary endpoints of each study. This was the proportion of participants whose first treated attack improved from moderate (2), severe (3), or very severe (4) pain intensity to mild (1) or nil (0) for ACT1 and the proportion of treated attacks whose pain intensity improved from 2–4 to 0 for ACT2. Results The pooled population included 225 participants (episodic: n = 112; chronic: n = 113) from ACT1 (n = 133) and ACT2 (n = 92) in the nVNS (n = 108) and sham (n = 117) groups. Interaction was shown between treatment group and cluster headache subtype ( p < 0.05). nVNS was superior to sham in episodic but not chronic cluster headache (both endpoints p < 0.01). Only four patients discontinued the studies due to adverse events. Conclusions nVNS is a well-tolerated and effective acute treatment for episodic cluster headache. Trial registration The studies were registered at clinicaltrials.gov (ACT1: NCT01792817; ACT2: NCT01958125).


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document