Neuromodulatory Approaches to the Management of Medically Refractory Cluster Headache

2010 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 97
Author(s):  
Arne May ◽  
Peter J Goadsby ◽  
◽  

The trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias are a group of primary headache disorders characterised by unilateral trigeminal distribution of pain that occurs in association with ipsilateral cranial autonomic features. The most prominent one is cluster headache, a dreadful disease with excrutiating pain attacks. These attacks last no longer than two hours but may occur several times per day. It is mandatory to find an efficient therapy for these patients, but some are unresponsive to all treatments. In these intractable cases invasive procedures are introduced, but the available evidence (while conflicting) illustrates that trigeminal denervation may not be effective in preventing the headache attacks or autonomic symptoms of chronic cluster headache. Modern neurostimulating approaches, such as stimulation of the greater occipital nerve and hypothalamic deep brain stimulation, supersede neurodestructive procedures. Both stimulation methods are exquisite and potentially lifesaving treatment options in otherwise intractable patients, but they need to be better characterised and further long-term data are needed.

US Neurology ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 06 (02) ◽  
pp. 125
Author(s):  
Arne May ◽  
Peter J Goadsby ◽  
◽  

The trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias are a group of primary headache disorders characterized by unilateral trigeminal distribution of pain that occurs in association with ipsilateral cranial autonomic features. The most prominent one is cluster headache, a dreadful disease with excrutiating pain attacks. These attacks last no longer than two hours but may occur several times per day. It is mandatory to find an efficient therapy for these patients, but some are unresponsive to all treatments. In these intractable cases invasive procedures are introduced, but the available evidence (while conflicting) illustrates that trigeminal denervation may not be effective in preventing the headache attacks or autonomic symptoms of chronic cluster headache. Modern neurostimulating approaches, such as stimulation of the greater occipital nerve and hypothalamic deep brain stimulation, supersede neurodestructive procedures. Both stimulation methods are exquisite and potentially life-saving treatment options in otherwise intractable patients, but they need to be better characterized and further long-term data are needed.


2018 ◽  
Vol 96 (4) ◽  
pp. 215-222 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fernando Seijo-Fernandez ◽  
Antonio Saiz ◽  
Elena Santamarta ◽  
Lydia Nader ◽  
Marco Antonio Alvarez-Vega ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 90 (3) ◽  
pp. e14.1-e14
Author(s):  
MW Weatherall ◽  
D Nandi

ObjectivesPrimary headache disorders are common, but many patients are refractory to medical treatment. PENS therapy involves the stimulation of one or more individual nerves or dermatomes using needle probes. We assessed whether a ‘single shot with single probe’ strategy would benefit patients with refractory headache disorders, including chronic migraine (CM), and chronic cluster headache (CCH).DesignService evaluation of 36 patients treated with PENS therapy between September 2012 and June 2016. Follow-up data was available for 33 patients.Subjects16 patients with CM, nine with CCH, and one with hemicrania continua. Secondary headaches comprised occipital neuralgia, cervicogenic headache, and trigeminal neuropathy.MethodsPENS was given using Algotec® disposable 21 gauge PENS therapy probes (8 cm) to the occipital nerve ipsilateral to the pain (or bilaterally in cases of bilateral pain). Stimulation was delivered at 2 Hz/100 Hz, at 3 cycles/second, between 1.2–2.5 V depending on patient tolerability, for 25–28 min.Results6/9 patients with CCH improved significantly after the first session. In all patients with CCH, PENS therapy was well tolerated, with no significant adverse events reported. One patient with CCH reverted to episodic cluster. Only four patients with CM experienced any benefit.ConclusionsPENS therapy shows potential as a relatively non-invasive, low-risk, and inexpensive component of the treatment options for refractory primary headache disorders, particularly chronic cluster headache.


Neurosurgery ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 65 (CN_suppl_1) ◽  
pp. 115-115
Author(s):  
Nilson N. Mendes Neto ◽  
Jessika Thais da Silva Maia ◽  
Juliano Jose da Silva ◽  
Sergio Adrian Fernandes Dantas ◽  
Marcelo Rodrigues Zacarkim ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 38 (06) ◽  
pp. 603-607
Author(s):  
Brian McGeeney

AbstractThe trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias are a group of distinct primary headache disorders that share common characteristics of strict unilateral headache often accompanied by unilateral cranial autonomic features. Cluster headache is the most well-known example, but other than neurologists, practitioners often have limited familiarity with these disorders and treatment options. Delays in diagnosis are typical and treatment options remain suboptimal, associated with limited scientific research into these brain disorders. Improved familiarity with core clinical features by health care providers should lead to earlier referral to specialists, and this education is the responsibility of headache medicine specialists. Optimistically, the last few years have seen lobbying for more federal research support in headache medicine and there has been renewed interest by private industry in potential new treatments for trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias.


2018 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 251581631877133 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antti Huotarinen ◽  
Mikko Kallela ◽  
Ville Artto ◽  
Aki Laakso ◽  
Riku Kivisaari

Background: Deep brain stimulation of the posterior hypothalamic area is one of the neuromodulation treatments used for chronic cluster headache, but the number of published patients remains low. Aim: The aim of this article was to present the retrospective results of 12 consecutive chronic cluster headache patients treated with deep brain stimulation at Helsinki University Hospital. Materials and Methods: All chronic cluster headache patients treated with deep brain stimulation between 2004 and 2012 were included in the study. Patients were interviewed and their hospital files analyzed. Treatment effect was classified as good, partial, or no effect. Results: Of the 12 patients, four had a good treatment effect, five had partial, and three had no effect of deep brain stimulation. In contrast to previous studies, our patients reported an almost immediate benefit after the onset of stimulation. Conclusions: Deep brain stimulation provides clinically meaningful benefit to a subgroup of chronic cluster headache patients.


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 ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 112-115 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ute Hidding ◽  
Arne May

This case study concerns a patient with primary chronic cluster headache, who was unresponsive to all treatments and consecutively underwent hypothalamic deep brain stimulation (DBS). DBS had no effect on the cluster attacks, but cured an existing polydipsia as well as restlessness. However, hypothalamic DBS produced a constant, dull headache without concomitant symptoms and a high-frequent tremor. All of these effects were repeated when the stimulation was stopped and than started again. DBS had no effect on a pathological weight gain from 70 kg to 150 kg due to bulimia at night, usually during headache attacks. This case illustrates that cluster headache is, in some patients, only one symptom of a complex hypothalamic syndrome. This case also underlines that the stimulation parameters and anatomical target area for hypothalamic DBS may be too unspecific to do justice to the clinical variety of patients and concomitant symptoms. Hypothalamic DBS is an exquisite and potentially life-saving treatment method in otherwise intractable patients, but needs to be better characterised and should only be considered when other stimulation methods, such as stimulation of the greater occipital nerve, are unsuccessful.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document