Vagal nerve stimulation for the treatment of medically refractory epilepsy: a review of the current literature

2012 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. E12 ◽  
Author(s):  
David E. Connor ◽  
Menarvia Nixon ◽  
Anil Nanda ◽  
Bharat Guthikonda

Object The authors conducted a study to evaluate the published results of vagal nerve stimulation (VNS) for medically refractory seizures according to evidence-based criteria. Methods The authors performed a review of available literature published between 1980 and 2010. Inclusion criteria for articles included more than 10 patients evaluated, average follow-up of 1 or more years, inclusion of medically refractory epilepsy, and consistent preoperative surgical evaluation. Articles were divided into 4 classes of evidence according to criteria established by the American Academy of Neurology. Results A total of 70 publications were reviewed, of which 20 were selected for review based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. There were 2 articles that provided Class I evidence, 7 that met criteria for Class II evidence, and 11 that provided Class III evidence. The majority of evidence supports VNS usage in partial epilepsy with a seizure reduction of 50% or more in the majority of cases and freedom from seizure in 6%–27% of patients who responded to stimulation. High stimulation with a gradual increase in VNS stimulation over the first 6 weeks to 3 months postoperatively is well supported by Class I and II data. Predictors of positive response included absence of bilateral interictal epileptiform activity and cortical malformations. Conclusions Vagal nerve stimulation is a safe and effective alternative for adult and pediatric populations with epilepsy refractory to medical and other surgical management.

2018 ◽  
Vol 128 (1) ◽  
pp. 277-286 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer Hong ◽  
Atman Desai ◽  
Vijay M. Thadani ◽  
David W. Roberts

OBJECTIVEVagal nerve stimulation (VNS) and corpus callosotomy (CC) have both been shown to be of benefit in the treatment of medically refractory epilepsy. Recent case series have reviewed the efficacy of VNS in patients who have undergone CC, with encouraging results. There are few data, however, on the use of CC following VNS therapy.METHODSThe records of all patients at the authors' center who underwent CC following VNS between 1998 and 2015 were reviewed. Patient baseline characteristics, operative details, and postoperative outcomes were analyzed.RESULTSTen patients met inclusion criteria. The median follow-up was 72 months, with a minimum follow-up of 12 months (range 12–109 months). The mean time between VNS and CC was 53.7 months. The most common reason for CC was progression of seizures after VNS. Seven patients had anterior CC, and 3 patients returned to the operating room for a completion of the procedure. All patients had a decrease in the rate of falls and drop seizures; 7 patients experienced elimination of drop seizures. Nine patients had an Engel Class III outcome, and 1 patient had a Class IV outcome. There were 3 immediate postoperative complications and 1 delayed complication. One patient developed pneumonia, 1 developed transient mutism, and 1 had persistent weakness in the nondominant foot. One patient presented with a wound infection.CONCLUSIONSThe authors demonstrate that CC can help reduce seizures in patients with medically refractory epilepsy following VNS, particularly with respect to drop attacks.


2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (3) ◽  
pp. 395-400
Author(s):  
Krystal L. Tomei ◽  
Christine Y. Mau ◽  
Michael Ghali ◽  
Jayoung Pak ◽  
Ira M. Goldstein

Neurosurgery ◽  
2000 ◽  
Vol 47 (2) ◽  
pp. 522-523
Author(s):  
Ravish V. Patwardhan ◽  
Martina Bebin ◽  
Jan Mathisen ◽  
Paul A. Grabb

Neurosurgery ◽  
2000 ◽  
Vol 47 (6) ◽  
pp. 1353-1358 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ravish V. Patwardhan ◽  
Benjamin Stong ◽  
E. Martina Bebin ◽  
Jan Mathisen ◽  
Paul A. Grabb

2007 ◽  
Vol 14 (6) ◽  
pp. 331-336 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lucy Barone ◽  
Gabriella Colicchio ◽  
Domenico Policicchio ◽  
Francesca Di Clemente ◽  
Antonio Di Monaco ◽  
...  

2003 ◽  
Vol 157 (6) ◽  
pp. 560 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jerome V. Murphy ◽  
Richard Torkelson ◽  
Irene Dowler ◽  
Stephen Simon ◽  
Sara Hudson

Author(s):  
Lakshmi Nagarajan ◽  
Peter Walsh ◽  
Pauline Gregory ◽  
Stephen Stick ◽  
Jennifer Maul ◽  
...  

Background:An altered breathing pattern in sleep, over two to three weeks, reported by the parents of a child on Vagal Nerve Stimulation (VNS) therapy for refractory epilepsy, prompted a sleep study in him. His polysomnography (PSG) revealed respiratory irregularity concordant with VNS activation. Dyspnoea is a well recognised and reported side effect of the VNS. However there are only a few studies looking at respiration in sleep with VNS. We therefore undertook PSGs in seven other children on VNS.Methods:Sleep studies were undertaken, in accordance with standard clinical practice. Sleep and apnoeas and hypopneas were scored in accordance with conventional criteria. Respiratory pattern changes in sleep (RPCS) with VNS were looked for.Results:Respiratory pattern changes in sleep were seen during PSG in seven of eight children on VNS for refractory epilepsy. Decreased effort and tidal volume occurred in seven children, concordant with VNS activation. In one child, this was associated with a fall in respiratory rate, in the other six children with an increase. No study showed an apnoea/hypopnoea index in the abnormal range. The RPCS were not associated with significant hypoxia or hypercapnoea.Conclusion:Our results suggest that RPCS occur in most children with VNS. This is not surprising in view of the significant influence vagal afferents have on respiratory control centres. The RPCS did not appear to have a clinical impact in our group. However further investigations are suggested to explore this phenomenon, especially in patients with sleep apnoea syndromes or compromised respiratory function.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document