Comparison of traditional and closed loop vagus nerve stimulation for treatment of pediatric drug-resistant epilepsy: A propensity-matched retrospective cohort study. (January 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Muthiah, Nallammai; Akwayena, Emefa; Vodovotz, Lena; Sharma, Nikhil; Jeong, Jong-Hyeon; White, Gretchen E.; Abel, Taylor J.
• Is Part Of: Seizure. Volume 94(2022)
• Page Start: 74
• Page End: 81
• Publication Date: 2022-01
• Subjects: VNS -- Refractory -- Child -- Seizure -- Neurosurgery; Epilepsy -- Periodicals; Epilepsy -- Periodicals; Seizures -- Periodicals; Épilepsie -- Périodiques; Electronic journals; Electronic journals; 616.853
• DOI: 10.1016/j.seizure.2021.11.016
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1059-1311

Abstract

Highlights: After 1 and 2 years of therapy, similar proportions of total pediatric drug-resistant epilepsy patients achieve ≥50% seizure frequency reduction with closed loop VNS (39% and 62%, respectively) as traditional VNS (43% and 48%, respectively). This effect size is larger for patients with generalized epilepsy (72.7%) vs. those with focal epilepsy (45.7%). Closed loop VNS is not associated with a decreased ASM medications compared to traditional VNS. Abstract: Objective: For epilepsy patients with drug-resistant, unresectable epilepsy, vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) is an option for seizure control. Approximately 40–70% of patients will achieve ≥50% seizure reduction with VNS. New closed loop VNS models detect ictal tachycardia and responsively stimulate the vagus nerve. The effectiveness of closed loop VNS compared to traditional VNS for pediatric epilepsy is unknown. Methods: An 11-year retrospective electronic medical record review at Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh was performed. Patients with drug-resistant epilepsy who underwent VNS implantation were included. Patients were divided into groups based on VNS model: traditional versus closed loop . Those who transitioned from traditional to closed loop VNS were excluded. Given potential for selection bias, propensity scores matching was utilized to compare traditional to closed loop VNS patients. Patients with focal versus generalized epilepsy were also separately analyzed. The primary outcome was "VNS response", defined as at least 50% seizure frequency reduction from baseline. Results: A total of 320 patients were included in this sample. The percentage of matched patients (total n = 220: n = 179 traditional VNS, n = 41 closed loop VNS) who responded to VNS after one year of therapy was 43% for traditional VNS and 39% for closed loop VNS ( p = 0.64). After two years of therapy, a higher proportion of closed loop VNS patients than traditional VNS patients responded to VNS among all subgroups, though no differences were statistically significant ( p >0.05). Notably, for those with generalized epilepsy, 73% of closed loop patients responded to VNS compared to only 46% of traditional patients ( p = 0.10). After two years of VNS therapy, patients were taking approximately the same quantity of antiseizure medications as baseline (change of +0.074 +/- 0.90 ) with no difference between VNS models ( p = 0.87). Significance: Among pediatric patients with drug-resistant epilepsy, closed loop VNS trends towards a higher rate of VNS response after two years of treatment, especially among generalized epilepsy patients. Neither model of VNS allows patients to reduce antiseizure medication quantity after two years.