Responsive neurostimulation in pediatric epilepsy: a systematic review and individual patient meta-analysis supplemented by a single institution case series in 105 aggregated patients.

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q4 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Child's Nervous System Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2024-07-26 DOI:10.1007/s00381-024-06546-x
A Rosenberg, R Wang, M Petchpradub, C Beaudreault, A Sacknovitz, F M Cozzi, S M Wolf, P E McGoldrick, C R Muh
{"title":"Responsive neurostimulation in pediatric epilepsy: a systematic review and individual patient meta-analysis supplemented by a single institution case series in 105 aggregated patients.","authors":"A Rosenberg, R Wang, M Petchpradub, C Beaudreault, A Sacknovitz, F M Cozzi, S M Wolf, P E McGoldrick, C R Muh","doi":"10.1007/s00381-024-06546-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To assess responsive neurostimulation (RNS) efficacy in pediatric patients with drug-resistant epilepsy, comparing response (≥ 50% reduction in seizure frequency) rates between patients with two or fewer seizure foci and those with multifocal or generalized epilepsy. This study seeks to address the gap in knowledge regarding RNS effectiveness in pediatric populations.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic review and meta-analysis included data from PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science through November 2023, including 17 retrospective studies and a case series of 24 patients from our practice for a total of 105 aggregated patients. The inclusion criteria of patients were age <math><mo>≤</mo></math> 18 and diagnosis of DRE. Exclusion criteria were nonhuman subjects and cases where RNS was not utilized to treat DRE. Study inclusion criteria were detailing the use of RNS and comparing patients with <math><mo>≤</mo></math> 2 foci with other focalities. Study exclusion criteria were failure to specify RNS lead placement or type of epilepsy. The risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool for all non-randomized studies. Effect sizes and variances were aggregated to provide a comprehensive measure of RNS efficacy, and heterogeneity among the studies was assessed using I<sup>2</sup> statistics and Cochran's Q test to evaluate the consistency of the findings. Statistical analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS. We analyzed demographics, epilepsy history, treatment outcomes, and RNS details using descriptive and inferential statistics, including Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney, Fisher's exact, and chi-squared tests. This systematic review was not registered.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seventeen retrospective studies and a single-institution case series, encompassing 105 pediatric patients, were analyzed. Effect sizes and confidence intervals were calculated to quantify treatment effects. Analyses revealed that RNS reduces seizure frequency across a spectrum of pediatric epilepsy syndromes, irrespective of the seizures' focal, multifocal, or generalized origins. The effectiveness of RNS was not influenced by the patient's sex, age at epilepsy onset, or presence of neurological and psychiatric comorbidities. Prior vagus nerve stimulation surgery and the presence of an epileptic syndrome were factors associated with a lower likelihood of near-complete seizure remission with RNS, underscoring the complexities of treating patients with generalized epilepsies or previous interventional failures. The necessity of further research into individualized surgical strategies for patients was underscored by the mixed results of comparisons of electrode characteristics with responder rates. Limitations of our study include its reliance on retrospective studies, which introduces potential bias and limits the ability to infer causality.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>RNS is a safe and effective treatment in pediatric patients with DRE across demographic, comorbidity, and focality variability. FDA age and focality restrictions, along with patient and physician hesitancy, may be limiting the potential for effective treatment of pediatric DRE with RNS. Prospective randomized trials are recommended to validate these findings.</p>","PeriodicalId":9970,"journal":{"name":"Child's Nervous System","volume":" ","pages":"3709-3720"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Child's Nervous System","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00381-024-06546-x","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/26 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To assess responsive neurostimulation (RNS) efficacy in pediatric patients with drug-resistant epilepsy, comparing response (≥ 50% reduction in seizure frequency) rates between patients with two or fewer seizure foci and those with multifocal or generalized epilepsy. This study seeks to address the gap in knowledge regarding RNS effectiveness in pediatric populations.

Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis included data from PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science through November 2023, including 17 retrospective studies and a case series of 24 patients from our practice for a total of 105 aggregated patients. The inclusion criteria of patients were age 18 and diagnosis of DRE. Exclusion criteria were nonhuman subjects and cases where RNS was not utilized to treat DRE. Study inclusion criteria were detailing the use of RNS and comparing patients with 2 foci with other focalities. Study exclusion criteria were failure to specify RNS lead placement or type of epilepsy. The risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool for all non-randomized studies. Effect sizes and variances were aggregated to provide a comprehensive measure of RNS efficacy, and heterogeneity among the studies was assessed using I2 statistics and Cochran's Q test to evaluate the consistency of the findings. Statistical analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS. We analyzed demographics, epilepsy history, treatment outcomes, and RNS details using descriptive and inferential statistics, including Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney, Fisher's exact, and chi-squared tests. This systematic review was not registered.

Results: Seventeen retrospective studies and a single-institution case series, encompassing 105 pediatric patients, were analyzed. Effect sizes and confidence intervals were calculated to quantify treatment effects. Analyses revealed that RNS reduces seizure frequency across a spectrum of pediatric epilepsy syndromes, irrespective of the seizures' focal, multifocal, or generalized origins. The effectiveness of RNS was not influenced by the patient's sex, age at epilepsy onset, or presence of neurological and psychiatric comorbidities. Prior vagus nerve stimulation surgery and the presence of an epileptic syndrome were factors associated with a lower likelihood of near-complete seizure remission with RNS, underscoring the complexities of treating patients with generalized epilepsies or previous interventional failures. The necessity of further research into individualized surgical strategies for patients was underscored by the mixed results of comparisons of electrode characteristics with responder rates. Limitations of our study include its reliance on retrospective studies, which introduces potential bias and limits the ability to infer causality.

Discussion: RNS is a safe and effective treatment in pediatric patients with DRE across demographic, comorbidity, and focality variability. FDA age and focality restrictions, along with patient and physician hesitancy, may be limiting the potential for effective treatment of pediatric DRE with RNS. Prospective randomized trials are recommended to validate these findings.

Abstract Image

小儿癫痫的反应性神经刺激:系统性综述和单个患者荟萃分析,辅以单个机构对 105 名综合患者的病例系列分析。
目的:评估反应性神经刺激(RNS)对儿科耐药癫痫患者的疗效,比较两个或两个以下癫痫发作灶患者与多灶性或全身性癫痫患者的反应率(癫痫发作频率减少≥50%)。本研究旨在填补有关 RNS 在儿科人群中有效性的知识空白:一项系统性回顾和荟萃分析纳入了截至 2023 年 11 月来自 PubMed、Embase 和 Web of Science 的数据,其中包括 17 项回顾性研究和来自本诊所的 24 例系列病例,共计 105 例患者。纳入患者的标准是年龄小于 18 岁且确诊为 DRE。排除标准为非人类受试者和未使用 RNS 治疗 DRE 的病例。研究纳入标准是详细说明 RNS 的使用情况,并将病灶≤ 2 个的患者与其他病灶进行比较。研究排除标准是未说明 RNS 导联位置或癫痫类型。使用 ROBINS-I 工具评估了所有非随机研究的偏倚风险。对效应大小和方差进行了汇总,以全面衡量 RNS 的疗效,并使用 I2 统计量和 Cochran's Q 检验对研究之间的异质性进行了评估,以评价研究结果的一致性。统计分析使用 IBM SPSS 进行。我们使用描述性和推论性统计方法,包括 Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney 检验、费雪精确检验和卡方检验,对人口统计学、癫痫病史、治疗结果和 RNS 详情进行了分析。本系统综述未注册:结果:分析了 17 项回顾性研究和一个单一机构的病例系列,共涉及 105 名儿科患者。通过计算效应大小和置信区间来量化治疗效果。分析表明,RNS 可降低各种小儿癫痫综合征的发作频率,而不论其发作起源是局灶性、多灶性还是全身性。迷走神经刺激疗法的有效性不受患者性别、癫痫发病年龄或是否存在神经和精神合并症的影响。曾接受迷走神经刺激手术和患有癫痫综合征的患者接受 RNS 治疗后癫痫发作近乎完全缓解的可能性较低,这突显了治疗全身性癫痫或曾接受介入治疗失败的患者的复杂性。电极特征与应答率的比较结果参差不齐,这凸显了进一步研究患者个体化手术策略的必要性。我们研究的局限性包括对回顾性研究的依赖,这可能会带来偏差,并限制了推断因果关系的能力:讨论:RNS 是一种安全有效的治疗方法,适用于不同人群、不同合并症和不同病灶的 DRE 儿科患者。美国食品及药物管理局对年龄和病灶的限制,以及患者和医生的犹豫不决,可能会限制 RNS 有效治疗儿科 DRE 的潜力。建议进行前瞻性随机试验来验证这些发现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Child's Nervous System
Child's Nervous System 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
7.10%
发文量
322
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: The journal has been expanded to encompass all aspects of pediatric neurosciences concerning the developmental and acquired abnormalities of the nervous system and its coverings, functional disorders, epilepsy, spasticity, basic and clinical neuro-oncology, rehabilitation and trauma. Global pediatric neurosurgery is an additional field of interest that will be considered for publication in the journal.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信