Safety of non-invasive brain stimulation in patients with implants: a computational risk assessment.

Fariba Karimi, Antonino M Cassarà, Myles Capstick, Niels Kuster, Esra Neufeld
{"title":"Safety of non-invasive brain stimulation in patients with implants: a computational risk assessment.","authors":"Fariba Karimi, Antonino M Cassarà, Myles Capstick, Niels Kuster, Esra Neufeld","doi":"10.1088/1741-2552/ad8efa","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) methodologies, such as transcranial electric (tES) are increasingly employed for therapeutic, diagnostic, or research purposes. The concurrent presence of active/passive implants can pose safety risks, affect the NIBS delivery, or generate confounding signals. A systematic investigation is required to understand the interaction mechanisms, quantify exposure, assess risks, and establish guidance for NIBS applications.</p><p><strong>Approach: </strong>We used measurements, simplified generic, and detailed anatomical modeling to: (i) systematically analyze exposure conditions with passive and active implants, considering local field enhancement, exposure dosimetry, tissue heating and neuromodulation, capacitive lead current injection, low-impedance pathways between electrode contacts, and insulation damage; (ii) identify risk metrics and efficient prediction strategies; (iii) quantify these metrics in relevant exposure cases and (iv) identify worst case conditions. Various aspects including implant design, positioning, scar tissue formation, anisotropy, and frequency were investigated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>At typical tES frequencies, local enhancement of dosimetric exposure quantities can reach up to one order of magnitude for deep brain stimulation (DBS) and stereoelectroencephalography implants (more for elongated passive implants), potentially resulting in unwanted neuromodulation that can confound results but is still 2-3 orders of magnitude lower than active DBS. Under worst-case conditions, capacitive current injection in the active implants' lead can produce local exposures of similar magnitude as the passive field enhancement, while capacitive pathways between contacts are negligible. Above 10 kHz, applied current magnitudes increase, necessitating consideration of tissue heating. Furthermore, capacitive effects become more prominent, leading to current injection that can reach DBS-like levels. Adverse effects from abandoned/damaged leads in direct electrode vicinity cannot be excluded.</p><p><strong>Significance: </strong>Safety related concerns of tES application in the presence of implants are systematically identified and explored, resulting in specific and quantitative guidance and establishing basis for safety standards. Furthermore,several methods for reducing risks are suggested while acknowledging the limitations(see Sec. 4.5).</p>","PeriodicalId":94096,"journal":{"name":"Journal of neural engineering","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of neural engineering","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-2552/ad8efa","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) methodologies, such as transcranial electric (tES) are increasingly employed for therapeutic, diagnostic, or research purposes. The concurrent presence of active/passive implants can pose safety risks, affect the NIBS delivery, or generate confounding signals. A systematic investigation is required to understand the interaction mechanisms, quantify exposure, assess risks, and establish guidance for NIBS applications.

Approach: We used measurements, simplified generic, and detailed anatomical modeling to: (i) systematically analyze exposure conditions with passive and active implants, considering local field enhancement, exposure dosimetry, tissue heating and neuromodulation, capacitive lead current injection, low-impedance pathways between electrode contacts, and insulation damage; (ii) identify risk metrics and efficient prediction strategies; (iii) quantify these metrics in relevant exposure cases and (iv) identify worst case conditions. Various aspects including implant design, positioning, scar tissue formation, anisotropy, and frequency were investigated.

Results: At typical tES frequencies, local enhancement of dosimetric exposure quantities can reach up to one order of magnitude for deep brain stimulation (DBS) and stereoelectroencephalography implants (more for elongated passive implants), potentially resulting in unwanted neuromodulation that can confound results but is still 2-3 orders of magnitude lower than active DBS. Under worst-case conditions, capacitive current injection in the active implants' lead can produce local exposures of similar magnitude as the passive field enhancement, while capacitive pathways between contacts are negligible. Above 10 kHz, applied current magnitudes increase, necessitating consideration of tissue heating. Furthermore, capacitive effects become more prominent, leading to current injection that can reach DBS-like levels. Adverse effects from abandoned/damaged leads in direct electrode vicinity cannot be excluded.

Significance: Safety related concerns of tES application in the presence of implants are systematically identified and explored, resulting in specific and quantitative guidance and establishing basis for safety standards. Furthermore,several methods for reducing risks are suggested while acknowledging the limitations(see Sec. 4.5).

对植入物患者进行非侵入性脑部刺激的安全性:计算风险评估。
目的:经颅电刺激(tES)等非侵入性脑刺激(NIBS)方法越来越多地被用于治疗、诊断或研究目的。有源/无源植入物的同时存在会带来安全风险,影响 NIBS 的传输,或产生干扰信号。需要进行系统调查,以了解相互作用机制、量化暴露、评估风险并为 NIBS 应用制定指导原则:方法:我们利用测量、简化通用模型和详细解剖模型来方法:我们使用测量结果、简化通用方法和详细的解剖模型:(i) 系统分析被动和主动植入物的暴露条件,考虑局部场增强、暴露剂量测定、组织加热和神经调制、电容性导联电流注入、电极触点之间的低阻抗通路和绝缘损坏;(ii) 确定风险指标和有效的预测策略;(iii) 量化相关暴露案例中的这些指标;(iv) 确定最坏情况。研究了包括植入物设计、定位、瘢痕组织形成、各向异性和频率在内的各个方面:结果:在典型的 tES 频率下,脑深部刺激(DBS)和立体脑电图植入体的剂量学暴露量的局部增强可达一个数量级(加长型被动植入体的增强更大),可能导致不必要的神经调节,从而混淆结果,但仍比有源 DBS 低 2-3 个数量级。在最坏的情况下,有源植入体导线中的电容电流注入会产生与被动场增强类似程度的局部暴露,而触点之间的电容通路可以忽略不计。当频率超过 10 kHz 时,外加电流幅度会增大,这就需要考虑组织发热问题。此外,电容效应会变得更加突出,导致电流注入达到类似 DBS 的水平。不排除直接电极附近的废弃/损坏导线会产生不良影响:意义:系统地确定和探讨了在植入物存在的情况下应用 tES 所涉及的安全问题,从而提供了具体的量化指导,并为安全标准奠定了基础。此外,在承认局限性的同时,还提出了几种降低风险的方法(见第 4.5 节)。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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