耐药癫痫患儿迷走神经刺激方案的初步研究:高脉冲幅值或高占空比。

IF 2.8 3区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Epilepsia Open Pub Date : 2025-04-22 DOI:10.1002/epi4.70043
Yuying Pan, Han Xie, Jiayi Ma, Taoyun Ji, Qingzhu Liu, Lixin Cai, Yuwu Jiang, Kai Zhang, Jianguo Zhang, Ye Wu
{"title":"耐药癫痫患儿迷走神经刺激方案的初步研究:高脉冲幅值或高占空比。","authors":"Yuying Pan,&nbsp;Han Xie,&nbsp;Jiayi Ma,&nbsp;Taoyun Ji,&nbsp;Qingzhu Liu,&nbsp;Lixin Cai,&nbsp;Yuwu Jiang,&nbsp;Kai Zhang,&nbsp;Jianguo Zhang,&nbsp;Ye Wu","doi":"10.1002/epi4.70043","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objective</h3>\n \n <p>To compare the efficacy and safety of vagus nerve stimulation using different modes in patients with drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Children with DRE who underwent vagus nerve stimulator implantation between March 2019 and December 2022 were prospectively enrolled at the Peking University First Hospital. Ninety-four children were randomly divided into the high pulse amplitude [pulse amplitude was gradually increased to maximum tolerance value (≤2.8 mA) and duty cycle was maintained at 10%] and high duty cycle groups [pulse amplitude was maintained at 1.5 mA and duty cycle was subsequently increased to maximum tolerance value (≤37%)]. At the 55-week follow-up, the responder rate, seizure-free rate, and adverse effects were compared between the two groups.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Ninety-four children with DRE were included (47 patients each in the high pulse amplitude group and the high duty cycle group). For epileptic seizures, the responder rate of the high pulse amplitude group was 53.2% (25/47), while that of the high duty cycle group was 38.3% (18/47). High pulse amplitude had a higher responder rate of focal seizures (60.7% in the high pulse amplitude group vs. 29.2% in the high duty cycle group; chi-squared test, <i>p</i> = 0.023). Among children with a ≥ 75% reduction in epileptic spasms, the high duty cycle group had a higher responder rate than the high pulse amplitude group (54.5% vs. 16.7%; Fisher's exact test, <i>p</i> = 0.022). In addition, in the high duty cycle group, the responder rate in children with epileptic spasms was higher than that in children without epileptic spasms (59.1% vs. 20.0%; chi-square test, <i>p</i> = 0.011). Among children with implantation age &lt;6 years, the responder rate of the high pulse amplitude group was higher (chi-square test, <i>p</i> = 0.024). The incidence of adverse effects in the two groups was not statistically different.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Significance</h3>\n \n <p>The overall responder rates in the two modes were similar. The high pulse amplitude mode may be more effective for focal seizures, whereas the high duty cycle mode may be more effective for epileptic spasms. Patients aged &lt;6 years with DRE and VNS implantation may require a higher pulse amplitude to achieve better efficacy.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Plain Language Summary</h3>\n \n <p>This study compared the anti-seizure efficacy of two different vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) treatments. We found that the overall efficacy of the two treatments was similar. The high pulse amplitude mode may be more effective for focal seizures, whereas the high duty cycle mode may be more effective for epileptic spasms. Patients aged &lt;6 years with drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) and VNS treatment may require a higher pulse amplitude to achieve better efficacy.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":12038,"journal":{"name":"Epilepsia Open","volume":"10 3","pages":"831-841"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/epi4.70043","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A pilot study on the programming protocol of vagus nerve stimulation in children with drug-resistant epilepsy: High pulse amplitude or high duty cycle\",\"authors\":\"Yuying Pan,&nbsp;Han Xie,&nbsp;Jiayi Ma,&nbsp;Taoyun Ji,&nbsp;Qingzhu Liu,&nbsp;Lixin Cai,&nbsp;Yuwu Jiang,&nbsp;Kai Zhang,&nbsp;Jianguo Zhang,&nbsp;Ye Wu\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/epi4.70043\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Objective</h3>\\n \\n <p>To compare the efficacy and safety of vagus nerve stimulation using different modes in patients with drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>Children with DRE who underwent vagus nerve stimulator implantation between March 2019 and December 2022 were prospectively enrolled at the Peking University First Hospital. Ninety-four children were randomly divided into the high pulse amplitude [pulse amplitude was gradually increased to maximum tolerance value (≤2.8 mA) and duty cycle was maintained at 10%] and high duty cycle groups [pulse amplitude was maintained at 1.5 mA and duty cycle was subsequently increased to maximum tolerance value (≤37%)]. At the 55-week follow-up, the responder rate, seizure-free rate, and adverse effects were compared between the two groups.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Ninety-four children with DRE were included (47 patients each in the high pulse amplitude group and the high duty cycle group). For epileptic seizures, the responder rate of the high pulse amplitude group was 53.2% (25/47), while that of the high duty cycle group was 38.3% (18/47). High pulse amplitude had a higher responder rate of focal seizures (60.7% in the high pulse amplitude group vs. 29.2% in the high duty cycle group; chi-squared test, <i>p</i> = 0.023). Among children with a ≥ 75% reduction in epileptic spasms, the high duty cycle group had a higher responder rate than the high pulse amplitude group (54.5% vs. 16.7%; Fisher's exact test, <i>p</i> = 0.022). In addition, in the high duty cycle group, the responder rate in children with epileptic spasms was higher than that in children without epileptic spasms (59.1% vs. 20.0%; chi-square test, <i>p</i> = 0.011). Among children with implantation age &lt;6 years, the responder rate of the high pulse amplitude group was higher (chi-square test, <i>p</i> = 0.024). The incidence of adverse effects in the two groups was not statistically different.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Significance</h3>\\n \\n <p>The overall responder rates in the two modes were similar. The high pulse amplitude mode may be more effective for focal seizures, whereas the high duty cycle mode may be more effective for epileptic spasms. Patients aged &lt;6 years with DRE and VNS implantation may require a higher pulse amplitude to achieve better efficacy.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Plain Language Summary</h3>\\n \\n <p>This study compared the anti-seizure efficacy of two different vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) treatments. We found that the overall efficacy of the two treatments was similar. The high pulse amplitude mode may be more effective for focal seizures, whereas the high duty cycle mode may be more effective for epileptic spasms. Patients aged &lt;6 years with drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) and VNS treatment may require a higher pulse amplitude to achieve better efficacy.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12038,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Epilepsia Open\",\"volume\":\"10 3\",\"pages\":\"831-841\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/epi4.70043\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Epilepsia Open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/epi4.70043\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Epilepsia Open","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/epi4.70043","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:比较不同模式迷走神经刺激治疗耐药癫痫(DRE)的疗效和安全性。方法:前瞻性纳入2019年3月至2022年12月在北京大学第一医院行迷走神经刺激器植入的DRE患儿。将94名患儿随机分为高脉冲幅值组[脉冲幅值逐渐增大到最大容差值(≤2.8 mA),占空比保持在10%]和高脉冲幅值组[脉冲幅值保持在1.5 mA,占空比随后增大到最大容差值(≤37%)]。在55周的随访中,比较两组的应答率、无癫痫发作率和不良反应。结果:共纳入DRE患儿94例(高脉幅组和高占空比组各47例)。对于癫痫发作,高脉幅组的应答率为53.2%(25/47),高占空比组的应答率为38.3%(18/47)。高脉冲幅值组局灶性癫痫的应答率更高(高脉冲幅值组60.7%,高占空比组29.2%;卡方检验,p = 0.023)。在癫痫性痉挛减少≥75%的儿童中,高占空比组的应答率高于高脉幅组(54.5% vs. 16.7%;费雪精确检验,p = 0.022)。此外,在高占空比组中,癫痫性痉挛患儿的应答率高于无癫痫性痉挛患儿(59.1% vs. 20.0%;卡方检验,p = 0.011)。意义:两种模式的总有效率相近。高脉冲振幅模式可能对局灶性癫痫发作更有效,而高占空比模式可能对癫痫性痉挛更有效。摘要:本研究比较了两种不同的迷走神经刺激(VNS)治疗的抗癫痫效果。我们发现两种治疗的总体疗效是相似的。高脉冲振幅模式可能对局灶性癫痫发作更有效,而高占空比模式可能对癫痫性痉挛更有效。岁的病人
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A pilot study on the programming protocol of vagus nerve stimulation in children with drug-resistant epilepsy: High pulse amplitude or high duty cycle

Objective

To compare the efficacy and safety of vagus nerve stimulation using different modes in patients with drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE).

Methods

Children with DRE who underwent vagus nerve stimulator implantation between March 2019 and December 2022 were prospectively enrolled at the Peking University First Hospital. Ninety-four children were randomly divided into the high pulse amplitude [pulse amplitude was gradually increased to maximum tolerance value (≤2.8 mA) and duty cycle was maintained at 10%] and high duty cycle groups [pulse amplitude was maintained at 1.5 mA and duty cycle was subsequently increased to maximum tolerance value (≤37%)]. At the 55-week follow-up, the responder rate, seizure-free rate, and adverse effects were compared between the two groups.

Results

Ninety-four children with DRE were included (47 patients each in the high pulse amplitude group and the high duty cycle group). For epileptic seizures, the responder rate of the high pulse amplitude group was 53.2% (25/47), while that of the high duty cycle group was 38.3% (18/47). High pulse amplitude had a higher responder rate of focal seizures (60.7% in the high pulse amplitude group vs. 29.2% in the high duty cycle group; chi-squared test, p = 0.023). Among children with a ≥ 75% reduction in epileptic spasms, the high duty cycle group had a higher responder rate than the high pulse amplitude group (54.5% vs. 16.7%; Fisher's exact test, p = 0.022). In addition, in the high duty cycle group, the responder rate in children with epileptic spasms was higher than that in children without epileptic spasms (59.1% vs. 20.0%; chi-square test, p = 0.011). Among children with implantation age <6 years, the responder rate of the high pulse amplitude group was higher (chi-square test, p = 0.024). The incidence of adverse effects in the two groups was not statistically different.

Significance

The overall responder rates in the two modes were similar. The high pulse amplitude mode may be more effective for focal seizures, whereas the high duty cycle mode may be more effective for epileptic spasms. Patients aged <6 years with DRE and VNS implantation may require a higher pulse amplitude to achieve better efficacy.

Plain Language Summary

This study compared the anti-seizure efficacy of two different vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) treatments. We found that the overall efficacy of the two treatments was similar. The high pulse amplitude mode may be more effective for focal seizures, whereas the high duty cycle mode may be more effective for epileptic spasms. Patients aged <6 years with drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) and VNS treatment may require a higher pulse amplitude to achieve better efficacy.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Epilepsia Open
Epilepsia Open Medicine-Neurology (clinical)
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
6.70%
发文量
104
审稿时长
8 weeks
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信