Dataset Information

STN vs. GPi Deep Brain Stimulation: Translating the Rematch into Clinical Practice.

ABSTRACT: When formulating a deep brain stimulation (DBS) treatment plan for a patient with Parkinson's disease (PD), two critical questions should be addressed: 1- Which brain target should be chosen to optimize this patient's outcome? and 2- Should this patient's DBS operation be unilateral or bilateral? Over the past two decades, two targets have emerged as leading contenders for PD DBS; the subthalamic nucleus (STN) and the globus pallidus internus (GPi). While the GPi target does have a following, most centers have uniformly employed bilateral STN DBS for all Parkinson's disease cases (Figure 1). This bilateral STN "one-size-fits-all" approach was challenged by an editorial entitled "STN vs. GPi: The Rematch," which appeared in the Archives of Neurology in 2005. Since 2005, a series of well designed clinical trials and follow-up studies have addressed the question as to whether a more tailored approach to DBS therapy might improve overall outcomes. Such a tailored approach would include the options of targeting the GPi, or choosing a unilateral operation. The results of the STN vs. GPi 'rematch' studies support the conclusion that bilateral STN DBS may not be the best option for every Parkinson's disease surgical patient. Off period motor symptoms and tremor improve in both targets, and with either unilateral or bilateral stimulation. Advantages of the STN target include more medication reduction, less frequent battery changes, and a more favorable economic profile. Advantages of GPi include more robust dyskinesia suppression, easier programming, and greater flexibility in adjusting medications. In cases where unilateral stimulation is anticipated, the data favor GPi DBS. This review summarizes the accumulated evidence regarding the use of bilateral vs. unilateral DBS and the selection of STN vs. GPi DBS, including definite and possible advantages of different targets and approaches. Based on this evidence, a more patient-tailored, symptom specific approach will be proposed to optimize outcomes of PD DBS therapy. Finally, the importance of an interdisciplinary care team for screening and effective management of DBS patients will be reaffirmed. Interdisciplinary teams can facilitate the proposed patient-specific DBS treatment planning and provide a more thorough analysis of the risk-benefit ratio for each patient.

SUBMITTER: Williams NR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4000041 | biostudies-other | 2014 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

STN vs. GPi Deep Brain Stimulation: Translating the Rematch into Clinical Practice.

Williams Nolan R NR Foote Kelly D KD Okun Michael S MS

Movement disorders clinical practice 20140401 1

When formulating a deep brain stimulation (DBS) treatment plan for a patient with Parkinson's disease (PD), two critical questions should be addressed: 1- Which brain target should be chosen to optimize this patient's outcome? and 2- Should this patient's DBS operation be unilateral or bilateral? Over the past two decades, two targets have emerged as leading contenders for PD DBS; the subthalamic nucleus (STN) and the globus pallidus internus (GPi). While the GPi target does have a following, mo ...[more]

PMID: 24779023

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionThe globus pallidus internus (GPi) region has evolved as a potential target for deep brain stimulation (DBS) in Parkinson's disease (PD). DBS of the GPi (GPi DBS) is an established, safe and effective method for addressing many of the motor symptoms associated with advanced PD. It is important that clinicians fully understand this target when considering GPi DBS for individual patients.MethodsThe literature on GPi DBS in PD has been comprehensively reviewed, including the anatomy, physiology and potential pitfalls that may be encountered during surgical targeting and post-operative management. Here, we review and address the implications of lead location on GPi DBS outcomes. Additionally, we provide a summary of randomized controlled clinical trials conducted on DBS in PD, together with expert commentary on potential applications of the GPi as target. Finally, we highlight future technologies that will likely impact GPi DBS, including closed-loop adaptive approaches (e.g. sensing-stimulating capabilities), advanced methods for image-based targeting and advances in DBS programming, including directional leads and pulse shaping.ResultsThere are important disease characteristics and factors to consider prior to selecting the GPi as the DBS target of PD surgery. Prior to and during implantation of the leads it is critical to consider the neuroanatomy, which can be defined through the combination of image-based targeting and intraoperative microelectrode recording strategies. There is an increasing body of literature on GPi DBS in patients with PD suggesting both short- and long-term benefits. Understanding the GPi target can be useful in choosing between the subthalamic (STN), GPi and ventralis intermedius nucleus as lead locations to address the motor symptoms and complications of PD.ConclusionGPi DBS can be effectively used in select cases of PD. As the ongoing DBS target debate continues (GPi vs. STN as DBS target), clinicians should keep in mind that GPi DBS has been shown to be an effective treatment strategy for a variety of symptoms, including bradykinesia, rigidity and tremor control. GPi DBS also has an important, direct anti-dyskinetic effect. GPi DBS is easier to program in the outpatient setting and will allow for more flexibility in medication adjustments (e.g. levodopa). Emerging technologies, including GPi closed-loop systems, advanced tractography-based targeting and enhanced programming strategies, will likely be future areas of GPi DBS expansion. We conclude that although the GPi as DBS target may not be appropriate for all PD patients, it has specific clinical advantages.

Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate the effects of subthalamic nucleus (STN) and globus pallidus internus (GPi), deep brain stimulation (DBS) on individual action tremor/postural tremor (AT) and rest tremor (RT) in Parkinson's disease (PD). Randomized DBS studies have reported marked benefit in tremor with both GPi and STN and DBS, however, there is a paucity of information available on AT vs RT when separated by the surgical target.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed the 1-year clinical outcome of PD patients treated with STN and GPi DBS at the University of Florida. We specifically selected patients with moderate to severe AT. Eighty-eight patients (57 STN and 31 GPi) were evaluated at 6 and 12 months for changes in AT and RT in the OFF-medication/ON stimulation state. A comparison of "response" was performed and defined as greater than or equal to a 2-point decrease in tremor score.ResultsSTN and GPi DBS both improved AT at 6- and 12-months post-implantation (p < 0.001 and p < 0.001). The STN DBS group experienced a greater improvement in AT at 6 months compared to the GPi group (p = 0.005) but not at the 12 months follow-up (p = 0.301). Both STN and GPi DBS also improved RT at 6- and 12-months post-implantation (p < 0.001 and p < 0.001). There was no difference in RT scores between the two groups at 6 months (p = 0.23) or 12 months (p = 0.74). The STN group had a larger proportion of patients who achieved a "response" in AT at 6 months (p < 0.01), however, this finding was not present at 12 months (p = 0.23). A sub-analysis revealed that in RT, the STN group had a larger percentage of "responders" when followed through 12 months (p < 0.01).ConclusionBoth STN and GPi DBS reduced PD associated AT and RT at 12 months follow-up. There was no advantage of either brain target in the management of RT or AT. One nuance of the study was that STN DBS was more effective in suppressing AT in the early postoperative period, however, this effect diminished over time. Clinicians should be aware that it may take longer to achieve a similar tremor outcome when utilizing the GPi target.

Project description:ImportanceIt is unknown if there is a difference in outcome in asleep vs awake deep brain stimulation (DBS) of the subthalamic nucleus for advanced Parkinson disease.ObjectiveTo determine the difference in adverse effects concerning cognition, mood, and behavior between awake and asleep DBS favoring the asleep arm of the study.Design, setting, and participantsThis study was a single-center prospective randomized open-label blinded end point clinical trial. A total of 187 persons with Parkinson disease were referred for DBS between May 2015 to March 2019. Analysis took place from January 2016 to January 2020. The primary outcome follow-up visit was conducted 6 months after DBS.InterventionsBilateral subthalamic nucleus DBS was performed while the patient was asleep (under general anesthesia) in 1 study arm and awake in the other study arm. Both arms of the study used a frame-based intraoperative microelectrode recording technique to refine final target placement of the DBS lead.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome variable was the between-group difference in cognitive, mood, and behavioral adverse effects as measured by a composite score. The secondary outcomes included the Movement Disorders Society Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale, the patient assessment of surgical burden and operative time.ResultsA total of 110 patients were randomized to awake (local anesthesia; n = 56; mean [SD] age, 60.0 (7.4) years; 40 [71%] male) or to asleep (general anesthesia; n = 54; mean [SD] age, 61.3 [7.9] years; 38 [70%] male) DBS surgery. The 6-month follow-up visit was completed by 103 participants. The proportion of patients with adverse cognitive, mood, and behavioral effects on the composite score was 15 of 52 (29%) after awake and 11 of 51 (22%) after asleep DBS (odds ratio, 0.7 [95% CI, 0.3-1.7]). There was no difference in improvement in the off-medication Movement Disorders Society Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale Motor Examination scores between groups (awake group: mean [SD], -27.3 [17.5] points; asleep group: mean [SD], -25.3 [14.3] points; mean difference, -2.0 [95% CI, -8.1 to 4.2]). Asleep surgery was experienced as less burdensome by patients and was 26 minutes shorter than awake surgery.Conclusions and relevanceThere was no difference in the primary outcome of asleep vs awake DBS. Future large randomized clinical trials should examine some of the newer asleep based DBS technologies because this study was limited to frame-based microelectrode-guided procedures.Trial registrationtrialregister.nl Identifier: NTR5809.

Dataset Information

STN vs. GPi Deep Brain Stimulation: Translating the Rematch into Clinical Practice.

Publications

STN vs. GPi Deep Brain Stimulation: Translating the Rematch into Clinical Practice.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets