4.3 Article

Transcutaneous vagal nerve stimulatio (t-VNS): An adjunctive treatment option for refractory epilepsy

Journal

SEIZURE-EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF EPILEPSY
Volume 60, Issue -, Pages 115-119

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.seizure.2018.06.016

Keywords

Transcutaneous vagal stimulation (t-VNS); Medically refractory epilepsy; Palliative treatment; Seizure severity

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: The aim of this trial was to investigate the efficacy and safety of transcutaneous vagal nerve stimulation (t-VNS) in the palliative treatment of drug resistant epileptic patients ineligible for surgery. Methods: Twenty adult patients received four hours of t-VNS per day for six months (T1), followed by a two-month washout period (T2). The frequency and type of seizures recorded at T1 and T2 were compared with those occurring in the three months preceding study entry (TO). Responders ( > 30% reduction in the total number of seizures) subsequently received two hours of t-VNS per day for further six months (T3). All patients underwent electroencephalography (EEG) and completed the Quality of Life in Epilepsy questionnaire at baseline and T1. Results: At T1 six patients were considered responders. In these patients, at T3 the average reduction in seizure frequency was 60% compared to T0 (p = 0.043), and 51% compared to T2 (p = 0.043). Responders had more often seizures with falls (5 of 6; 83.3%) compared with non-responders (3 of 14; 21.4%) (p = 0,010) and t-VNS reduced their frequency by a percentage ranging from 47.5 to 100%. There was no change in responders' EEG findings after stimulation. At the end of the trial, three responders continued t-VNS, one implanted VNS. Conclusions: t-VNS had no or minimal side effects and significantly reduced seizures in about one third of the enrolled patients. Further studies should be planned to assess whether t-VNS is a suitable tool to predict the efficacy of implanted VNS.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available