4.5 Article

Loss of benefit in VIM thalamic deep brain stimulation (DBS) for essential tremor (ET): How prevalent is it?

期刊

PARKINSONISM & RELATED DISORDERS
卷 19, 期 7, 页码 676-679

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.parkreldis.2013.03.006

关键词

Essential tremor; Deep brain stimulation; Long-term outcome

资金

  1. Clinical Investigator Training Program: Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center
  2. Harvard/MIT Health Science and Technology
  3. Pfizer, Inc.
  4. Merck Co.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ventralis intermedius (Vim) thalamic deep brain stimulation for medication-refractory essential tremor (ET) has been shown to significantly improve severity of limb tremor in several large case series with significant reduction in objective motor scores. A variable proportion of patients experience decline in benefit over time, however, most studies have not been designed to describe the phenomenon of waning benefit in terms that are helpful for patient counseling. In this retrospective single center study, we define waning benefit as a phenomenon that occurs after patients begin to require reprogramming visits to optimize DBS benefit on tremor. We employed a survival analysis with time to escape (TTE) as a quantitative measure of time elapsed between implantation and the need for subsequent reprogramming. In our cohort of ET patients operated on with Vim DBS from 1994 to 2009, among 45 subjects who met inclusion criteria, 73% reported waning benefit at some point during a mean follow-up period of 56 months (range 12-152 months). The mean TTE from implantation date was 18 months (range 3-75 months). We conclude that loss of benefit over time from Vim DBS for ET is more prevalent than previously published estimates have indicated and should be discussed during patient counseling regarding durability of expected benefit. In addition, this data suggests that a disease-based explanation rather than technical factors are more likely to explain the decline in benefit. (c) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据