Cargando…
An international survey of SEEG cortical stimulation practices
OBJECTIVE: Cortical stimulation is an important component of stereoelectroencephalography (SEEG). Despite this, there is currently no standardized approach and significant heterogeneity in the literature regarding cortical stimulation practices. Via an international survey of SEEG clinicians, we sou...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10472359/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37437189 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/epi4.12790 |
_version_ | 1785100058831618048 |
---|---|
author | Cockle, Emily Rayner, Genevieve Malpas, Charles Alpitsis, Rubina Rheims, Sylvain O'Brien, Terence J Neal, Andrew |
author_facet | Cockle, Emily Rayner, Genevieve Malpas, Charles Alpitsis, Rubina Rheims, Sylvain O'Brien, Terence J Neal, Andrew |
author_sort | Cockle, Emily |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVE: Cortical stimulation is an important component of stereoelectroencephalography (SEEG). Despite this, there is currently no standardized approach and significant heterogeneity in the literature regarding cortical stimulation practices. Via an international survey of SEEG clinicians, we sought to examine the spectrum of cortical stimulation practices to reveal areas of consensus and variability. METHODS: A 68‐item questionnaire was developed to understand cortical stimulation practices including neurostimulation parameters, interpretation of epileptogenicity, functional and cognitive assessment and subsequent surgical decisions. Multiple recruitment pathways were pursued, with the questionnaire distributed directly to 183 clinicians. RESULTS: Responses were received from 56 clinicians across 17 countries with experience ranging from 2 to 60 years (M = 10.73, SD = 9.44). Neurostimulation parameters varied considerably, with maximum current ranging from 3 to 10 mA (M = 5.33, SD = 2.29) for 1 Hz and from 2 to 15 mA (M = 6.54, SD = 3.68) for 50 Hz stimulation. Charge density ranged from 8 to 200 μC/cm(2), with up to 43% of responders utilizing charge densities higher than recommended upper safety limits, i.e. 55 μC/cm(2). North American responders reported statistically significant higher maximum current (P < 0.001) for 1 Hz stimulation and lower pulse width for 1 and 50 Hz stimulation (P = 0.008, P < 0.001, respectively) compared to European responders. All clinicians evaluated language, speech, and motor function during cortical stimulation; in contrast, 42% assessed visuospatial or visual function, 29% memory, and 13% executive function. Striking differences were reported in approaches to assessment, classification of positive sites, and surgical decisions guided by cortical stimulation. Patterns of consistency were observed for interpretation of the localizing capacity of stimulated electroclinical seizures and auras, with habitual electroclinical seizures induced by 1 Hz stimulation considered the most localizing. SIGNIFICANCE: SEEG cortical stimulation practices differed vastly across clinicians internationally, highlighting the need for consensus‐based clinical guidelines. In particular, an internationally standardized approach to assessment, classification, and functional prognostication will provide a common clinical and research framework for optimizing outcomes for people with drug‐resistant epilepsy. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10472359 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-104723592023-09-02 An international survey of SEEG cortical stimulation practices Cockle, Emily Rayner, Genevieve Malpas, Charles Alpitsis, Rubina Rheims, Sylvain O'Brien, Terence J Neal, Andrew Epilepsia Open Original Articles OBJECTIVE: Cortical stimulation is an important component of stereoelectroencephalography (SEEG). Despite this, there is currently no standardized approach and significant heterogeneity in the literature regarding cortical stimulation practices. Via an international survey of SEEG clinicians, we sought to examine the spectrum of cortical stimulation practices to reveal areas of consensus and variability. METHODS: A 68‐item questionnaire was developed to understand cortical stimulation practices including neurostimulation parameters, interpretation of epileptogenicity, functional and cognitive assessment and subsequent surgical decisions. Multiple recruitment pathways were pursued, with the questionnaire distributed directly to 183 clinicians. RESULTS: Responses were received from 56 clinicians across 17 countries with experience ranging from 2 to 60 years (M = 10.73, SD = 9.44). Neurostimulation parameters varied considerably, with maximum current ranging from 3 to 10 mA (M = 5.33, SD = 2.29) for 1 Hz and from 2 to 15 mA (M = 6.54, SD = 3.68) for 50 Hz stimulation. Charge density ranged from 8 to 200 μC/cm(2), with up to 43% of responders utilizing charge densities higher than recommended upper safety limits, i.e. 55 μC/cm(2). North American responders reported statistically significant higher maximum current (P < 0.001) for 1 Hz stimulation and lower pulse width for 1 and 50 Hz stimulation (P = 0.008, P < 0.001, respectively) compared to European responders. All clinicians evaluated language, speech, and motor function during cortical stimulation; in contrast, 42% assessed visuospatial or visual function, 29% memory, and 13% executive function. Striking differences were reported in approaches to assessment, classification of positive sites, and surgical decisions guided by cortical stimulation. Patterns of consistency were observed for interpretation of the localizing capacity of stimulated electroclinical seizures and auras, with habitual electroclinical seizures induced by 1 Hz stimulation considered the most localizing. SIGNIFICANCE: SEEG cortical stimulation practices differed vastly across clinicians internationally, highlighting the need for consensus‐based clinical guidelines. In particular, an internationally standardized approach to assessment, classification, and functional prognostication will provide a common clinical and research framework for optimizing outcomes for people with drug‐resistant epilepsy. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2023-07-16 /pmc/articles/PMC10472359/ /pubmed/37437189 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/epi4.12790 Text en © 2023 The Authors. Epilepsia Open published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International League Against Epilepsy. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made. |
spellingShingle | Original Articles Cockle, Emily Rayner, Genevieve Malpas, Charles Alpitsis, Rubina Rheims, Sylvain O'Brien, Terence J Neal, Andrew An international survey of SEEG cortical stimulation practices |
title | An international survey of SEEG cortical stimulation practices |
title_full | An international survey of SEEG cortical stimulation practices |
title_fullStr | An international survey of SEEG cortical stimulation practices |
title_full_unstemmed | An international survey of SEEG cortical stimulation practices |
title_short | An international survey of SEEG cortical stimulation practices |
title_sort | international survey of seeg cortical stimulation practices |
topic | Original Articles |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10472359/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37437189 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/epi4.12790 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT cockleemily aninternationalsurveyofseegcorticalstimulationpractices AT raynergenevieve aninternationalsurveyofseegcorticalstimulationpractices AT malpascharles aninternationalsurveyofseegcorticalstimulationpractices AT alpitsisrubina aninternationalsurveyofseegcorticalstimulationpractices AT rheimssylvain aninternationalsurveyofseegcorticalstimulationpractices AT obrienterencej aninternationalsurveyofseegcorticalstimulationpractices AT nealandrew aninternationalsurveyofseegcorticalstimulationpractices AT cockleemily internationalsurveyofseegcorticalstimulationpractices AT raynergenevieve internationalsurveyofseegcorticalstimulationpractices AT malpascharles internationalsurveyofseegcorticalstimulationpractices AT alpitsisrubina internationalsurveyofseegcorticalstimulationpractices AT rheimssylvain internationalsurveyofseegcorticalstimulationpractices AT obrienterencej internationalsurveyofseegcorticalstimulationpractices AT nealandrew internationalsurveyofseegcorticalstimulationpractices |