Cargando…

Acute effects of adaptive Deep Brain Stimulation in Parkinson’s disease

BACKGROUND: Beta-based adaptive Deep Brain Stimulation (aDBS) is effective in Parkinson’s disease (PD), when assessed in the immediate post-implantation phase. However, the potential benefits of aDBS in patients with electrodes chronically implanted, in whom changes due to the microlesion effect hav...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Piña-Fuentes, Dan, van Dijk, J. Marc C., van Zijl, Jonathan C., Moes, Harmen R., van Laar, Teus, Oterdoom, D.L.Marinus, Little, Simon, Brown, Peter, Beudel, Martijn
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7116216/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32738409
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2020.07.016
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Beta-based adaptive Deep Brain Stimulation (aDBS) is effective in Parkinson’s disease (PD), when assessed in the immediate post-implantation phase. However, the potential benefits of aDBS in patients with electrodes chronically implanted, in whom changes due to the microlesion effect have disappeared, are yet to be assessed. METHODS: To determine the acute effectiveness and side-effect profile of aDBS in PD compared to conventional continuous DBS (cDBS) and no stimulation (NoStim), years after DBS implantation, 13 PD patients undergoing battery replacement were pseudo-randomised in a crossover fashion, into three conditions (NoStim, aDBS or cDBS), with a 2-min interval between them. Patient videos were blindly evaluated using a short version of the Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (subUPDRS), and the Speech Intelligibility Test (SIT). RESULTS: Mean disease duration was 16 years, and the mean time since DBS-implantation was 6.9 years. subUPDRS scores (11 patients tested) were significantly lower both in aDBS (p = <.001), and cDBS (p = .001), when compared to NoStim. Bradykinesia subscores were significantly lower in aDBS (p = .002), and did not achieve significance during cDBS (p = .08), when compared to NoStim. Two patients demonstrated re-emerging tremor during aDBS. SIT scores of patients who presented stimulation-induced dysarthria significantly worsened in cDBS (p = .009), but not in aDBS (p = .407), when compared to NoStim. Overall, stimulation was applied 48.8% of the time during aDBS. CONCLUSION: Beta-based aDBS is effective in PD patients with bradykinetic phenotypes, delivers less stimulation than cDBS, and potentially has a more favourable speech side-effect profile. Patients with prominent tremor may require a modified adaptive strategy.