Constant Current versus Constant Voltage Subthalamic Nucleus Deep Brain Stimulation in Parkinson's Disease
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Subthalamic nucleus (STN) deep brain stimulation (DBS) is an established therapy for advanced Parkinson's disease (PD). Motor efficacy and safety have been established for constant voltage (CV) devices and more recently for constant current (CC) devices. CC devices adjust output voltage to provide CC stimulation irrespective of impedance fluctuation, while the current applied by CV stimulation depends on the impedance that may change over time. No study has directly compared the clinical effects of these two stimulation modalities. Objective: To compare the safety and clinical impact of CC STN DBS to CV STN DBS in patients with advanced PD 2 years after surgery. Methods: Patients were eligible for inclusion if they had undergone STN DBS surgery for idiopathic PD, had been implanted with a Medtronic Activa PC and if their stimulation program and medication had been stable for at least 1 year. This single-center trial was designed as a double-blind, randomized, prospective study with crossover after 2 weeks. Motor equivalence of the 2 modalities was confirmed utilizing part III of the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS). PD diaries and multiple subjective and objective evaluations of quality of life, depression, cognition and emotional processing were evaluated on both CV and on CC stimulation. Analysis using the paired t test with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was performed to identify any significant difference between the stimulation modalities. Results: 8 patients were recruited (6 men, 2 women); 1 patient did not complete the study. The average age at surgery was 56.7 years (range 47-63). Disease duration at the time of surgery was 7.5 years (range 3-12). Patients were recruited 23.8 months (range 22.5-24) after surgery. At the postoperative study baseline, this patient group showed an average motor improvement of 69% (range 51-97) as measured by the change in UPDRS part III with stimulation alone. Levodopa equivalent medication was reduced on average by 67% (range 15-88). Patients were poorly compliant with PD diaries, and these did not yield useful information. The minor deterioration in quality-of-life scores (Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire-39, Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire) with CC stimulation were not statistically significant. Two measures of depression (Hamilton Rating Scale D17, Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology - Self-Report) showed a nonsignificant lower score (less depression) with CC stimulation, but a third (Beck Depression Inventory) showed equivalence. Cognitive testing (Mini Mental State Examination) and emotional processing (Montreal Affective Voices) were equivalent for CC and CV. Conclusion: CC STN DBS is safe. For equivalent motor efficacy, no significant difference could be identified between CC and CV stimulation for nonmotor evaluations in PD patients 2 years after surgery. © 2015 S. Karger AG, Basel.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».