MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2082610763 · doi:10.1016/j.pedneo.2012.05.003

Vagus Nerve Stimulation Therapy in Pediatric Epilepsy: Current Understanding and Future Directions

2012· letter· en· W2082610763 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kun‐Long Hung

Notice bibliographique

RevuePediatrics & Neonatology · 2012
Typeletter
Langueen
DomaineNeuroscience
ThématiqueVagus Nerve Stimulation Research
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésVagus nerve stimulationMedicineEpilepsyVagus nerveNeurologyScopusRefractory (planetary science)MEDLINEStimulationPsychiatryInternal medicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The first use of vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) in humans started in 1988.1Beekwilder J.P. Beems T. Overview of the clinical applications of vagus nerve stimulation.J Clin Neurophysiol. 2010; 27: 130-138Crossref PubMed Scopus (136) Google Scholar Over the past 20 years, many publications have established its therapeutic role in patients with difficult-to-treat epilepsy.1Beekwilder J.P. Beems T. Overview of the clinical applications of vagus nerve stimulation.J Clin Neurophysiol. 2010; 27: 130-138Crossref PubMed Scopus (136) Google Scholar Accordingly, VNS was approved as a treatment for medically refractory epilepsy in Europe in 1994, and in the United States and Canada in 1997 for patients aged 12 years and older. The evidence supporting VNS use for epilepsy was classified as Class I in 1999 by the Therapeutics and Technology Assessment Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology.2Fisher R.S. Handforth A. Reassessment: vagus nerve stimulation for epilepsy: a report of the Therapeutics and Technology Assessment Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology.Neurology. 1999; 53: 666-669Crossref PubMed Google Scholar Initially, VNS therapy was applied in adults. However, many studies have also shown its effectiveness in adolescent and young children. A multicenter, retrospective study of VNS in 125 pediatric patients aged 3 to 18 years with refractory epilepsy showed the overall seizure reduction after 3 and 6 months was 36% and 45%, respectively.3Helmers S.L. Wheless J.W. Frost M. et al.Vagus nerve stimulation therapy in pediatric patients with refractory epilepsy: retrospective study.J Child Neurol. 2001; 16: 843-848Crossref PubMed Scopus (176) Google Scholar Common adverse events included voice change and coughing during stimulation. Rare adverse events were drooling and increasing hyperactivity. Another study comparing the results of children younger than and older than 12 years disclosed no difference in the seizure reduction in these two groups, despite of longer history of refractory epilepsy in the latter.4Murphy J.V. Torkelson R. Dowler I. Simon S. Hudson S. Vagal nerve stimulation in refractory epilepsy: the first 100 patients receiving vagal nerve stimulation at a pediatric epilepsy center.Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2003; 157: 560-564Crossref PubMed Scopus (103) Google Scholar Even in younger children, one study for six children less than 3 years of age showed >60% seizure reduction in four of them.5Zamponi N. Rychlicki F. Corpaci L. Cesaroni E. Trignani R. Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) is effective in treating catastrophic 1 epilepsy in very young children.Neurosurg Rev. 2008; 31: 291-297Crossref PubMed Scopus (63) Google Scholar The study of VNS therapy on cognition, quality of life, behavior, and mood in 15 children with therapy resistant epilepsy demonstrated significant impact of improvement of quality of life, behavior, and mood after use of VNS.6Hallbook T. Lundgren J. Stjernqvist K. Blennow G. Stromblad L.G. Rosen I. Vagus nerve stimulation in 15 children with therapy resistant epilepsy: its impact on cognition, quality of life, behaviour and mood.Seizure. 2005; 14: 504-513Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (98) Google Scholar The antiepileptic effects for VNS are multifactorial, though the exact mechanism remains unclear.1Beekwilder J.P. Beems T. Overview of the clinical applications of vagus nerve stimulation.J Clin Neurophysiol. 2010; 27: 130-138Crossref PubMed Scopus (136) Google Scholar From the current understanding, effective VNS therapy probably involves the following processes: (a) an increase of synaptic activity in the thalamus and thalamocortical projection, which might result in a decreased synchrony of synaptic activities between cortical neurons, (b) decreased synaptic activity in the limbic system, (c) intermittent increase of synaptic activities in central autonomic system, and (d) increased release of norepinephrine and serotonin over cortical regions, which are mostly innervated, directly or indirectly, by the spread of vagus nerve fibers. In this issue of Pediatrics and Neonatology, Chen and colleagues7Chen C.Y. Lee H.T. Chen C.C. et al.Short-term results of vagus nerve stimulation in pediatric patients with refractory epilepsy. The Taiwan Child Neurology Society VNS Study Group.Pediatr Neonatol. 2012; 53: 184-187Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (23) Google Scholar report the preliminary study of short-term results of VNS in pediatric patients with refractory epilepsy from a multicenter cooperative survey. Actually, this report is a part product of the nationwide cooperative study of Taiwan Child Neurology Society under a project called the “Clinical Study on the Catastrophic Pediatric Refractory Epilepsy Patients with Vagus Nerve Stimulation in Relation to Seizure Reduction, Intelligence Quotient, Memory, Alertness, Verbal and Speech Ability” during 2009 to 2011. Another project called “Long-term Outcome of Vagus Nerve Stimulation in Seizure Reduction, Intelligence Quotient, Memory, Alertness, Verbal and Speech Improvement on the Catastrophic Pediatric Refractory Epilepsy Patients” is currently underway. In this report, the authors describe the results of VNS therapy for refractory epilepsy in a sample of four adolescents and four children with a follow-up duration ranging from 9 to 33 months. Five of the eight patients responded to VNS, and four of them experienced a ≥ 90% seizure reduction. No significant adverse effects were noted in all patients during the observation period. This report suggests that VNS is well tolerated in pediatric patients and can be a favorable and safe therapy for children with intractable seizures. Some limitations exist in this study. First, the case number is rather small. Compared to the fact that a total of more than 60 cases so far have been collected till the end of 2011, the preliminary data shown here might not the true picture of VNS effect for Taiwanese children. Second, the study participants are limited in seizure diagnosis. It does not cover the major epilepsies and epileptic syndromes of all difficult seizures in children. Nevertheless, this study may highlight an optimistic therapeutic direction for those suffering from difficult-to-treat seizures and also warrant further larger scale, multicenter cooperative studies in Taiwan.

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 distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Intégrité de la recherche
Catégories consensuellesIntégrité de la recherche
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,697
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0020,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,004
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,094
Tête enseignante GPT0,339
Écart entre enseignants0,245 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations6
Publié2012
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuePediatrics & NeonatologyMême sujetVagus Nerve Stimulation ResearchTravaux en français237 207