A Pilot Study of High-Definition Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in Refractory Status Epilepticus: The SURESTEP Trial

Marcus C Ng, Hussam El-Alawi, Darion Toutant, Eun Hyung Choi, Natalie Wright, Manzuma Khanam, Bojan Paunovic, Ji Hyun Ko, Marcus C Ng, Hussam El-Alawi, Darion Toutant, Eun Hyung Choi, Natalie Wright, Manzuma Khanam, Bojan Paunovic, Ji Hyun Ko

Abstract

Refractory status epilepticus (RSE) is a life-threatening emergency with high mortality and poor functional outcomes in survivors. Treatment is typically limited to intravenous anesthetic infusions and multiple anti-seizure medications. While ongoing seizures can cause permanent neurological damage, medical therapies also pose severe and life-threatening side effects. We tested the feasibility of using high-definition transcranial direct current stimulation (hd-tDCS) in the treatment of RSE. We conducted 20-min hd-tDCS sessions at an outward field orientation, intensity of 2-mA, 4 + 1 channels, and customized for deployment over the electrographic maximum of epileptiform activity ("spikes") determined by real-time clinical EEG monitoring. There were no adverse events from 32 hd-tDCS sessions in 10 RSE patients. Over steady dosing states of infusions and medications in 29 included sessions, median spike rates/patient fell by 50% during hd-tDCS on both automated (p = 0.0069) and human (p = 0.0277) spike counting. Median spike rates for any given stimulation session also fell by 50% during hd-tDCS on automated spike counting (p = 0.0032). Immediately after hd-tDCS, median spike rates/patient remained down by 25% on human spike counting (p = 0.018). Compared to historical controls, hd-tDCS subjects were successfully discharged from the intensive care unit (ICU) 45.8% more often (p = 0.004). When controls were selected using propensity score matching, the discharge rate advantage improved to 55% (p = 0.002). Customized EEG electrode targeting of hd-tDCS is a safe and non-invasive method of hyperacutely reducing epileptiform activity in RSE. Compared to historical controls, there was evidence of a cumulative chronic clinical response with more hd-tDCS subjects discharged from ICU.

© 2022. The American Society for Experimental Neurotherapeutics, Inc.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Patient flowchart. 10 included RSE patients comprised the “per-patient” analysis dataset. 29 included hd-tDCS sessions comprised the “per-session” analysis dataset
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Change in median automated spike rate per-patient during hd-tDCS. Spike rates: relative (purple, y-axis on left), absolute (orange, y-axis on right). Relative reduction of −100% denotes spike quiescence. Filled triangle indicates relative spike increase beyond 100%. Relative differences were exaggerated when a few rare spikes emerged from a baseline of quiescence. Note quiescence in patient #10. All but two patients experienced relative reductions. All but one patient experienced absolute reductions. Patient #4 experienced a relative median increase (+23.1%) corresponding to an absolute median increase of +0.001 spikes/sec. Patient #6 experienced a relative median increase (+1060.2%) corresponding to an absolute median decrease (−0.03 spikes/sec), which was driven by session 2/2 (relative +2204.7% increase but only +0.016 absolute increase in spikes/second). Although session 1/2 showed relative spiking reduction of −84.3%, this was overwhelmed by the relative rate in session 2/2
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Two types of hd-tDCS artifact: “ramping” and “stimulating ” Referential montage EEG: low frequency filter 1 Hz, high-frequency filter 70 Hz, notch filter 60 Hz, sensitivity 7 μV/mm, timebase 30 mm/sec. Left and right panels. Examples of typical “ramping” artifact occurring 30 seconds immediately before hd-tDCS begins, and 30 seconds immediately after hd-tDCS ends, on every EEG. No spikes were counted during these technical ramping periods. Middle panel. Example of typical minor focal “stimulating” artifact after ramping-on artifact (left panel) abruptly ends and when actual hd-tDCS stimulation begins. After 20 min of active hd-tDCS stimulation ends, ramping-off artifact (right panel) abruptly begins. In this example, active hd-tDCS stimulation was targeted around the Pz electrode
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Change in median human spike rate per-patient during hd-tDCS. Spike rates: relative (purple, y-axis on left), absolute (orange, y-axis on right). Relative reduction of −100% denotes spike quiescence (patient #6). All but one patient experienced relative reductions. All patients experienced absolute reductions. Patient #5 experienced a relative median increase (+51.4%) at the same time as an absolute median decrease (−0.01 spikes/sec)
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Change in median automated spike rate per-session during hd-tDCS. Spike rates: relative (purple, y-axis on left), absolute (orange, y-axis on right). Relative reduction of −100% denotes spike quiescence. A filled triangle symbol indicates relative spike increase beyond 100%. Relative differences were exaggerated when a few rare spikes emerged from a baseline of quiescence. Note quiescence in session #3 of patient #1 and session #2 of patient #10. In session #2 of patient #6, relative spike rate increase was +2204.7% and absolute spike increase was +0.01 spikes/sec from a very low baseline of just 0.0007 to 0.0167 spikes/sec. In session #5 of patient #7, relative spike rate increase was +249.3% and absolute spike increase was + 0.25 spikes/sec
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
Example of longitudinal spike rate improvement over days with hd-tDCS in patient #10. Referential montage EEG: low-frequency filter 1 Hz, high-frequency filter 70 Hz, notch filter 60 Hz, sensitivity 7 μV/mm, timebase 30 mm/sec. (A) Baseline status epilepticus in the absence of intravenous anesthetic therapy (IVAT) after having failed a previous trial of weaning IVAT. (B) Steady-state pre-stimulation EEG (session #1 on day #6 of admission to the intensive care unit) with the presence of concomitant intravenous midazolam infusion. Boxes indicate residual spikes from status epilepticus breaking through effects of midazolam infusion. (C, D) Respective examples of steady-state during-stimulation and after-stimulation EEG (session #2 on day #7 of admission to the intensive care unit) with absence of spikes (“quiescence”) and absence of IVAT (i.e., midazolam), which had been successfully weaned between sessions #1 and #2. During-stimulation and after-stimulation EEG from session #1 are available in Supplementary Fig. 1J
Fig. 7
Fig. 7
Change in median human spike rate per-patient after hd-tDCS. Spike rates: relative (purple, y-axis on left), absolute (orange, y-axis on right). All patients experienced absolute spike reduction. All but one patient experienced relative spike reduction. Patient #7 experienced a relative median increase (+3.6%) at the same time as an absolute median decrease (−0.08 spikes/sec)

References

    1. Gugger JJ, Husari K, Probasco JC, Cervenka MC. New-onset refractory status epilepticus: a retrospective cohort study. Seizure. 2019;2020(74):41–48. doi: 10.1016/j.seizure.2019.12.002.
    1. Trinka E, Cock H, Hesdorffer D, et al. A definition and classification of status epilepticus - report of the ILAE Task Force on Classification of Status Epilepticus. Epilepsia. 2015;56(10):1515–1523. doi: 10.1111/epi.13121.
    1. Glauser T, Shinnar S, Gloss D, et al. Evidence-based guideline: Treatment of convulsive status epilepticus in children and adults: report of the guideline committee of the American epilepsy society. Epilepsy Curr. 2016;16(1):48–61. doi: 10.5698/1535-7597-16.1.48.
    1. Leppik LE, Derivan AT, Homan RW, Walker J, Ramsay RE, Patrick B. Double-blind study of lorazepam and diazepam in status epilepticus. JAMA J Am Med Assoc. 1983;249(11):1452–1454. doi: 10.1001/jama.1983.03330350028021.
    1. Pauletto G, Bax F, Gigli GL, et al. Status epilepticus mimicking stroke recurrence. Epilepsy Behav. 2020;104:106509. doi: 10.1016/j.yebeh.2019.106509.
    1. Sculier C, Gaspard N. New onset refractory status epilepticus (NORSE) Seizure. 2018;2019(68):72–78. doi: 10.1016/j.seizure.2018.09.018.
    1. Krumholz A, Wiebe S, Gronseth GS, et al. Evidence-based guideline: management of an unprovoked first seizure in adults. Neurology. 2015;84(16):1705–1713. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000001487.
    1. Gaspard N, Foreman B, Judd LM, et al. Intravenous ketamine for the treatment of refractory status epilepticus: a retrospective multicenter study. Epilepsia. 2013;54(8):1498–1503. doi: 10.1111/epi.12247.
    1. Claassen J, Hirsch LJ, Emerson RG, Bates JE, Thompson TB, Mayer SA. Continuous EEG monitoring and midazolam infusion for refractory nonconvulsive status epilepticus. Neurology. 2001;57(6):1036–1042. doi: 10.1212/WNL.57.6.1036.
    1. Kantanen AM, Reinikainen M, Parviainen I, et al. Incidence and mortality of super-refractory status epilepticus in adults. Epilepsy Behav. 2015;49:131–134. doi: 10.1016/j.yebeh.2015.04.065.
    1. Madžar D, Knappe RU, Reindl C, et al. Factors associated with occurrence and outcome of super-refractory status epilepticus. Seizure. 2017;52:53–59. doi: 10.1016/j.seizure.2017.09.003.
    1. Kilbride RD, Reynolds AS, Szaflarski JP, Hirsch LJ. Clinical outcomes following prolonged refractory status epilepticus (PRSE) Neurocrit Care. 2013;18(3):374–385. doi: 10.1007/s12028-013-9823-4.
    1. Alvarez V, Drislane FW. Is favorable outcome possible after prolonged refractory status epilepticus? J Clin Neurophysiol. 2016;33(1):32–41. doi: 10.1097/WNP.0000000000000223.
    1. Shorvon S, Ferlisi M. The outcome of therapies in refractory and super-refractory convulsive status epilepticus and recommendations for therapy. Brain. 2012;135(8):2314–2328. doi: 10.1093/brain/aws091.
    1. Cooper AD, Britton JW, Rabinstein AA. Functional and cognitive outcome in prolonged refractory status epilepticus. Arch Neurol. 2009;66(12):1505–1509. doi: 10.1001/archneurol.2009.273.
    1. Vasile B, Rasulo F, Candiani A, Latronico N. The pathophysiology of propofol infusion syndrome: a simple name for a complex syndrome. Intensive Care Med. 2003;29(9):1417–1425. doi: 10.1007/s00134-003-1905-x.
    1. Bikson M, Grossman P, Thomas C, et al. Safety of transcranial direct current stimulation: evidence based update 2016. Brain Stimul. 2016;9(5):641–661. doi: 10.1016/j.brs.2016.06.004.
    1. Karvigh SA, Motamedi M, Arzani M, Roshan JHN. HD-tDCS in refractory lateral frontal lobe epilepsy patients. Seizure. 2017;47:74–80. doi: 10.1016/j.seizure.2017.03.005.
    1. Hurley R, Machado L. Using tDCS priming to improve brain function: can metaplasticity provide the key to boosting outcomes? Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2017;83(May):155–159. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2017.09.029.
    1. Lin Y, Wang Y. Neurostimulation as a promising epilepsy therapy. Epilepsia Open. 2017;2(4):371–387. doi: 10.1002/epi4.12070.
    1. Faria P, Fregni F, Sebastião F, Dias AI, Leal A. Feasibility of focal transcranial DC polarization with simultaneous EEG recording: preliminary assessment in healthy subjects and human epilepsy. Epilepsy Behav. 2012;25(3):417–425. doi: 10.1016/j.yebeh.2012.06.027.
    1. Meiron O, Gale R, Namestnic J, et al. High-definition transcranial direct current stimulation in early onset epileptic encephalopathy: a case study. Brain Inj. 2018;32(1):135–143. doi: 10.1080/02699052.2017.1390254.
    1. Datta A, Bansal V, Diaz J, Patel J, Reato D, Bikson M. Gyri-precise head model of transcranial direct current stimulation: improved spatial focality using a ring electrode versus conventional rectangular pad. Brain Stimul. 2009;2(4):201–207. doi: 10.1016/j.brs.2009.03.005.
    1. Stavropoulos I, Pak HL, Valentin A. Neuromodulation in super-refractory status epilepticus. J Clin Neurophysiol. 2021;38(6):494–502. doi: 10.1097/WNP.0000000000000710.
    1. Jing J, Sun H, Kim JA, et al. Development of expert-level automated detection of epileptiform discharges during electroencephalogram interpretation. JAMA Neurol. 2020;77(1):103–108. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.3485.
    1. Joshi CN, Chapman KE, Bear JJ, Wilson SB, Walleigh DJ, Scheuer ML. Semiautomated spike detection software persyst 13 is noninferior to human readers when calculating the spike-wave index in electrical status epilepticus in sleep. J Clin Neurophysiol. 2018;35(5):370–374. doi: 10.1097/WNP.0000000000000493.
    1. Scheuer ML, Wilson SB, Antony A, Ghearing G, Urban A, Bagić AI. Seizure detection: interreader agreement and detection algorithm assessments using a large dataset. J Clin Neurophysiol. 2021;38(5):439–447. doi: 10.1097/WNP.0000000000000709.
    1. Rossetti AO, Logroscino G, Milligan TA, Michaelides C, Ruffieux C, Bromfield EB. Status Epilepticus Severity Score (STESS): a tool to orient early treatment strategy. J Neurol. 2008;255(10):1561–1566. doi: 10.1007/s00415-008-0989-1.
    1. Leitinger M, Höller Y, Kalss G, et al. Epidemiology-Based Mortality Score in Status Epilepticus (EMSE) Neurocrit Care. 2015;22(2):273–282. doi: 10.1007/s12028-014-0080-y.
    1. Child CG III TJ. Surgery and portal hypertension. In: III CC, ed. The Liver and Portal Hypertension. WB Saunders. 1964:50.
    1. Pugh RN, Murray-Lyon IM, Dawson JL, Pietroni MCWR. Transection of the oesophagus for bleeding oesophageal varices. Br J Surg. 1973;60(8):646. doi: 10.1002/bjs.1800600817.
    1. Austin PC. Some methods of propensity-score matching had superior performance to others: results of an empirical investigation and Monte Carlo simulations. Biometrical J. 2009;51(1):171–184. doi: 10.1002/bimj.200810488.
    1. Bascoul-Mollevi C, Gourgou-Bourgade S, Kramar A. Two-part statistics with paired data. Stat Med. 2005;24(9):1435–1448. doi: 10.1002/sim.1979.
    1. Deb S, Austin PC, Tu JV, et al. A review of propensity-score methods and their use in cardiovascular research. Can J Cardiol. 2016;32(2):259–265. doi: 10.1016/j.cjca.2015.05.015.
    1. Schober P, Vetter TR. Statistical minute. Int Anesth Res Soc. 2019;129(2):2019.
    1. San-Juan D. Cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation in refractory epilepsy. J Clin Neurophysiol. 2021;Publish Ah(00). 10.1097/wnp.0000000000000717.
    1. Fregni F, Thome-Souza S, Nitsche MA, Freedman SD, Valente KD, Pascual-Leone A. A controlled clinical trial of cathodal DC polarization in patients with refractory epilepsy. Epilepsia. 2006;47(2):335–342. doi: 10.1111/j.1528-1167.2006.00426.x.
    1. Auvichayapat N, Rotenberg A, Gersner R, et al. Transcranial direct current stimulation for treatment of refractory childhood focal epilepsy. Brain Stimul. 2013;6(4):696–700. doi: 10.1016/j.brs.2013.01.009.
    1. Auvichayapat N, Sinsupan K, Tunkamnerdthai O, Auvichayapat P. Transcranial direct current stimulation for treatment of childhood pharmacoresistant lennox-gastaut syndrome: a pilot study. Front Neurol. 2016;7(MAY):1–8. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2016.00066.
    1. Assenza G, Campana C, Assenza F, et al. Cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation reduces seizure frequency in adults with drug-resistant temporal lobe epilepsy: a sham controlled study. Brain Stimul. 2017;10(2):333–335. doi: 10.1016/j.brs.2016.12.005.
    1. Tekturk P, Erdogan ET, Kurt A, et al. The effect of transcranial direct current stimulation on seizure frequency of patients with mesial temporal lobe epilepsy with hippocampal sclerosis. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2016;149:27–32. doi: 10.1016/j.clineuro.2016.07.014.
    1. San-Juan D, Espinoza López DA, Vázquez Gregorio R, et al. Transcranial direct current stimulation in mesial temporal lobe epilepsy and hippocampal sclerosis. Brain Stimul. 2017;10(1):28–35. doi: 10.1016/j.brs.2016.08.013.
    1. Yang D, Wang Q, Xu C, et al. Transcranial direct current stimulation reduces seizure frequency in patients with refractory focal epilepsy: a randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled, and three-arm parallel multicenter study. Brain Stimul. 2020;13(1):109–116. doi: 10.1016/j.brs.2019.09.006.
    1. Nitsche MA, Paulus W. Excitability changes induced in the human motor cortex by weak transcranial direct current stimulation. J Physiol. 2000;527(3):633–639. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7793.2000.t01-1-00633.x.
    1. Stagg CJ, Antal A, Nitsche MA. Physiology of transcranial direct current stimulation. J ECT. 2018;34(3):144–152. doi: 10.1097/YCT.0000000000000510.

Source: PubMed

3
Iratkozz fel