Vagus nerve stimulation for epilepsy: randomized comparison of three stimulation paradigms.

Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) is an effective adjunctive treatment for intractable epilepsy. However, the optimal range of device duty-cycles [on/(on + off times)] is poorly understood. The authors performed a multicenter, randomized trial of three unique modes of VNS, which varied primarily by duty-cycle. The results indicate that the three duty-cycles were equally effective. The data support the use of standard duty-cycles as initial therapy.

Vagus nerve stimulation: analysis of device parameters in 154 patients during the long-term XE5 study.

PURPOSE: To determine the effect of changes in device settings and duty cycle (on and off times) on the efficacy of vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) for refractory epilepsy. In the long-term XE5 study of VNS for intractable epilepsy, the median reduction in seizure frequency improved significantly after 1 year of follow-up. A central question is whether device changes improve efficacy. We analyzed the effects of device parameter changes on seizure frequency in 154 subjects who completed the study and who had complete data for analysis. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of device changes during the XE5 long-term study of VNS. During the XE5 long-term follow-up study, the subject's device settings were modified within a Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved range of output current, pulse duration, frequency, on time, and off time. Significant changes in device settings occurred after 3 months. We investigated the relationship between percentage reduction in seizures and changes in device parameters between the 3- and 12-month visits. Within-group comparisons were performed for those who continued on standard on/off cycle of 30 s on and 5 min off, and those with the most common off times of 3, 1.8, and < 1.1 min. RESULTS: Output current, pulse duration, frequency, and off time changed significantly between the 3- and 12-month long-term follow-ups. For the group as a whole, changes in device settings were not correlated with an improvement in efficacy. However, a significant improvement in efficacy occurred in a subgroup whose off time was reduced to < or = 1.1 min. In this group, the median reduction in seizures improved from 21% before the change in off time, to 39% after the change in off time (Wilcoxon Signed-Rank, p = 0.011). The responder rate (> 50% reduction in seizures) also significantly improved from 19 to 35% (McNemar's test, p = 0.046). CONCLUSIONS: The data from this retrospective analysis indicate that device changes were not the primary determinant of increased efficacy at 12 months of long-term follow-up. In general, patients who remained on the original settings of 30 s on and 5 min off continued to respond or improve in their response over the 1-year period. However, some patients may benefit from reductions in off time (increases in duty cycle). In a subgroup initially resistant to VNS, a change in off time to < or = 1.1 min off did result in significant improvements in efficacy.

Vagal nerve stimulation does not unkindle seizures.

The purpose of this study was to investigate a mechanism of action for the effect of vagal nerve stimulation on reducing seizures in patients with complex partial epilepsy. The hypothesis tested was that vagal nerve stimulation has an antikindling effect on epilepsy. The databases of two large clinical trials (E03, E05) were accessed, and statistical methods were applied using logarithmic transforms and regression analysis. Two parameters--duration of a patient's epilepsy before entering the clinical trial and the patient's seizure density before entering the clinical trial--were used as markers of subsequent seizure control during vagal nerve stimulation. In general, there was not a good fit to the regression lines, and the slope of the lines did not conform to the hypothesis. The hypothesis that vagal nerve stimulation may unkindle epileptic seizures was not supported.