A Randomized, Double-Blinded Crossover Trial of Short Versus Conventional Pulse Width Subthalamic Deep Brain Stimulation in Parkinson's Disease.

BACKGROUND: Subthalamic nucleus deep brain stimulation (STN-DBS) is a well-established treatment for patients with Parkinson's disease. Previous acute challenge studies suggested that short pulse widths might increase the therapeutic window while maintaining motor symptom control with a decrease in energy consumption. However, only little is known about the effect of short pulse width stimulation beyond the setting of an acute challenge. OBJECTIVE: To compare 4 weeks of STN-DBS with conventional pulse width stimulation (60 µs) to 4 weeks of STN-DBS with short pulse width stimulation (30 µs) regarding motor symptom control. METHODS: This study was a monocentric, double-blinded, randomized crossover non-inferiority trial investigating whether short pulse width stimulation with 30 µs maintains equal motor control as conventional 60 µs stimulation over a period of 4 weeks (German Clinical Trials Register No. DRKS00017528). Primary outcome was the difference in motor symptom control as assessed by a motor diary. Secondary outcomes included energy consumption measures, non-motor effects, side-effects, and quality of life. RESULTS: Due to a high dropout rate, the calculated sample size of 27 patients was not met and 24 patients with Parkinson's disease and STN-DBS were included in the final analysis. However, there were no differences in any investigated outcome parameter between the two treatment conditions. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that short pulse width settings (30 µs) provide non-inferior motor symptom control as conventional (60 µs) stimulation without significant differences in energy consumption. Future studies are warranted to evaluate a potential benefit of short pulse width settings in patients with pronounced dyskinesia.

Correction: Petry-Schmelzer et al. Selecting the Most Effective DBS Contact in Essential Tremor Patients Based on Individual Tractography. Brain Sci. 2020, 10, 1015.

The authors wish to make the following correction to [...].

Network Fingerprint of Stimulation-Induced Speech Impairment in Essential Tremor.

OBJECTIVE: This study was undertaken to gain insights into structural networks associated with stimulation-induced dysarthria (SID) and to predict stimulation-induced worsening of intelligibility in essential tremor patients with bilateral thalamic deep brain stimulation (DBS). METHODS: Monopolar reviews were conducted in 14 essential tremor patients. Testing included determination of SID thresholds, intelligibility ratings, and a fast syllable repetition task. Volumes of tissue activated (VTAs) were calculated to identify discriminative fibers for stimulation-induced worsening of intelligibility in a structural connectome. The resulting fiber-based atlas structure was then validated in a leave-one-out design. RESULTS: Fibers determined as discriminative for stimulation-induced worsening of intelligibility were mainly connected to the ipsilateral precentral gyrus as well as to both cerebellar hemispheres and the ipsilateral brain stem. In the thalamic area, they ran laterally to the thalamus and posteromedially to the subthalamic nucleus, in close proximity, mainly anterolaterally, to fibers beneficial for tremor control as published by Al-Fatly et al in 2019. The overlap of the respective clinical stimulation setting's VTAs with these fibers explained 62.4% (p < 0.001) of the variance of stimulation-induced change in intelligibility in a leave-one-out analysis. INTERPRETATION: This study demonstrates that SID in essential tremor patients is associated with both motor cortex and cerebellar connectivity. Furthermore, the identified fiber-based atlas structure might contribute to future postoperative programming strategies to achieve optimal tremor control without speech impairment in essential tremor patients with thalamic DBS. ANN NEUROL 2021;89:315-326.

Thalamic Deep Brain Stimulation in Essential Tremor Plus Is as Effective as in Essential Tremor.

The new essential tremor (ET) classification defined ET-plus (ET-p) as an ET subgroup with additional neurological signs besides action tremor. While deep brain stimulation (DBS) is effective in ET, there are no studies specifically addressing DBS effects in ET-p. 44 patients with medication-refractory ET and thalamic/subthalamic DBS implanted at our center were postoperatively classified into ET and ET-p according to preoperative documentation. Tremor suppression with DBS (stimulation ON vs. preoperative baseline and vs. stimulation OFF), measured via the Fahn-Tolosa-Marin tremor rating scale (TRS), stimulation parameters, and the location of active contacts were compared between patients classified as ET and ET-p. TRS scores at baseline were higher in ET-p. ET-p patients showed comparable tremor reduction as patients with ET, albeit higher stimulation parameters were needed in ET-p. Active electrode contacts were located more dorsally in ET-p of uncertain reason. Our data show that DBS is similarly effective in ET-p compared to ET. TRS scores were higher in ET-p preoperatively, and higher stimulation parameters were needed for tremor reduction compared to ET. The latter may be related to a more dorsal location of active electrode contacts in the ET-p group of this cohort. Prospective studies are warranted to investigate DBS in ET-p further.

Bipolar Directional Deep Brain Stimulation in Essential and Parkinsonian Tremor.

OBJECTIVE: To compare directional monopolar, bipolar, and directional bipolar thalamic deep brain stimulation (DBS) in tremor patients. METHODS: Fourteen tremor patients (7 Essential Tremor and 7 Parkinson's Disease) implanted with directional DBS electrodes in the ventral intermediate nucleus (VIM) were enrolled. Side-effect thresholds of monopolar directional stimulation (DIRECT) were compared to circular DBS as well as, in a randomized design, to those of two different bipolar stimulation settings (BIPOLAR = circular anode; BI-DIRECT = directional anode). Tremor suppression (Tremor Rating Scale, TRS) right below the side-effect threshold was also assessed. RESULTS: Directional DBS in the individually best direction showed higher side-effect thresholds than circular DBS (p = 0.0063). The thresholds were raised further using either one of the bipolar stimulation paradigms (BIPOLAR p = 0.0029, BI-DIRECT p = 0.0022). The side-effect thresholds did not differ between both bipolar settings, but side-effects were less frequent with BI-DIRECT. No difference in TRS scores with stimulation just below the side-effect threshold was found between all stimulation conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Side-effect thresholds of monopolar directional and bipolar stimulation with both circular and directional anodes were higher compared to traditional monopolar circular stimulation in the VIM. Bipolar DBS with directional anodes evoked side-effect less frequently than bipolar and monopolar directional stimulation. All stimulation settings had comparable effects on tremor suppression just below their side-effect thresholds. Thus, directional and different bipolar settings should be explored in patients with bothersome side-effects of thalamic stimulation when monopolar stimulation settings are not satisfying. Further studies are needed to explore the efficiency of the different bipolar stimulation paradigms.

Selecting the Most Effective DBS Contact in Essential Tremor Patients Based on Individual Tractography.

Postoperative choice of the most effective deep brain stimulation (DBS) contact in patients with essential tremor (ET) so far relies on lengthy clinical testing. Previous studies showed that the postoperative effectiveness of DBS contacts depends on the distance to the dentatorubrothalamic tract (DRTT). Here, we investigated whether the most effective DBS contact could be determined from calculating stimulation overlap with the individual DRTT. Seven ET patients with bilateral thalamic deep brain stimulation were included retrospectively. Tremor control was assessed for each contact during test stimulation with 2mA. Individual DRTTs were identified from diffusion tensor imaging and contacts were ranked by their stimulation overlap with the respective DRTT in relation to their clinical effectiveness. A linear mixed-effects model was calculated to determine the influence of the DRTT overlap on tremor control. In 92.9% of investigated DBS leads, the contact with the best clinical effect was the contact with the highest or second-highest DRTT-overlap. At the group level, the DRTT-overlap explained 26.7% of the variance in the clinical outcomes (p < 0.001). Our data suggest that the overlap with the DRTT based on individual tractography may serve as a marker to determine the most effective DBS contact in ET patients and reduce burdensome clinical testing in the future.

Evaluation of a German version of the Bain and Findley Tremor ADL scale.

The Movement Disorder Society recommends the Bain and Findley Tremor ADL Scale to assess ADL in patients with ET. In 45 medically and 14 surgically (DBS) treated ET patients, a German version of the scale correlated well with tremor severity and quality of life and was sensitive to postoperative change.

DBS of the PSA and the VIM in essential tremor: A randomized, double-blind, crossover trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate deep brain stimulation (DBS) of the posterior subthalamic area (PSA) in essential tremor (ET) and compare it to the ventral intermediate nucleus of the thalamus (VIM) in terms of stimulation efficacy, efficiency, and side effects. METHODS: DBS leads were implanted such that contacts were placed in the VIM, on the intercommissural line, and in the PSA. Thirteen patients with ET entered a randomized, double-blind crossover phase and completed a 1-year follow-up. RESULTS: PSA-DBS significantly reduced tremor severity and improved quality of life. There were no relevant differences in quality and frequency of stimulation side effects between VIM and PSA, with a tendency toward greater tremor improvement with PSA stimulation. Clinical benefit was achieved at significantly lower stimulation amplitudes in the PSA. The majority of patients remained with PSA-DBS after 1 year. CONCLUSION: In accordance with previous retrospective investigations, our prospective data suggest that PSA-DBS is at least equally effective as but possibly more efficient than VIM-DBS. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class I evidence that for patients with essential tremor, PSA-DBS is not significantly different from VIM-DBS in suppressing tremor, but clinical benefit from PSA-DBS is attained at lower stimulation amplitudes.