Infantile spasms: a U.S. consensus report.

The diagnosis, evaluation, and management of infantile spasms (IS) continue to pose significant challenges to the treating physician. Although an evidence-based practice guideline with full literature review was published in 2004, diversity in IS evaluation and treatment remains and highlights the need for further consensus to optimize outcomes in IS. For this purpose, a working group committed to the diagnosis, treatment, and establishment of a continuum of care for patients with IS and their families­the Infantile Spasms Working Group (ISWG)­was convened. The ISWG participated in a workshop for which the key objectives were to review the state of our understanding of IS, assess the scientific evidence regarding efficacy of currently available therapeutic options, and arrive at a consensus on protocols for diagnostic workup and management of IS that can serve as a guide to help specialists and general pediatricians optimally manage infants with IS. The overall goal of the workshop was to improve IS outcomes by assisting treating physicians with early recognition and diagnosis of IS, initiation of short duration therapy with a first-line treatment, timely electroencephalography (EEG) evaluation of treatment to evaluate effectiveness, and, if indicated, prompt treatment modification. Differences of opinion among ISWG members occurred in areas where data were lacking; however, this article represents a consensus of the U.S. approach to the diagnostic evaluation and treatment of IS.

Observations on the use of vagus nerve stimulation earlier in the course of pharmacoresistant epilepsy: patients with seizures for six years or less.

BACKGROUND: This study retrospectively compared the effectiveness of vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) therapy among a constant cohort of patients in the patient outcome registry, which systematically monitors outcomes of patients receiving VNS therapy. Patients in the study had pharmacoresistant seizures for 6 years or less (early treatment group) or more than 6 years (late treatment group) before initiation of VNS therapy, and results are provided after both 3 and 12 months. REVIEW SUMMARY: Of 405 patients, 51 were in the early and 354 in the late treatment groups. Median age at onset of seizures was 7 years in the early and 4.5 years in the late treatment group. Seizure reduction of 100% was reported in 7.8% (early) and 3.7% (late) patients at 3 months and 11.8% (early) and 4.5% (late) at 12 months (P = 0.033). Reductions in seizure frequency greater than or equal to 90% for early and late treatment groups were similar: 11.8% (early) and 11.0% (late) at 3 months and 23.5% (early) and 17.0% (late) at 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: Patients treated earlier with VNS therapy were twice as likely to report no seizures as patients who had seizures for more than 6 years before they received VNS therapy. The effectiveness of VNS therapy should be assessed among other patients with pharmacoresistant seizures and lesser cumulative seizure loads.

Right-sided vagus nerve stimulation as a treatment for refractory epilepsy in humans.

PURPOSE: We present three children who underwent right-sided vagus nerve stimulation (R-VNS). This treatment option for people with refractory epilepsy has not been described in children. METHODS: We reviewed our database of >350 patients implanted with vagus nerve stimulators and now describe our experience in three patients with R-VNS for the treatment of intractable seizures. All three patients improved dramatically with left-sided vagus nerve stimulation (L-VNS), but the devices had to be removed because of infection. The patients were thought to be at high risk for nerve injury if they were reapproached for L-VNSs; therefore R-VNSs were implanted. RESULTS: All three patients with an R-VNS had a reduction in seizures. Our first patient has had an R-VNS for 5 years; he has been seizure free for >2 years on R-VNS monotherapy. The second patient had an R-VNS for 8 months. His seizure control improved slightly, but not as dramatically as with L-VNS. The third child has had an R-VNS for >7 months and has cessation of his most disabling seizure type (generalized tonic-clonic seizures). None of the patients had cardiac side effects from therapeutic R-VNS. However, two of the three patients had respiratory events with R-VNS. CONCLUSIONS: VNS is known to be an effective treatment in pharmacoresistant epilepsy. R-VNS should be considered if a patient has significant benefit from L-VNS but is unable to continue with L-VNS. R-VNS appears also to have antiepilepsy effects. Additionally, our case report suggests that in some patients, a differential response is found regarding seizure control with R-VNS or L-VNS, raising the question whether L-VNS failures should pursue a trial of R-VNS. Patients should be cautioned and monitored for reactive airway disease if they undergo R-VNS. More research is needed to compare the effects of right- and left-sided VNS on cardiac and pulmonary function in humans and to determine which has the best antiseizure effect.