Vagal Nerve Stimulator Placement by a Vascular Surgeon.

BACKGROUND: Refractory seizure activity represents a difficult problem for both patients and practitioners. Implantation of the vagal nerve stimulator has been posited as an effective treatment for refractory seizure activity. These devices are inserted by placing leads into the carotid sheath along the vagus nerve. We evaluated a vascular surgeon's experience placing vagal nerve stimulators. METHODS: We examined all patients treated with placement of vagal nerve stimulator by a single surgeon from October 2016 to October 2018. Data collected included demographics, medical and surgical history, intraoperative variables, and complications. RESULTS: Thirty-four patients underwent placement of a vagal nerve stimulator. About 29.4% had a previous vagal nerve stimulator placed on the ipsilateral side. Intraoperative bradycardia was seen in 1 patient. Postoperative complications were identified in 5 patients, all of which were transient dysphagia or changes in voice quality which did not require intervention. There was no significant difference between patients with the previous operation and those without for developing postoperative complications (P = .138). Average blood loss was higher in patients who had undergone previous stimulator placement than those who had not (P = .0223), and the operative time was longer (P ≤ .0001). DISCUSSION: Given the anatomical location of placement, vascular surgeons may be called upon to place these devices. In our single surgeon series, we found that the placement was safe, with minimal complications. Intraoperatively, this case appears to be more difficult (with higher blood loss and longer operative time) in patients who have had previous device placement, but this does not appear to lead to increased complications.

The feasibility of vagal nerve stimulation revision surgery and surgical techniques: a retrospective review.

BACKGROUND: With the large number of VNS implants performed worldwide, the need for removal or replacement of the device in selected cases is emerging, this removal or replacement of VNS can be challenging. AIMS/OBJECTIVE: To describe the feasibility and safety of revising vagal nerve stimulation surgery in terms of the indications, surgical techniques, and outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective study, a series of eight cases with VNS implants that needed revision surgery have been reviewed, four devices were completely removed and four were only revised. The revision surgery was performed after a range of 7 months to 6 years, due to different reasons. Initial surgeries and revisions were performed at the otolaryngology department in a major tertiary center. CONCLUSIONS AND SIGNIFICANCE: We concluded that the previously implanted vagal nerve stimulation electrodes can be completely removed without any significant sequelae on the nerve. It may also be re-implanted safely at the previously used segment of the vagus nerve with a similar outcome in seizure control as the initial implantation.

Vagus nerve stimulation paired with rehabilitation for upper limb motor function after ischaemic stroke (VNS-REHAB): a randomised, blinded, pivotal, device trial.

BACKGROUND: Long-term loss of arm function after ischaemic stroke is common and might be improved by vagus nerve stimulation paired with rehabilitation. We aimed to determine whether this strategy is a safe and effective treatment for improving arm function after stroke. METHODS: In this pivotal, randomised, triple-blind, sham-controlled trial, done in 19 stroke rehabilitation services in the UK and the USA, participants with moderate-to-severe arm weakness, at least 9 months after ischaemic stroke, were randomly assigned (1:1) to either rehabilitation paired with active vagus nerve stimulation (VNS group) or rehabilitation paired with sham stimulation (control group). Randomisation was done by ResearchPoint Global (Austin, TX, USA) using SAS PROC PLAN (SAS Institute Software, Cary, NC, USA), with stratification by region (USA vs UK), age (≤30 years vs >30 years), and baseline Fugl-Meyer Assessment-Upper Extremity (FMA-UE) score (20-35 vs 36-50). Participants, outcomes assessors, and treating therapists were masked to group assignment. All participants were implanted with a vagus nerve stimulation device. The VNS group received 0·8 mA, 100 µs, 30 Hz stimulation pulses, lasting 0·5 s. The control group received 0 mA pulses. Participants received 6 weeks of in-clinic therapy (three times per week; total of 18 sessions) followed by a home exercise programme. The primary outcome was the change in impairment measured by the FMA-UE score on the first day after completion of in-clinic therapy. FMA-UE response rates were also assessed at 90 days after in-clinic therapy (secondary endpoint). All analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03131960. FINDINGS: Between Oct 2, 2017, and Sept 12, 2019, 108 participants were randomly assigned to treatment (53 to the VNS group and 55 to the control group). 106 completed the study (one patient for each group did not complete the study). On the first day after completion of in-clinic therapy, the mean FMA-UE score increased by 5·0 points (SD 4·4) in the VNS group and by 2·4 points (3·8) in the control group (between group difference 2·6, 95% CI 1·0-4·2, p=0·0014). 90 days after in-clinic therapy, a clinically meaningful response on the FMA-UE score was achieved in 23 (47%) of 53 patients in the VNS group versus 13 (24%) of 55 patients in the control group (between group difference 24%, 6-41; p=0·0098). There was one serious adverse event related to surgery (vocal cord paresis) in the control group. INTERPRETATION: Vagus nerve stimulation paired with rehabilitation is a novel potential treatment option for people with long-term moderate-to-severe arm impairment after ischaemic stroke. FUNDING: MicroTransponder.

High lead impedances requiring revision during vagal nerve stimulator generator replacement.

OBJECTIVE: Vagal nerve stimulation (VNS) therapy is among the growing options in the treatment of intractable epilepsy. The phenomenon of surprise lead impedance issues found at the time of surgery resulting in unplanned lead revision is a challenge with this type of device. We reviewed our experience with VNS revisions. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the records of all adult and pediatric patients between January 2009 and September 2018 who underwent surgery for VNS therapy, including revision surgery. Office and operative notes were reviewed to obtain the indications and operative details for VNS placement. RESULTS: A total of 570 operations were reviewed. The indication was intractable epilepsy in all cases. Primary implantation was performed in 232 patients, while the remaining 338 cases were revision cases of various natures. Surprise high lead impedance was found in 10 (3%) of these cases, resulting in a significantly increased complexity of surgery in those instances. CONCLUSION: Lead impedance issues can be caused by disconnection, electrode fracture, hardware failure, or tissue scarring but ultimately require a more extended surgery than may be initially planned. Anticipating the potential for a more extensive operation than a simple generator replacement may prevent perioperative frustrations on both sides.

Transcutaneous auricular vagus nerve stimulation enhances learning of novel letter-sound relationships in adults.

BACKGROUND: Reading is a critical skill in modern society but is significantly more difficult to acquire during adulthood. Many adults are required to learn a new orthography after this window closes for personal or vocational reasons and while many programs and training methods exist for learning to read in adulthood, none result in native-like fluency. Implantable cervical vagus nerve stimulation is capable of driving neural plasticity but is invasive and not practical as a reading intervention. OBJECTIVE: The goal of the current study was to evaluate whether non-invasive transcutaneous auricular vagus nerve stimulation (taVNS) is effective at enhancing novel orthography acquisition in young adults. METHODS: We enrolled 37 typically developing participants and randomly assigned them to a computer control, device sham control, earlobe stimulation control, or experimental transcutaneous auricular stimulation (taVNS) group. Participants then learned novel letter-sound correspondences in Hebrew over five training lessons. Performance was assessed using three measures to evaluate various aspects of reading: Letter ID, Automaticity, and Decoding. RESULTS: The taVNS group significantly outperformed the three control groups on both the Automaticity and Decoding tasks. There was no difference on the Letter ID task. CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate, for the first time, that taVNS is capable of improving aspects of reading acquisition in adults. These findings have potential implications for a wide range of cognitive tasks.

A prospective, randomized, controlled study assessing vagus nerve stimulation using the gammaCore®-Sapphire device for patients with moderate to severe CoViD-19 Respiratory Symptoms (SAVIOR): A structured summary of a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial".

OBJECTIVES: Primary Objective: The primary objective is to reduce initiation of mechanical ventilator dependency in patients with moderate to severe CoViD- 19. This will be measured as the difference between the control group and active group for subjects admitted to the hospital for CoViD-19. Secondary Objectives: • To evaluate cytokine trends / Prevent cytokine storms • To evaluate supplemental oxygen requirements • To decrease mortality of CoViD-19 patients • Delay onset of ventilation TRIAL DESIGN: The study is a single centre, 2-arm, prospective, randomized (ratio 1:1), controlled trial with parallel groups design to compare the reduction of respiratory distress in a CoViD-19 population, using the intervention of the gammaCore®-Sapphire device plus standard of care (active) vs. standard of care alone (SoC) - the control group. The gammaCore® treatments will be used acutely and prophylactically. The active and control groups will be matched for disease and severity. PARTICIPANTS: i. Inclusion Criteria The subjects have to meet all of the following criteria to be eligible to enter the trial: 1.Patient older than 18 years2.Been tested positive or suspected/presumed positive for CoViD-19 Has a cough, shortness of breath or respiratory O2 Saturation less than or equal to 92% without need for mechanical ventilation or acute respiratory failure 3.Agree to use the gammaCore®-Sapphire device as intended and to follow all of the requirements of the study including recording required study data4.Patient is able to provide signed and witnessed Informed Consent ii. Exclusion Criteria Subjects meeting any of the following criteria cannot be included in this research study: 1.Pregnant women2.On home/therapy oxygen (i.e. for patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease) at baseline prior to development of CoViD-193.Patient already enrolled in a clinical trial using immunotherapeutic regimen for CoViD-194.History of aneurysm, intracranial hemorrhage, brain tumors, or significant head trauma5.Known or suspected severe atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, severe carotid artery disease (eg, bruits or history of transient ischemic attack or cerebrovascular accident), congestive heart failure, known severe coronary artery disease, or recent myocardial infarction6.Uncontrolled high blood pressure (>140/90)7.Current implantation of an electrical and/or neurostimulator device, including but not limited to a cardiac pacemaker or defibrillator, vagal neurostimulator, deep brain stimulator, spinal stimulator, bone growth stimulator, or cochlear implant8.Current implantation of metal cervical spine hardware or a metallic implant near the gammaCore stimulation site9.Belongs to a vulnerable population or has any condition such that his or her ability to provide informed consent, comply with the follow-up requirements, or provide self-assessments is compromised (e.g. homeless, developmentally disabled and prisoner) Participants will be recruited from Hospital Clínico Universitario de Valencia in Spain. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: Intervention: Prophylactic: Administer 2 doses (at 2 minutes each) of gammaCore®-Sapphire, one dose on each side of the neck scheduled three times a day (morning, mid-day and 1 hour before bed at night).Acute respiratory failure or shortness of breath: Administer 2 doses (at 2 minutes each) of gammaCore®-Sapphire, one on each side of the neck. If shortness of breath (SOB) persists 20 minutes after the start of the first treatment, a second dose will be administered. Max doses per day is 9 or 18 stimulations.Plus standard of care Control: Standard of care: oxygen therapy, antibiotics and ventilatory support if necessary depending on the clinic MAIN OUTCOMES: Primary Endpoint: Initiation of mechanical ventilation, from randomization until ICU admission or hospital discharge, whatever occurs first Secondary Endpoints: Safety; ascertainment of Adverse Effects/Serious Adverse Events, from randomisation to ICU admission or hospital discharge, whatever occurs firstCytokine Storm measured by: Tumor necrosis factor α, Interleukin 6, Interleukin 1ß. Days 1,3,5,10,15 and/or at hospital dischargeMortality and/or need for Critical Care admission, from randomisation until ICU admission or hospital discharge, whatever occurs first,O2 saturation levels , from randomization until ICU admission or hospital discharge, whatever occurs firstNeed for supplemental oxygen, from randomisation until ICU admission or hospital discharge, whatever occurs first RANDOMISATION: The patients are classified according to their oxygen levels as mild, moderate and severe and randomized according to their classification to the intervention and control in a ratio of 1:1. The randomization will be stratified for gender and age. BLINDING (MASKING): This is an open label study, it is not possible to blind the participants and healthcare providers to the intervention. NUMBERS TO BE RANDOMISED (SAMPLE SIZE): The total number of patients to be included in the study is 90, with 45 in each study group TRIAL STATUS: The protocol version is 8.0 from 07th April 2020. The recruitment began 20th April 2020 and is expected to be complete 31st July 2020. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study is registered in clinicaltrials.gov on 29th April 2020 with the identification number: NCT04368156 FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol.

A proposed guideline for vagus nerve stimulator handling in palliative care and after death.

Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) is often used for patients with drug-resistant epilepsy. Although this intervention may improve seizure control and mood, a number of factors must be considered when patients with VNS near end of life. We reviewed relevant literature to create a proposed guideline for management of patients with VNS in palliative care and after death. VNS has multiple possible side effects, including cough and swallowing difficulties. For patients with neurologic disease in palliative care, such adverse effects can severely affect quality of life and increase the risk for complications such as aspiration pneumonia. Patients with VNS should be screened regularly for such side effects, and VNS parameters should be adjusted if they are identified. If a patient requires urgent cardiac resuscitation involving external defibrillation, the VNS should be interrogated immediately afterwards to evaluate its function. During defibrillation, paddles should be placed perpendicular to the VNS, and as far as possible away from it. The VNS can be acutely turned off by taping the magnet to the patient's chest, thereby preventing any possible interference with restoration of a normal heart rhythm. After death, any staff involved with handling the body should be notified that a VNS is in place. The device must be removed prior to cremation, as it can explode with high heat. If the cause of death is unclear, a full postmortem examination should be undertaken, per sudden unexpected death in epilepsy guidelines. If there is concern about device malfunction, the device should be returned to the manufacturer for evaluation.

Pacemakers, Deep Brain Stimulators, Cochlear Implants, and Nerve Stimulators: A Review of Common Devices Encountered in the Dermatologic Surgery Patient.

BACKGROUND: In dermatologic and procedural surgery settings, there are commonly encountered devices in patients. Safe surgical planning requires familiarity with these devices. OBJECTIVE: To review the current implanted devices in patients and recommendations for surgical planning around these devices. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A comprehensive review using PubMed and published device recommendations was performed, searching for those most relevant to dermatologic surgery. RESULTS: Devices such as pacemakers and implantable cardiac defibrillators, deep brain stimulators, cochlear implants, and various nerve stimulators are potential devices that may be encountered in patients and specific recommendations exist for each of these devices. CONCLUSION: Dermatologic surgeons' knowledge of implanted devices in patients is paramout to safe surgical procedures.

Comparison and Selection of Current Implantable Anti-Epileptic Devices.

Implantable neural stimulators represent an advanced treatment adjunct to medication for pharmacoresistant epilepsy and alternative for patients that are not good candidates for resective surgery. Three treatment modalities are currently FDA-approved: vagus nerve stimulation, responsive neurostimulation, and deep brain stimulation. These devices were originally trialed in very similar patient populations with focal epilepsy, but head-to-head comparison trials have not been performed. As such, device selection may be challenging due to large overlaps in clinical indications and efficacy. Here we will review the data reported in the original pivotal clinical trials as well as long-term experience with these technologies. We will highlight differences in their features and mechanisms of action which may help optimize device selection on a case-by-case basis.

Autonomic regulation device therapy in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) represents a significant public health burden associated with incremental health care costs. Given the limitations associated with pharmacological autonomic regulation therapy (ART), device-based autonomic neuromodulation is on the horizon now for ART in those patients. This systematic review aimed primarily to determine the effect of ART by devices on functional status and quality of life (QOL) in patients with HFrEF. We performed a meta-analysis of five randomized controlled trials (1074 patients) comparing ART by devices versus optimal medical therapy (OMT) in HFrEF. We assessed pooled estimates of odds ratio (OR) for improvement in New York Heart Association (NYHA) class and mean differences (MD) in 6-minute hall walk distance (6-MHWD), Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ) score, N-terminal pro b-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels, and left ventricular end-systolic volume index (LVESVi) with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) at 6-month follow-up. Compared to OMT alone, ART by devices in HFrEF significantly improves NYHA class (OR 2.26, 95% CI 1.33 to 3.83, P = 0.003), increases 6-MHWD (MD 45.53 m, 95% CI 30.61 to 60.45, P < 0.00001), improves MLHFQ score (MD - 10.59, 95% CI - 20.62 to - 0.57, P = 0.04) with neutral effect on NT-proBNP levels (MD - 236.5 pg/ml, 95% CI - 523.86 to 50.87, P = 0.11) and LVESVi (MD - 1.01 ml/m2, 95% CI - 4.49 to 2.47, P = 0.57). We concluded that device-based neuromodulation therapy significantly improves functional status and quality of life in patients with HFrEF.

Putting it all together: Options for intractable epilepsy: An updated algorithm on the use of epilepsy surgery and neurostimulation.

For drug-resistant epilepsy, nonpharmacologic treatments should be considered early rather than late. Of the nondrug treatments, only resective surgery can be curative. Neurostimulation is palliative, i.e., not expected to achieve a seizure-free outcome. While resective surgery is the goal, other options are necessary because the majority of patients with drug-resistant epilepsy are not surgical candidates, and others have seizures that fail to improve with surgery or have only partial improvement but not seizure freedom. Neurostimulation modalities include vagus nerve stimulation (VNS), responsive neurostimulation (RNS), and deep brain stimulation (DBS), each with its own advantages, disadvantages, and side effects. In most scenarios, determined by noninvasive evaluation, especially EEG and MRI, several strategies are reasonable. For focal epilepsies, the choices are between resective surgery, with or without intracranial EEG, and all three modalities of neurostimulation. In situations where resective surgery is likely to result in seizure freedom, such as mesiotemporal lobe epilepsy or lesional focal epilepsy, resection (standard, laser, or radiofrequency) is preferred. For difficult cases like extratemporal nonlesional epilepsies, neurostimulation offers a less invasive option than resective surgery. For generalized and multifocal epilepsies, VNS is an option, RNS is not, and DBS has only limited evidence. "This article is part of the Supplement issue Neurostimulation for Epilepsy."

Single-center long-term results of vagus nerve stimulation for epilepsy: A 10-17 year follow-up study.

PURPOSE: The paper presents a long-term follow-up study of VNS patients, analyzing seizure outcome, medication changes, and surgical problems. METHOD: 74 adults with VNS for 10 to 17 years were evaluated yearly as: non-responder - NR (seizure frequency reduction <50%), responder - R (reduction ≥ 50% and <90%), and 90% responder - 90R (reduction ≥ 90%). Delayed R or 90R (≥ 4 years after surgery), patients with antiepileptic medication changes and battery or complete system replacement were identified. Statistical analysis of potential outcome predictors (age, seizure duration, MRI, seizure type) was performed. RESULTS: The rates of R and 90R related to the patients with outcome data available for the study years 1, 2, 10, and 17 were for R 38.4%, 51.4%, 63.6%, and 77.8%, and for 90R 1.4%, 5.6%, 15.1%, and 11.1%. The absolute numbers of R and 90R increased until years 2 and 6. Antiepileptic therapy was changed in 62 patients (87.9%). There were 11 delayed R and four delayed 90R, with medication changes in the majority. At least one battery replacement was performed in 51 patients (68.9%), 49 of whom R or 90R. VNS system was completely replaced in 7 patients (9.5%) and explanted in 7 NR (9.5%). No significant predictor of VNS outcome was found. CONCLUSIONS: After an initial increase, the rate of R and 90R remains stable in long-term follow-up. The changes of antiepileptic treatment in most patients potentially influence the outcome. Battery replacements or malfunctioning system exchange reflect the patient's satisfaction and correlate with good outcomes.

Clinical outcomes of VNS therapy with AspireSR® (including cardiac-based seizure detection) at a large complex epilepsy and surgery centre.

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy of AspireSR® to preceding VNS battery models for battery replacements, and to determine the efficacy of the AspireSR® for new implants. METHODS: Data were collected retrospectively from patients with epilepsy who had VNS AspireSR® implanted over a three-year period between June 2014 and June 2017 by a single surgeon. Cases were divided into two cohorts, those in whom the VNS was a new insertion, and those in whom the VNS battery was changed from a previous model to AspireSR®. Within each group, the seizure burden was compared between the periods before and after insertion of AspireSR®. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients with a newly inserted AspireSR® VNS model had a significant reduction in seizure frequency (p < 0.001), with 59% (n = 30) reporting ≥50% reduction. Of the 62 patients who had an existing VNS, 53% (n = 33) reported ≥50% reduction in seizure burden when the original VNS was inserted. After the battery was changed to the AspireSR®, 71% (n = 44) reported a further reduction of ≥50% in their seizure burden. The size of this reduction was at least as large as that resulting from the insertion of their existing VNS in 98% (61/62) of patients. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that approximately 70% of patients with existing VNS insertions could have significant additional benefit from cardiac based seizure detection and closed loop stimulation from the AspireSR® device. For new insertions, the AspireSR® device has efficacy in 59% of patients. The 'rule of thirds' used in counseling patients may need to be modified accordingly.

Vagal Nerve Stimulator Malfunction with Change in Neck Position: Case Report and Literature Review.

BACKGROUND: Vagal nerve stimulation is a safe and well-tolerated treatment for drug-resistant epilepsy. Complications and failure of the device can result from lead fracture, device malfunction, disconnection, or battery displacement and can result in a variety of symptoms. We present an interesting case of stimulator malfunction with increased impedance change seen only with a change in head position. CASE DESCRIPTION: The patient is a 25-year-old male with a vagal nerve stimulator (VNs) placed for medically refractory epilepsy who presented with neck pain and an electrical pulling sensation in his neck whenever he turned his head to the right. Initial interrogation of the VNs showed normal impedance. Subsequent interrogation with the patient's head turned found increased impedance only when the head was turned to the right. The patient had successful removal and replacement of the device with resolution of his preoperative complaints. Partial lead fracture was seen at explant. CONCLUSION: VNs malfunction can present in atypical ways. Positional maneuvers may help with its timely diagnosis.

Cardiac surgery in a patient with implanted vagal nerve stimulator.

The prevalence of epilepsy worldwide is around 0.5%-2% of the population. Antiepileptic medications are the first line of treatment in most of the cases but approximately 25%-30% epilepsy patients are refractory to the single or combination therapy. The surgical option for temporal lobe epilepsy is temporal lobectomy, which has its inherent risk of neurological deficits after the surgery. Patients who are either refractory to combination therapy or do not want surgical temporal lobectomy are the candidates for electrical stimulation therapy. Refractory cases require implantable device such as vagal nerve stimulator (VNS). We are reporting perioperative management of a patient, with an implanted VNS, posted for pericardiectomy. It is important for the anesthesiologist to be familiar with the mechanism of VNS for proper perioperative care.

A novel flexible cuff-like microelectrode for dual purpose, acute and chronic electrical interfacing with the mouse cervical vagus nerve.

OBJECTIVE: Neural reflexes regulate immune responses and homeostasis. Advances in bioelectronic medicine indicate that electrical stimulation of the vagus nerve can be used to treat inflammatory disease, yet the understanding of neural signals that regulate inflammation is incomplete. Current interfaces with the vagus nerve do not permit effective chronic stimulation or recording in mouse models, which is vital to studying the molecular and neurophysiological mechanisms that control inflammation homeostasis in health and disease. We developed an implantable, dual purpose, multi-channel, flexible 'microelectrode' array, for recording and stimulation of the mouse vagus nerve. APPROACH: The array was microfabricated on an 8 µm layer of highly biocompatible parylene configured with 16 sites. The microelectrode was evaluated by studying the recording and stimulation performance. Mice were chronically implanted with devices for up to 12 weeks. MAIN RESULTS: Using the microelectrode in vivo, high fidelity signals were recorded during physiological challenges (e.g potassium chloride and interleukin-1ß), and electrical stimulation of the vagus nerve produced the expected significant reduction of blood levels of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) in endotoxemia. Inflammatory cell infiltration at the microelectrode 12 weeks of implantation was limited according to radial distribution analysis of inflammatory cells. SIGNIFICANCE: This novel device provides an important step towards a viable chronic interface for cervical vagus nerve stimulation and recording in mice.

Two-Year Outcomes of Vagal Nerve Blocking (vBloc) for the Treatment of Obesity in the ReCharge Trial.

BACKGROUND: The ReCharge Trial demonstrated that a vagal blocking device (vBloc) is a safe and effective treatment for moderate to severe obesity. This report summarizes 24-month outcomes. METHODS: Participants with body mass index (BMI) 40 to 45 kg/m2, or 35 to 40 kg/m2 with at least one comorbid condition were randomized to either vBloc therapy or sham intervention for 12 months. After 12 months, participants randomized to vBloc continued open-label vBloc therapy and are the focus of this report. Weight loss, adverse events, comorbid risk factors, and quality of life (QOL) will be assessed for 5 years. RESULTS: At 24 months, 123 (76 %) vBloc participants remained in the trial. Participants who presented at 24 months (n = 103) had a mean excess weight loss (EWL) of 21 % (8 % total weight loss [TWL]); 58 % of participants had ≥5 % TWL and 34 % had ≥10 % TWL. Among the subset of participants with abnormal preoperative values, significant improvements were observed in mean LDL (-16 mg/dL) and HDL cholesterol (+4 mg/dL), triglycerides (-46 mg/dL), HbA1c (-0.3 %), and systolic (-11 mmHg) and diastolic blood pressures (-10 mmHg). QOL measures were significantly improved. Heartburn/dyspepsia and implant site pain were the most frequently reported adverse events. The primary related serious adverse event rate was 4.3 %. CONCLUSIONS: vBloc therapy continues to result in medically meaningful weight loss with a favorable safety profile through 2 years. TRIAL REGISTRATION: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01327976.

In situ repair of vagus nerve stimulator lead damage: technical note.

Vagus nerve stimulators (VNSs) are currently an accepted treatment for intractable epilepsy not amenable to ablative surgery. Battery death and lead damage are the main reasons for reoperation in patients with VNSs. In general, any damage to the lead requires revision surgery to remove the helical electrodes from the vagus nerve and replace the electrode array and wire. The electrodes are typically scarred and difficult to remove from the vagus nerve without injury. The authors describe 6 patients with VNSs who presented with low lead impedance on diagnostic testing, leading to the intraoperative finding of lead insulation disruption, or who were found incidentally at the time of implantable pulse generator battery replacement to have a tear in the outer insulation of the electrode wire. Instead of replacement, the wire insulation was repaired and reinforced in situ, leading to normal impedance testing. All 6 devices remained functional over a follow-up period of up to 87 months, with 2 of the 6 patients having a relatively shorter follow-up of only 12 months. This technique, applicable in a subset of patients with VNSs requiring lead exploration, obviates the need for lead replacement with its attendant risks.

Gastrointestinal devices for the treatment of type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Obesity and type 2 diabetes (T2D) continue to be growing epidemics worldwide. Although bariatric surgery remains the most effective and durable treatment for both of these chronic diseases, there is a need for therapies with risk and benefit profiles between medication and standard surgical procedures. Currently there are several endoscopic and minimally invasive therapies available worldwide to treat T2D. OBJECTIVE: To review the current evidence regarding the safety and efficacy of medical devices to treat T2D. SETTING: Academic practice, international METHODS: The published literature was searched for articles evaluating the safety and efficacy of endoluminal and surgical devices used for the treatment of obesity and T2D. RESULTS: The current devices in use include intragastric balloons, a duodenal-jejunal liner, gastric content aspiration, and devices that provide neuromodulation to the stomach or vagal nerves. On early phases of first-in-human studies is the duodenal mucosal resurfacing. The current evidence supporting the safety and efficacy of temporary use (6 months) for the intragastric balloon for lower body mass index (BMI) patients is strong and there is growing evidence regarding the effects of the other devices to treat T2D. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need for novel therapies to bridge the risk and benefit gap between medical and surgical treatment of T2D. The original indication for many of the current devices was treatment of obesity. Several devices that are currently available are promising but require more study in T2D patient populations.