Disrupting the epileptogenic network with stereoelectroencephalography-guided radiofrequency thermocoagulation.

Stereoelectroencephalography-guided radiofrequency thermocoagulation (SEEG-guided RF-TC) is a treatment option for focal drug-resistant epilepsy. In previous studies, this technique has shown seizure reduction by ≥50% in 50% of patients at 1 year. However, the relationship between the location of the ablation within the epileptogenic network and clinical outcomes remains poorly understood. Seizure outcomes were analyzed for patients who underwent SEEG-guided RF-TC and across subgroups depending on the location of the ablation within the epileptogenic network, defined as SEEG sites involved in seizure generation and spread. Eighteen patients who had SEEG-guided RF-TC were included. SEEG-guided seizure-onset zone ablation (SEEG-guided SOZA) was performed in 12 patients, and SEEG-guided partial seizure-onset zone ablation (SEEG-guided P-SOZA) in 6 patients. The early spread was ablated in three SEEG-guided SOZA patients. Five patients had ablation of a lesion. The seizure freedom rate in the cohort ranged between 22% and 50%, and the responder rate between 67% and 85%. SEEG-guided SOZA demonstrated superior results for both outcomes compared to SEEG-guided P-SOZA at 6 months (seizure freedom p = .294, responder rate p = .014). Adding the early spread ablation to SEEG-guided SOZA did not increase seizure freedom rates but exhibited comparable effectiveness regarding responder rates, indicating a potential network disruption.

Vagus nerve stimulation in lesional and Non-Lesional Drug-Resistant focal onset epilepsies.

PURPOSE: Drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) affects one-third of patients with focal epilepsy. A large portion of patients are not candidates for epilepsy surgery, thus alternative options, such as vagus nerve stimulation (VNS), are proposed. Our objective is to study the effect of vagus nerve stimulation on lesional versus non-lesional epilepsies. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study in a single center in London, Ontario, which includes patients with DRE implanted with VNS, implanted between 1997-2018 and the date of analysis is December 2023. PARTICIPANTS: Patients implanted with VNS were classified by lesional (VNS-L) and non-lesional (VNS-NL) based on their MRI head findings. We further subdivided the VNS groups into patients with VNS alone versus those who also had additional epilepsy surgeries. RESULTS: A total of 29 patients were enrolled in the VNS-L, compared to 29 in the VNS-NL. The median age of the patients in the study was 31.8 years, 29.31 % were men (N = 17). 41.4 % (n = 12) of the patients were VNS responders (≥50 % seizure reduction) in the VNS-L group compared to 62.0 % (n = 18) in the VNS-NL group (p = 0.03). When other epilepsy surgeries were combined with VNS in the VNS-L group, the median rate of seizure reduction was greater (72.4 (IQR 97.17-45.88) than the VNS-NL group 53.9 (IQR 92.22-27.92); p = 0.27). CONCLUSIONS: VNS is a therapeutic option for patients with lesional epilepsy, with slightly inferior results compared to patients with non-lesional epilepsy. Patients implanted with VNS showed higher seizure reduction rates if they had previous epilepsy surgeries. This study demonstrates that VNS in lesional epilepsies can be an effective treatment.

Optimal hippocampal targeting in responsive neurostimulation for mesial temporal lobe epilepsy.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify features of responsive neurostimulation (RNS) lead configuration and contact placement associated with greater seizure reduction in mesial temporal lobe epilepsy (MTLE). METHODS: A single-center series of patients with MTLE treated with RNS were retrospectively analyzed to assess the relationship between anatomical targeting and seizure reduction. Targeting was determined according to both the preoperatively conceived lead configuration and the actual placement of RNS contacts. Three lead configurations were used: 1) single bilateral, with 1 depth lead in each hippocampus; 2) single unilateral, with 1 hippocampal depth lead and another implant outside the mesial temporal lobe; and 3) dual unilateral, with 2 leads in 1 hippocampus. Contact placement on postoperative imaging was measured according to the number of hippocampal contacts per targeted hippocampus (contact density) and per patient (contact count), distribution throughout the hippocampus, and proximity to the anteromedial hippocampus. RESULTS: Dual unilateral lead placement resulted in significantly higher hippocampal contact density compared with the single hippocampal approaches, but only showed a nonsignificant trend toward a higher rate of response. However, those patients with more than 4 contacts in a single hippocampus, achievable only with dual unilateral leads, had a significantly higher rate of response. The higher likelihood of response was poorly explained by more widespread hippocampal coverage, but well correlated with proximity to the anteromedial hippocampus. CONCLUSIONS: Dual unilateral hippocampal implantation increased RNS contact density in patients with unilateral MTLE, which contributed to improved outcomes, not by stimulating more of the hippocampus, but instead by being more likely to stimulate a latent subtarget in the anterior hippocampus. It remains to be explored whether a single electrode targeted selectively to this region would also result in improved outcomes.

Teaching NeuroImage: Unilateral Primary Angiitis of the CNS.

A 48-year-old woman was referred with an 18-year history of focal-onset seizures. She also reported years-long slowly progressive right-sided weakness that was corroborated on examination. Repeated brain MRIs over 15 years showed multifocal left hemispheric T2 fluid-attenuated inversion recovery-hyperintense lesions with patchy enhancement and microhemorrhages, no diffusion restriction, and a left cerebellar infarct (Figure 1, A-F). Only 2 nonspecific white matter lesions were seen contralaterally, indicating largely unihemispheric disease. Differential diagnosis included unilateral primary angiitis of the CNS (PACNS), Rasmussen encephalitis, and myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein antibody-associated disease.1 Serum and CSF testing for autoimmune, infectious, and malignant etiologies and whole-body fluorodeoxyglucose-PET, whole-exome genetic sequencing, and MR vessel-wall imaging were nondiagnostic. Brain biopsy revealed vasculitis (Figure 2, A-F), and the patient was diagnosed with unilateral PACNS. Treatment with mycophenolate mofetil has been initiated. Unilateral PACNS is a rare unihemispheric disease characterized by an indolent course and seizures, recognition of which is critical to accurate diagnosis.1,2.

Optimal timing of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir treatment after COVID-19 symptom onset or diagnosis: target trial emulation.

Reports of symptomatic rebound and/or test re-positivity among COVID-19 patients following the standard five-day treatment course of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir have sparked debates regarding optimal treatment timing and dosage. It is unclear whether initiating nirmatrelvir/ritonavir immediately after symptom onset would improve clinical outcomes and/or lead to post-treatment viral burden rebound due to inadequate viral clearance during treatment. Here we show that, by emulating a randomized target trial using real-world electronic medical record data from all 87,070 adult users of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir in Hong Kong between 16th March 2022 and 15th January 2023, early initiation of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir treatment (0 to 1 days after symptom onset or diagnosis) significantly reduced the incidence of 28-day all-cause mortality and hospitalization compared to delayed initiation (2 or more days) (absolute risk reduction [ARR]: 1.50% (95% confidence interval 1.17-1.80%); relative risk [RR]: 0.77 (0.73, 0.82)), but may be associated with a significant elevated risk of viral burden rebound (ARR: -1.08% (-1.55%, -0.46%)), although the latter estimates were associated with high uncertainty due to limited sample sizes. As such, patients should continue to initiate nirmatrelvir/ritonavir early after symptom onset or diagnosis to better protect against the more serious outcomes of hospitalization and mortality.