Public Regulatory Databases as a Source of Insight for Neuromodulation Devices Stimulation Parameters.

OBJECTIVE: The Shannon model is often used to define an expected boundary between non-damaging and damaging modes of electrical neurostimulation. Numerous preclinical studies have been performed by manufacturers of neuromodulation devices using different animal models and a broad range of stimulation parameters while developing devices for clinical use. These studies are mostly absent from peer-reviewed literature, which may lead to this information being overlooked by the scientific community. We aimed to locate summaries of these studies accessible via public regulatory databases and to add them to a body of knowledge available to a broad scientific community. METHODS: We employed web search terms describing device type, intended use, neural target, therapeutic application, company name, and submission number to identify summaries for premarket approval (PMA) devices and 510(k) devices. We filtered these records to a subset of entries that have sufficient technical information relevant to safety of neurostimulation. RESULTS: We identified 13 product codes for 8 types of neuromodulation devices. These led us to devices that have 22 PMAs and 154 510(k)s and six transcripts of public panel meetings. We found one PMA for a brain, peripheral nerve, and spinal cord stimulator and five 510(k) spinal cord stimulators with enough information to plot in Shannon coordinates of charge and charge density per phase. CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of relevant entries from public regulatory databases reveals use of pig, sheep, monkey, dog, and goat animal models with deep brain, peripheral nerve, muscle and spinal cord electrode placement with a variety of stimulation durations (hours to years); frequencies (10-10,000 Hz) and magnitudes (Shannon k from below zero to 4.47). Data from located entries indicate that a feline cortical model that employs acute stimulation might have limitations for assessing tissue damage in diverse anatomical locations, particularly for peripheral nerve and spinal cord simulation.

Electrical neurostimulation with imbalanced waveform mitigates dissolution of platinum electrodes.

OBJECTIVE: Electrical neurostimulation has traditionally been limited to the use of charge-balanced waveforms. Charge-imbalanced and monophasic waveforms are not used to deliver clinical therapy, because it is believed that these stimulation paradigms may generate noxious electrochemical species that cause tissue damage. APPROACH: In this study, we investigated the dissolution of platinum as one of such irreversible reactions over a range of charge densities up to 160 µC cm-2 with current-controlled first phase, capacitive discharge second phase waveforms of both cathodic-first and anodic-first polarity. We monitored the concentration of platinum in solution under different stimulation delivery conditions including charge-balanced, charge-imbalanced, and monophasic pulses. MAIN RESULTS: We observed that platinum dissolution decreased during charge-imbalanced and monophasic stimulation when compared to charge-balanced waveforms. SIGNIFICANCE: This observation provides an opportunity to re-evaluate the charge-balanced waveform as the primary option for sustainable neural stimulation.

High-throughput in vitro assay to evaluate the cytotoxicity of liberated platinum compounds for stimulating neural electrodes.

BACKGROUND: It is currently unclear how the platinum (Pt) species released from platinum-containing stimulating electrodes may affect the health of the surrounding tissue. This study develops an effective system to assess the cytotoxicity of any electrode-liberated Pt over a short duration, to screen systems before future in vivo testing. NEW METHOD: A platinum electrode was stimulated for two hours under physiologically relevant conditions to induce the liberation of Pt species. The total concentration of liberated Pt species was quantified and the concentration found was used to develop a range of Pt species for our model system comprised of microglia and neuron-like cells. RESULTS: Under our stimulation conditions (k=2.3, charge density of 57.7µC/cm2), Pt was liberated to a concentration of 1ppm. Interestingly, after 24h of Pt exposure, the dose-dependent cytotoxicity plots revealed that cell death became statistically significant at 10ppm for microglia and 20ppm for neuronal cells. However, in neuron-like cell cultures, concentrations above 1ppm resulted in significant neurite loss after 24h. COMPARISON WITH EXISTING METHODS: To our knowledge, there does not exist a simple, in vitro assay system for assessing the cytotoxicity of Pt liberated from stimulating neural electrodes. CONCLUSIONS: This work describes a simple model assay that is designed to be applicable to almost any electrode and stimulation system where the electrode is directly juxtaposed to the neural target. Based on the application, the duration of stimulation and Pt exposure may be varied.

Electron transfer processes occurring on platinum neural stimulating electrodes: a tutorial on the i(V e) profile.

The aim of this tutorial is to encourage members of the neuroprosthesis community to incorporate electron transfer processes into their thinking and provide them with the tools to do so when they design and work with neurostimulating devices. The focus of this article is on platinum because it is the most used electrode metal for devices in commercial use. The i(V e) profile or cyclic voltammogram contains information about electron transfer processes that can occur when the electrode-electrolyte interface, V e, is at a specific potential, and assumed to be near steady-state conditions. For the engineer/designer this means that if the potential is not in the range of a specific electron transfer process, that process cannot occur. An i(V e) profile, recorded at sweep rates greater than 0.1 mVs(-1), approximates steady-state conditions. Rapid transient potential excursions, like that seen with neural stimulation pulses, may be too fast for the reaction to occur, however, this means that if the potential is in the range of a specific electron transfer process it may occur and should be considered. The approach described here can be used to describe the thermodynamic electron transfer processes on other candidate electrode metals, e.g. stainless steel, iridium, carbon-based, etc.