Vagal nerve stimulation for intractable hiccups is not a panacea: a case report and review of the literature.

INTRODUCTION: Hiccups are common and typically resolve spontaneously. However, in rare cases, they can continue for days, weeks or even years, causing significant morbidity and discomfort in patients. In the setting of intractable hiccups, vagal nerve stimulation has been reported in two cases. OBJECTIVES: This is a case report and review of the literature regarding the use of vagal nerve stimulators for intractable hiccups. Specifically, this report highlights a case where this therapy was not effective, as two prior case reports have reported positive results. CASE REPORT: A 52-year-old man presented with multiple years of intractable hiccups. A workup revealed no identifiable aetiology, and he had failed multiple medical therapies. A phrenic nerve block was attempted, which was not beneficial. Vagal maneuvers, specifically the induction of emesis, did consistently provide transient relief of his symptoms, and, therefore, the decision was made to proceed with a trial of vagal nerve stimulation after review of the literature supported the therapy. Despite 8 months with multiple stimulation parameters, the patient did not have any significant benefit from vagal nerve stimulation. CONCLUSIONS: Intractable idiopathic hiccups continue to present a significant challenge for physicians and patients. While vagal nerve stimulation is a potentially beneficial therapy, it is not effective in all patients with central idiopathic intractable hiccups.

Mood stability in Parkinson disease following deep brain stimulation: a 6-month prospective follow-up study.

BACKGROUND: Deep brain stimulation for Parkinson disease has been associated with psychiatric adverse effects including anxiety, depression, mania, psychosis, and suicide. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety of deep brain stimulation in a large Parkinson disease clinical practice. METHODS: Patients approved for surgery by the Mayo Clinic deep brain stimulation clinical committee participated in a 6-month prospective naturalistic follow-up study. In addition to the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale, stability and psychiatric safety were measured using the Beck Depression Inventory, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, and Young Mania Rating scale. Outcomes were compared in patients with Parkinson disease who had a psychiatric history to those with no co-morbid psychiatric history. RESULTS: The study was completed by 49 of 54 patients. Statistically significant 6-month baseline to end-point improvement was found in motor and mood scales. No significant differences were found in psychiatric outcomes based on the presence or absence of psychiatric comorbidity. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that patients with Parkinson disease who have a history of psychiatric co-morbidity can safely respond to deep brain stimulation with no greater risk of psychiatric adverse effect occurrence. A multidisciplinary team approach, including careful psychiatric screening ensuring mood stabilization and psychiatric follow-up, should be viewed as standard of care to optimize the psychiatric outcome in the course of deep brain stimulation treatment.

Precise stimulation location optimizes speech outcomes in essential tremor.

BACKGROUND: Deep brain stimulation for essential arm tremor is often complicated by dysarthria and persistent voice tremor. OBJECTIVE: To determine the relationship of stimulation location to speech outcomes following bilateral thalamic deep brain stimulation (DBS) for essential tremor (ET). METHODS: Eighteen patients undergoing bilateral DBS for ET were prospectively studied. Speech pathologists grouped patients by final speech outcome (normal speech, voice tremor, or dysarthria). Locations of the active leads were calculated by normalizing the segmented thalamic volumes to those in the Morel atlas. Stimulation volumes within thalamic nuclei, error distances from target, and measures of accuracy were calculated and differences in measures between outcome groups tested. RESULTS: At optimal stimulation, 8 patients had normal speech, 6 had voice tremor, and 4 had mild dysarthria. Stimulation volumes were statistically concentrated within the ventral lateral posterior nucleus (VLp). The percentage of stimulation volume outside the VLp was higher in patients with dysarthria (60% vs. 24%, p = 0.02) or voice tremor (55% vs. 24%, p = 0.03) compared to patients with normal speech outcomes. The error distance from the center of VLp was greater for patients with dysarthria than those with normal speech (12.6 vs. 7.6 mm, p = 0.02). Electrodes with lower efficiency for VLp stimulation were more frequent with poor speech outcomes and in patients with persistent voice tremor. CONCLUSIONS: Following bilateral DBS for ET, 22% of patients develop a non-disabling dysarthria. Optimal speech outcomes were achieved in 44% of patients and correlated with precise stimulation location within and not outside of the VLp.