Effect of vagus nerve stimulation against generalized seizure and status epilepticus recurrence.

Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) is a palliative surgery for drug-resistant epilepsy. The two objectives of this study were to (1) determine the seizure type most responsive to VNS and (2) investigate the preventive effect on status epilepticus (SE) recurrence. We retrospectively reviewed 136 patients with drug-resistant epilepsy who underwent VNS implantation. We examined seizure outcomes at 6, 12, and 24 months following implantation of VNS as well as at the last visit to the Juntendo Epilepsy Center. Univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression models were used to estimate the prognostic factors. 125 patients were followed up for at least 1 year after VNS implantation. The percentage of patients with at least a 50% reduction in seizure frequency compared with prior to VNS implantation increased over time at 6, 12, and 24 months after VNS implantation: 28, 41, and 52%, respectively. Regarding overall seizure outcomes, 70 (56%) patients responded to VNS. Of the 40 patients with a history of SE prior to VNS implantation, 27 (67%) showed no recurrence of SE. The duration of epilepsy, history of SE prior to VNS implantation and seizure type were correlated with seizure outcomes after VNS implantation in univariate analysis ( Following 125 patients with drug-resistant epilepsy for an average of 69 months, 56% showed at least 50% reduction in seizure frequency after VNS implantation. This study suggests that generalized seizure is the most responsive to VNS, and that VNS may reduce the risk of recurrence of SE. VNS was shown to be effective against generalized seizure and also may potentially influence the risk of further events of SE, two marker of disease treatment that can lead to improved quality of life.

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2023 Iimura, Suzuki, Mitsuhashi, Ueda, Nishioka, Horikoshi, Nomura, Sugano and Kondo.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. The authors declared that they were an editorial board member of Frontiers, at the time of submission. This had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision.