This site usescookies, tags, and tracking settings to store information that help give you the very best browsing experience. Dismiss this warning

Letter to the Editor. The importance of vagus nerve stimulation for young children

Nallammai Muthiah University of Pittsburgh, PA

Search for other papers by Nallammai Muthiah in
jns
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
MD, MS
and
Taylor J. Abel University of Pittsburgh, PA

Search for other papers by Taylor J. Abel in
jns
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
MD
Free access

TO THE EDITOR: We read with great interest the article by Maleknia et al.1(Maleknia P, McWilliams TD, Barkley A, et al. Postoperative seizure freedom after vagus nerve stimulator placement in children 6 years of age and younger.J Neurosurg Pediatr.2023;31[4]:329-332). The authors describe their institutional experience with vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) in patients ≤ 6 years old. Similar to our prior work,2their article details differences in demographics, complications, and seizure frequency outcomes between patients ages 0–3 versus 4–6 years at VNS implantation. This is the "first review of VNS placement in children 6 years and younger with a mean follow-up > 8 years."

Understanding the safety and effectiveness of VNS is timely, so we want to highlight interesting aspects of this article. First, a larger proportion of patients ages 4–6 (vs 0–3) years at VNS were White. Although formal statistical testing was not performed, this difference in racial distribution is stark enough to potentially be clinically significant. We believe that further investigation into access/availability of VNS for non-White patients at the authors’ institution and around the country is warranted. Late surgical referral can influence seizure frequency outcomes.3Understanding whether race influences epilepsy surgery referral would be worthwhile. Second, whereas the mean follow-up for patients in this cohort was 8 years, the range (0–21 years) indicates that the distribution may be right-skewed. The median follow-up duration may be a more informative measure of center. Furthermore, the authors focused on seizure frequency reduction outcomes at 5 years, not 8 years (Table 4). Third, given the importance of this paper, we have a question about data inclusion: how was the minimum follow-up duration 0 years when the inclusion criterion was > 1 year of follow-up (开云体育世界杯赔率, first paragraph)? Fourth, we think that in a cohort of 45 patients without statistical testing, some of the conclusion that "our study demonstrates ≥ 50% reduction in seizures" may require further investigation. Only 40% of the authors’ sample demonstrated ≥ 50% seizure frequency reduction by 5 years, so this claim may be misleading. The authors also claim that "our study demonstrates efficacy with generalized semiology"; however, it is unclear if generalized semiology was investigated in a subset analysis. Did the authors specifically investigate generalized seizures compared to, for example, focal seizures? How were generalized seizures defined/operationalized?

We respectfully draw the authors’ attention to our institution’s review of VNS in children ≤ 6 years,2and to other related manuscripts.47We previously statistically analyzed seizure frequency outcomes in our cohort of 99 pediatric patients who received VNS with follow-up of 4 years (n = 89 at the 4-year time point).2Our analysis assessed patients’ target semiologies, tracking them during VNS therapy. In other primary analyses of VNS before the age of 6 years (i.e., Zamponi et al.,7a retrospective analysis of 6 patients who underwent VNS implantation before the age of 3 years; mean follow-up of 42 months), improvements in seizure frequency control, quality of life, and/or caregiver/patient satisfaction have been observed.

In sum, Maleknia et al.’s results are consistent with prior evidence. Although the authors did not perform formal statistical testing, there appeared to be no differences in seizure frequency outcomes between cohorts, supporting the use of VNS in young children with drug-resistant epilepsy. We applaud the authors for their work and the implications of their findings.

Disclosures

亚伯博士报道个人费用Monteris读出cal and NeuroOne outside the submitted work.

References

  • 1

    MalekniaP,McWilliamsTD,BarkleyA,Estevez-OrdonezD,RozzelleC,BlountJP.Postoperative seizure freedom after vagus nerve stimulator placement in children 6 years of age and younger.J Neurosurg Pediatr.2023;31(4):329332.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • 出口的引用
  • 2

    MuthiahN,ZhangJ,RemickM,et al.Efficacy of vagus nerve stimulation for drug-resistant epilepsy in children age six and younger.Epilepsy Behav.2020;112:107373.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • 出口的引用
  • 3

    JehiL,JetteN,KwonCS,et al.Timing of referral to evaluate for epilepsy surgery: Expert Consensus Recommendations from the Surgical Therapies Commission of the International League Against Epilepsy.Epilepsia.2022;63(10):24912506.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • 出口的引用
  • 4

    LimMJR,FongKY,ZhengY,et al.Vagus nerve stimulation for treatment of drug-resistant epilepsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Neurosurg Rev.2022;45(3):23612373.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • 出口的引用
  • 5

    TsaiJD,FanPC,LeeWT,et al.Vagus nerve stimulation in pediatric patients with failed epilepsy surgery.Acta Neurol Belg.2021;121(5):13051309.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • 出口的引用
  • 6

    XieH,MaJ,JiT,LiuQ,CaiL,WuY.Efficacy of vagus nerve stimulation in 95 children of drug-resistant epilepsy with structural etiology.Epilepsy Behav.2023;140:109107.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • 出口的引用
  • 7

    ZamponiN,RychlickiF,CorpaciL,CesaroniE,TrignaniR.迷走神经刺激(VNS)是有效的in treating catastrophic 1 epilepsy in very young children.Neurosurg Rev.2008;31(3):291297.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • 出口的引用
Pedram Maleknia School of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, AL

Search for other papers by Pedram Maleknia in
jns
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
MBA
,
Timothy D. McWilliams School of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, AL

Search for other papers by Timothy D. McWilliams in
jns
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
BA
,
Ariana Barkley Birmin阿拉巴马大学gham, Children’s Hospital of Alabama, Birmingham, AL

Search for other papers by Ariana Barkley in
jns
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
MD
,
Dagoberto Estevez-Ordonez Birmin阿拉巴马大学gham, Children’s Hospital of Alabama, Birmingham, AL

Search for other papers by Dagoberto Estevez-Ordonez in
jns
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
MD
,
Curtis Rozzelle Birmin阿拉巴马大学gham, Children’s Hospital of Alabama, Birmingham, AL

Search for other papers by Curtis Rozzelle in
jns
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
MD
, and
Jeffrey P. Blount Birmin阿拉巴马大学gham, Children’s Hospital of Alabama, Birmingham, AL

Search for other papers by Jeffrey P. Blount in
jns
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
MD, MPH

Response

We greatly appreciate the thoughtful comments by Muthiah and Abel in their letter and applaud their prior paper that addresses a similar and larger cohort of children ≤ 6 years of age who were treated with VNS. They draw several important points that warrant comment. First, we agree that the racial distribution of young children in our cohort is modestly skewed. The 2020 census demonstrated that 62% of Alabama citizens were White, whereas 75% of our cohort was White. This is one of the limitations of an observational retrospective cohort study design and legitimately raises some issues of external validity. However, it is an accurate reflection of the patient cohort we treated and analyzed. Disparities are increasingly recognized contributors to poor health outcomes and have been observed in other epilepsy surgery procedures. We enthusiastically agree with their call for further investigation into racial disparities in pediatric epilepsy surgery. Second, the follow-up time for this cohort was substantial. Whether mean (8.45 years) or median (8.34 years) follow-up duration is chosen, it appears that the benefits observed in young children largely parallel those seen in adult patients treated with VNS. It also represents a rare follow-up study on a previously reported cohort that in preliminary analysis suggested feasibility and efficacy. Third, each of our analyzed patients had at least 1 year of follow-up. In Table 3 the label "0–3 yrs" refers to the age at surgery, not the length of follow-up. We thank the authors for noting the subtle error in our sentence that appears to claim 50% reduction across the cohort. Indeed, 50% reduction was the basic metric, and approximately 40% of the cohort demonstrated this over longer follow-up. This contrast was made against the preliminary results from the smaller, earlier study. Similarly, our focus is on generalized semiology, which reflects a practice preference in our center. Although a variety of seizure types may be recorded over a complex, prolonged medical record, our VNS candidacy preference is for those with generalized epilepsies. We prefer that those with partial or focal epilepsy undergo evaluation for resection strategies. Retrospective compiled data with nonvalidated, nonstandardized metrics represent substantial challenges, yet we agree with and appreciate the comments of Muthiah and Abel that outcomes from multiple series of young patients treated with VNS are showing broad alignment with adult VNS cohorts.

  • Collapse
  • Expand
  • 1

    MalekniaP,McWilliamsTD,BarkleyA,Estevez-OrdonezD,RozzelleC,BlountJP.Postoperative seizure freedom after vagus nerve stimulator placement in children 6 years of age and younger.J Neurosurg Pediatr.2023;31(4):329332.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • 出口的引用
  • 2

    MuthiahN,ZhangJ,RemickM,et al.Efficacy of vagus nerve stimulation for drug-resistant epilepsy in children age six and younger.Epilepsy Behav.2020;112:107373.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • 出口的引用
  • 3

    JehiL,JetteN,KwonCS,et al.Timing of referral to evaluate for epilepsy surgery: Expert Consensus Recommendations from the Surgical Therapies Commission of the International League Against Epilepsy.Epilepsia.2022;63(10):24912506.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • 出口的引用
  • 4

    LimMJR,FongKY,ZhengY,et al.Vagus nerve stimulation for treatment of drug-resistant epilepsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Neurosurg Rev.2022;45(3):23612373.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • 出口的引用
  • 5

    TsaiJD,FanPC,LeeWT,et al.Vagus nerve stimulation in pediatric patients with failed epilepsy surgery.Acta Neurol Belg.2021;121(5):13051309.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • 出口的引用
  • 6

    XieH,MaJ,JiT,LiuQ,CaiL,WuY.Efficacy of vagus nerve stimulation in 95 children of drug-resistant epilepsy with structural etiology.Epilepsy Behav.2023;140:109107.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • 出口的引用
  • 7

    ZamponiN,RychlickiF,CorpaciL,CesaroniE,TrignaniR.迷走神经刺激(VNS)是有效的in treating catastrophic 1 epilepsy in very young children.Neurosurg Rev.2008;31(3):291297.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • 出口的引用

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 110 110 110
PDF Downloads 53 53 53
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0
Baidu
map