Deep Brain Stimulation for Tourette Syndrome: A Prospective Pilot Study in Japan

Long-Term, Post-Deep Brain Stimulation Management of a Series of 36 Patients Affected With Refractory Gilles de la Tourette Syndrome

Objective To evaluate outcome of High-frequency deep brain stimulation (DBS) of the globus pallidus internus (GPi) for severe Gilles de la Tourette syndrome (GTS). Methods 10 cases of GTS who were resistant to at least 6 months of standard and innovative treatments, as well as to psychobehavioural techniques, underwent DBS. DBS was placed bilaterally globus pallidus internus (GPi).Patients were evaluated after surgery, using Yale Global Tic Severity Scale (YRTSS) from 2 months to 24 months. Results All patients responded well to DBS, although to differing degrees (28.2% ～ 80.0%).The duration of follow-up assessments ranged from 2 to 24 months. Except for two erosions and/or infections cases, there were no serious permanent adverse effects. Conclusion DBS is a useful and safe treatment for severe GTS. The results of ours and previous DBS reports suggest that the GPi may be a good DBS target for GTS. Key words: Gilles de la Tourette syndrome; Deep brain stimulation; Globus pallidus internus

Effectiveness of Low-Frequency Pallidal Deep Brain Stimulation at 65 Hz in Tourette Syndrome

Objective To assess the long-term outcome of globus pallidus intema (Gpi) deep brain stimulation (DBS) in adult patients with Tourette syndrome (TS). Methods Five adult drug-resistant TS patients, performed bilateral Gpi DBS in our hospital from May 2007 to May 2008,were chosen in our study; their symptoms before DBS and 3 and 6 months and 1 year after DBS,and over a year of DBS were evaluated by Yale global tic severity scale. Results The duration of follow-up ranged from 21 to 33 months.Scores of motor tic,phonic tic and social impairment in the last follow-up were significantly decreased as compared with those before DBS (P＜0.05); Scores of motor tic,phonic tic and social impairment 3 and 6 months and 1 year after DBS,and over a year of DBS were significantly decreased as compared with those before DBS (P＜0.05).The symptoms were gradually improved; in the first 6 months,the symptoms were obviously improved; 6 months after DBS,the symptoms were solid and can be mildly improved.3 and 6 months,1 year after DBS and till to the last follow-up (mean 26.4 months),the severity of symptom meanly improved 28.50％,52.35％,57.62％ and 62.88％,respectively;and till the last follow-up,the motor tic,phonic tic and social impairment was improved 51.38％,46.16％ and 71.00％,respectively; no serious adverse effects were noted. Conclusion Gpi DBS,improving the symptoms as motor tic,phonic tic and social impairment,is a useful and safe treatment method for adult patients with medically refractory TS; the long-term efficiency is solid. Key words: Tourette syndrome; Globus pallidus intema; Deep brain stimulation

CM-Pf deep brain stimulation and the long term management of motor and psychiatric symptoms in a case of Tourette syndrome

14 Deep Brain Stimulation in Tourette Syndrome

Anteromedial GPi deep brain stimulation in Tourette syndrome: The first case series from Iran

Despite optimal medical treatment, including epilepsy surgery, many epilepsy patients have uncontrolled seizures. In the last decades, interest has grown in invasive intracranial neurostimulation as a treatment for these patients. Intracranial stimulation includes both deep brain stimulation (DBS) (stimulation through depth electrodes) and cortical stimulation (subdural electrodes). To assess the efficacy, safety and tolerability of deep brain and cortical stimulation for refractory epilepsy based on randomized controlled trials. We searched PubMed (6 August 2013), the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register (31 August 2013), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 7 of 12) and reference lists of retrieved articles. We also contacted device manufacturers and other researchers in the field. No language restrictions were imposed. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing deep brain or cortical stimulation to sham stimulation, resective surgery or further treatment with antiepileptic drugs. Four review authors independently selected trials for inclusion. Two review authors independently extracted the relevant data and assessed trial quality and overall quality of evidence. The outcomes investigated were seizure freedom, responder rate, percentage seizure frequency reduction, adverse events, neuropsychological outcome and quality of life. If additional data were needed, the study investigators were contacted. Results were analysed and reported separately for different intracranial targets for reasons of clinical heterogeneity. Ten RCTs comparing one to three months of intracranial neurostimulation to sham stimulation were identified. One trial was on anterior thalamic DBS (n = 109; 109 treatment periods); two trials on centromedian thalamic DBS (n = 20; 40 treatment periods), but only one of the trials (n = 7; 14 treatment periods) reported sufficient information for inclusion in the quantitative meta-analysis; three trials on cerebellar stimulation (n = 22; 39 treatment periods); three trials on hippocampal DBS (n = 15; 21 treatment periods); and one trial on responsive ictal onset zone stimulation (n = 191; 191 treatment periods). Evidence of selective reporting was present in four trials and the possibility of a carryover effect complicating interpretation of the results could not be excluded in 4 cross-over trials without any washout period. Moderate-quality evidence could not demonstrate statistically or clinically significant changes in the proportion of patients who were seizure-free or experienced a 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency (primary outcome measures) after 1 to 3 months of anterior thalamic DBS in (multi)focal epilepsy, responsive ictal onset zone stimulation in (multi)focal epilepsy patients and hippocampal DBS in (medial) temporal lobe epilepsy. However, a statistically significant reduction in seizure frequency was found for anterior thalamic DBS (-17.4% compared to sham stimulation; 95% confidence interval (CI) -32.1 to -1.0; high-quality evidence), responsive ictal onset zone stimulation (-24.9%; 95% CI -40.1 to 6.0; high-quality evidence) ) and hippocampal DBS (-28.1%; 95% CI -34.1 to -22.2; moderate-quality evidence). Both anterior thalamic DBS and responsive ictal onset zone stimulation do not have a clinically meaningful impact on quality life after three months of stimulation (high-quality evidence). Electrode implantation resulted in asymptomatic intracranial haemorrhage in 3% to 4% of the patients included in the two largest trials and 5% to 13% had soft tissue infections; no patient reported permanent symptomatic sequelae. Anterior thalamic DBS was associated with fewer epilepsy-associated injuries (7.4 versus 25.5%; P = 0.01) but higher rates of self-reported depression (14.8 versus 1.8%; P = 0.02) and subjective memory impairment (13.8 versus 1.8%; P = 0.03); there were no significant differences in formal neuropsychological testing results between the groups. Responsive ictal-onset zone stimulation was well tolerated with few side effects but SUDEP rate should be closely monitored in the future (4 per 340 [= 11.8 per 1000] patient-years; literature: 2.2-10 per 1000 patient-years). The limited number of patients preclude firm statements on safety and tolerability of hippocampal DBS. With regards to centromedian thalamic DBS and cerebellar stimulation, no statistically significant effects could be demonstrated but evidence is of only low to very low quality. Only short term RCTs on intracranial neurostimulation for epilepsy are available. Compared to sham stimulation, one to three months of anterior thalamic DBS ((multi)focal epilepsy), responsive ictal onset zone stimulation ((multi)focal epilepsy) and hippocampal DBS (temporal lobe epilepsy) moderately reduce seizure frequency in refractory epilepsy patients. Anterior thalamic DBS is associated with higher rates of self-reported depression and subjective memory impairment. SUDEP rates require careful monitoring in patients undergoing responsive ictal onset zone stimulation. There is insufficient evidence to make firm conclusive statements on the efficacy and safety of hippocampal DBS, centromedian thalamic DBS and cerebellar stimulation. There is a need for more, large and well-designed RCTs to validate and optimize the efficacy and safety of invasive intracranial neurostimulation treatments.

Background:The centromedian (CM) region of the thalamus is a common target for deep brain stimulation (DBS) treatment for Tourette Syndrome (TS). However, there are currently no standard microelectrode recording or macrostimulation methods to differentiate CM thalamus from other nearby structures and nuclei.Case Report:Here we present a case of failed conventional stereotactic targeting in TS DBS. Postoperative local field potential recordings (LFPs) showed features including beta power desynchronization during voluntary movement and thalamo-cortical phase amplitude coupling at rest. These findings suggested that the DBS lead was suboptimally placed in the ventral intermediate (VIM) nucleus of the thalamus rather than the intended CM region. Due to a lack of clinical improvement in tic severity scales three months following the initial surgery, the patient underwent lead revision surgery. Slight repositioning of the DBS leads resulted in a remarkably different clinical outcome. Afterwards, LFPs revealed less beta desynchronization and disappearance of the thalamo-cortical phase amplitude coupling. Follow-up clinical visits documented improvement of the patient’s global tic scores.Discussion:This case provides preliminary evidence that combining physiology with atlas based targeting may possibly enhance outcomes in some cases of Tourette DBS. A larger prospective study will be required to confirm these findings.Highlight:This report demonstrates a case of failed centromedian nucleus region deep brain stimulation (DBS). We observed suboptimal tic improvement several months following DBS surgery and subsequent lead revision improved the outcome. The neurophysiology provided an important clue suggesting the possibility of suboptimally placed DBS leads. Repeat LFPs during lead revision revealed less beta desynchronization and disappearance of the thalamo-cortical phase amplitude coupling. There was improvement in tic outcome following slight repositioning during bilateral DBS lead revision. This case provides preliminary evidence supporting the use of physiology to augment the atlas based targeting of Tourette DBS cases.

Fear of fear, severe tics and deep brain stimulation in childhood Tourette Syndrome: The long and winding road.

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of aripiprazole in the treatment of children with Tourette syndrome. A prospective, multi-center, controlled clinical trial was conducted in 195 children aged 5-17 years with Tourette syndrome. The patients were assigned to two groups: aripiprazole group (n=98) and tiapride group (n=97), with the treatment dosage of 5-25 mg/d and 100-500 mg/d, respectively. After 12 weeks treatment, the clinical efficacy was assessed by the Yale Global Tic Severity Scale (YGTSS) score, and adverse reactions were observed by side effects symptoms scale, blood biochemical indexes, and electrocardiography. Significant pre- and post-treatment differences were ascertained for motor tic, phonic tic, function damage and total scores of YGTSS in the both groups from the second week of treatment (P<0.0001). Compared with the tiapride group, the aripiprazole group showed a more significantly decreased function damage score of YGTSS by the second week of treatment (P<0.05). After 12 weeks treatment, total scores of YGTSS in the aripiprazole group decreased from 53.74±15.71 at baseline to 24.36±16.38, while in the tiapride group from 51.66±13.63 to 23.26±15.31. The mean reduction scores of YGTSS were 29.38 in the aripiprazole group and 28.40 in the tiapride group at the end of treatment, and the clinical response rates were 60.21% and 63.92%, respectively. There were no significant differences between the 2 groups (P>0.05). The incidence of adverse reactions was similar in the aripiprazole and tiapride groups, with 29.6% and 27.8% respectively. There were no significant differences in the incidence of adverse reactions between aripiprazole and tiapride groups and no severe adverse events were found in either group. The results showed that aripiprazole showed similar therapeutic effect to tiapride in treatment of children with Tourette syndrome. Aripiprazole was safe and well tolerated in Chinese population, and can be considered as a new valid option for the treatment of tic disorders.

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) of the centromedian thalamic nucleus has been reportedly used to treat severe Tourette syndrome, yielding promising outcomes. However, it remains unclear how DBS electrode position and stimulation parameters modulate the specific area and related networks. The authors aimed to evaluate the relationships between the anatomical location of stimulation fields and clinical responses, including therapeutic and side effects. The authors collected data from 8 patients with Tourette syndrome who were treated with DBS. The authors selected the active contact following threshold tests of acute side effects and gradually increased the stimulation intensity within the therapeutic window such that acute and chronic side effects could be avoided at each programming session. The patients were carefully interviewed, and stimulation-induced side effects were recorded. Clinical outcomes were evaluated using the Yale Global Tic Severity Scale, the Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale, and the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale. The DBS lead location was evaluated in the normalized brain space by using a 3D atlas. The volume of tissue activated was determined, and the associated normative connective analyses were performed to link the stimulation field with the therapeutic and side effects. The mean follow-up period was 10.9 ± 3.9 months. All clinical scales showed significant improvement. Whereas the volume of tissue activated associated with therapeutic effects covers the centromedian and ventrolateral nuclei and showed an association with motor networks, those associated with paresthesia and dizziness were associated with stimulation of the ventralis caudalis and red nucleus, respectively. Depressed mood was associated with the spread of stimulation current to the mediodorsal nucleus and showed an association with limbic networks. This study addresses the importance of accurate implantation of DBS electrodes for obtaining standardized clinical outcomes and suggests that meticulous programming with careful monitoring of clinical symptoms may improve outcomes.

Double-Blind, Crossover Study of Clonidine and Levetiracetam in Tourette Syndrome

To collect the information necessary to design the methods and outcome variables for a larger trial of scheduled deep brain stimulation (DBS) for Tourette syndrome. We performed a small National Institutes of Health-sponsored clinical trials planning study of the safety and preliminary efficacy of implanted DBS in the bilateral centromedian thalamic region. The study used a cranially contained constant-current device and a scheduled, rather than the classic continuous, DBS paradigm. Baseline vs 6-month outcomes were collected and analyzed. In addition, we compared acute scheduled vs acute continuous vs off DBS. A university movement disorders center. Five patients with implanted DBS. A 50% improvement in the Yale Global Tic Severity Scale (YGTSS) total score. RESULTS Participating subjects had a mean age of 34.4 (range, 28-39) years and a mean disease duration of 28.8 years. No significant adverse events or hardware-related issues occurred. Baseline vs 6-month data revealed that reductions in the YGTSS total score did not achieve the prestudy criterion of a 50% improvement in the YGTSS total score on scheduled stimulation settings. However, statistically significant improvements were observed in the YGTSS total score (mean [SD] change, -17.8 [9.4]; P=.01), impairment score (-11.3 [5.0]; P=.007), and motor score (-2.8 [2.2]; P=.045); the Modified Rush Tic Rating Scale Score total score (-5.8 [2.9]; P=.01); and the phonic tic severity score (-2.2 [2.6]; P=.04). Continuous, off, and scheduled stimulation conditions were assessed blindly in an acute experiment at 6 months after implantation. The scores in all 3 conditions showed a trend for improvement. Trends for improvement also occurred with continuous and scheduled conditions performing better than the off condition. Tic suppression was commonly seen at ventral (deep) contacts, and programming settings resulting in tic suppression were commonly associated with a subjective feeling of calmness. This study provides safety and proof of concept that a scheduled DBS approach could improve motor and vocal tics in Tourette syndrome. Refinements in neurostimulator battery life, outcome measure selection, and flexibility in programming settings can be used to enhance outcomes in a future larger study. Scheduled stimulation holds promise as a potential first step for shifting movement and neuropsychiatric disorders toward more responsive neuromodulation approaches. clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01329198.

Tourette syndrome (TS) is a childhood neurobehavioural disorder, characterised by the presence of motor and vocal tics, typically starting in childhood but persisting in around 20% of patients into adulthood. In those patients who do not respond to pharmacological or behavioural therapy, deep brain stimulation (DBS) may be a suitable option for potential symptom improvement. This manuscript attempts to summarise the outcomes of DBS at different targets, explore the possible mechanisms of action of DBS in TS, as well as the potential of adaptive DBS. There will also be a focus on the future challenges faced in designing optimized trials.