Search

Loss of consciousness is a hallmark of many epileptic seizures and carries risks of serious injury and sudden death. While cortical sleep-like activities accompany loss of consciousness during focal impaired awareness seizures, the mechanisms of loss of consciousness during focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures remain unclear. Quantifying differences in markers of cortical activation and ictal recruitment between focal impaired awareness and focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures may also help us to understand their different consequences for clinical outcomes and to optimize neuromodulation therapies. We quantified clinical signs of loss of consciousness and intracranial EEG activity during 129 focal impaired awareness and 50 focal to bilateral tonic-clonic from 41 patients. We characterized intracranial EEG changes both in the seizure onset zone and in areas remote from the seizure onset zone with a total of 3386 electrodes distributed across brain areas. First, we compared the dynamics of intracranial EEG sleep-like activities: slow-wave activity (1–4 Hz) and beta/delta ratio (a validated marker of cortical activation) during focal impaired awareness versus focal to bilateral tonic-clonic. Second, we quantified differences between focal to bilateral tonic-clonic and focal impaired awareness for a marker validated to detect ictal cross-frequency coupling: phase-locked high gamma (high-gamma phased-locked to low frequencies) and a marker of ictal recruitment: the epileptogenicity index. Third, we assessed changes in intracranial EEG activity preceding and accompanying behavioural generalization onset and their correlation with electromyogram channels. In addition, we analysed human cortical multi-unit activity recorded with Utah arrays during three focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures. Compared to focal impaired awareness, focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures were characterized by deeper loss of consciousness, even before generalization occurred. Unlike during focal impaired awareness, early loss of consciousness before generalization was accompanied by paradoxical decreases in slow-wave activity and by increases in high-gamma activity in parieto-occipital and temporal cortex. After generalization, when all patients displayed loss of consciousness, stronger increases in slow-wave activity were observed in parieto-occipital cortex, while more widespread increases in cortical activation (beta/delta ratio), ictal cross-frequency coupling (phase-locked high gamma) and ictal recruitment (epileptogenicity index). Behavioural generalization coincided with a whole-brain increase in high-gamma activity, which was especially synchronous in deep sources and could not be explained by EMG. Similarly, multi-unit activity analysis of focal to bilateral tonic-clonic revealed sustained increases in cortical firing rates during and after generalization onset in areas remote from the seizure onset zone. Overall, these results indicate that unlike during focal impaired awareness, the neural signatures of loss of consciousness during focal to bilateral tonic-clonic consist of paradoxical increases in cortical activation and neuronal firing found most consistently in posterior brain regions. These findings suggest differences in the mechanisms of ictal loss of consciousness between focal impaired awareness and focal to bilateral tonic-clonic and may account for the more negative prognostic consequences of focal to bilateral tonic-clonic.

Direct cortical stimulation has been applied in epilepsy for nearly one century and has experienced a renaissance given unprecedented opportunities to probe, excite and inhibit the human brain. Evidence suggests stimulation can increase diagnostic and therapeutic utility in patients with drug-resistant epilepsies. However, choosing appropriate stimulation parameters is not a trivial issue, which is further complicated by the fact that epilepsy is characterized by complex brain state dynamics. In this article derived from discussions at the ICTALS 2022 conference, we succinctly review the literature on cortical stimulation applied acutely and chronically to the epileptic brain for localization, monitoring, and therapeutic purposes. In particular, we discuss how stimulation is used to probe brain excitability, discuss evidence on usefulness of stimulation to trigger and stop seizures, review therapeutic applications of stimulation, and finally discuss how stimulation parameters are impacted by brain dynamics. Although research has advanced considerably over the past decade, there are still significant hurdles to optimize use of this technique. For example, it remains unclear to what extent short timescale diagnostic biomarkers can predict long-term outcomes and to what extent these biomarkers add information to already existing biomarkers from passive EEG recordings. Further questions include the extent to which closed loop stimulation offers advantages over open loop stimulation, what the optimal closed loop timescales may be, and whether biomarker-informed stimulation can lead to seizure freedom. The ultimate goal of bioelectronic medicine remains not just to stop seizures but rather to cure epilepsy and its comorbidities.

Deep brain stimulation and responsive neurostimulation (RNS) use high-frequency stimulation (HFS) per the pivotal trials and manufacturer-recommended therapy protocols. However, not all patients respond to HFS. In this retrospective case series, 10 patients implanted with the RNS System were programmed with low-frequency stimulation (LFS) to treat their seizures; nine of these patients were previously treated with HFS (100 Hz or greater). LFS was defined as frequency 10 Hz. Burst duration was increased to at least 1000 ms. With HFS, patients had a median seizure reduction (MSR) of 13% (interquartile range [IQR] = -67 to 54) after a median of 19 months (IQR = 8-49). In contrast, LFS was associated with a 67% MSR (IQR = 13-95) when compared to HFS and 76% MSR (IQR = 43-91) when compared to baseline prior to implantation. Charge delivered per hour and pulses per day were not significantly different between HFS and LFS, although time stimulated per day was longer for LFS (228 min) than for HFS (7 min). There were no LFS-specific adverse effects reported by any of the patients. LFS could represent an alternative, effective method for delivering stimulation in focal drug-resistant epilepsy patients treated with the RNS System.

The epileptic network hypothesis and epileptogenic zone hypothesis are two theories of ictogenesis. The network hypothesis posits that coordinated activity among interconnected nodes produces seizures. The epileptogenic zone hypothesis posits that distinct regions are necessary and sufficient for seizure generation. High-frequency oscillations, and particularly fast ripples, are thought to be biomarkers of the epileptogenic zone. We sought to test these theories by comparing high-frequency oscillation rates and networks in surgical responders and non-responders, with no appreciable change in seizure frequency or severity, within a retrospective cohort of 48 patients implanted with stereo-EEG electrodes. We recorded inter-ictal activity during non-rapid eye movement sleep and semi-automatically detected and quantified high-frequency oscillations. Each electrode contact was localized in normalized coordinates. We found that the accuracy of seizure onset zone electrode contact classification using high-frequency oscillation rates was not significantly different in surgical responders and non-responders, suggesting that in non-responders the epileptogenic zone partially encompassed the seizure onset zone(s) (P > 0.05). We also found that in the responders, fast ripple on oscillations exhibited a higher spectral content in the seizure onset zone compared with the non-seizure onset zone (P 350 Hz. The first was a rate–distance network that multiplied the Euclidian distance between fast ripple-generating contacts by the average rate of fast ripple in the two contacts. The radius of the rate–distance network, which excluded seizure onset zone nodes, discriminated non-responders, including patients not offered resection or responsive neurostimulation due to diffuse multifocal onsets, with an accuracy of 0.77 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.56–0.98]. The second fast ripple network was constructed using the mutual information between the timing of the events to measure functional connectivity. For most non-responders, this network had a longer characteristic path length, lower mean local efficiency in the non-seizure onset zone, and a higher nodal strength among non-seizure onset zone nodes relative to seizure onset zone nodes. The graphical theoretical measures from the rate–distance and mutual information networks of 22 non- responsive neurostimulation treated patients was used to train a support vector machine, which when tested on 13 distinct patients classified non-responders with an accuracy of 0.92 (95% CI 0.75–1). These results indicate patients who do not respond to surgery or those not selected for resection or responsive neurostimulation can be explained by the epileptic network hypothesis that is a decentralized network consisting of widely distributed, hyperexcitable fast ripple-generating nodes.

BACKGROUND: Drug resistant epilepsy (DRE) patients not amenable to epilepsy surgery can benefit from neurostimulation. Few data compare different neuromodulation strategies. OBJECTIVE: Compare five invasive neuromodulation strategies for treatment of DRE: anterior thalamic nuclei deep brain stimulation (ANT-DBS), centromedian thalamic nuclei DBS (CM-DBS), responsive neurostimulation (RNS), chronic subthreshold stimulation (CSS), and vagus nerve stimulation (VNS). METHODS: Single center retrospective review and phone survey for patients implanted with invasive neuromodulation for 2004–2021. RESULTS: N=159 (ANT-DBS=38, CM-DBS=19, RNS=30, CSS=32, VNS=40). Total median seizure reduction (MSR) was 61% for the entire cohort (IQR 5–90) and in descending order: CSS (85%), CM-DBS (63%), ANT-DBS (52%), RNS (50%), and VNS (50%); p=0.07. Responder rate was 60% after median follow-up time of 26 months. Seizure severity, life satisfaction and quality of sleep were improved. Cortical stimulation (RNS and CSS) was associated with improved seizure reduction compared to subcortical stimulation (ANT-DBS, CM-DBS, and VNS) (67% vs. 52%). Effectiveness was similar for focal epilepsy vs generalized epilepsy, closed loop vs open loop stimulation, pediatric vs. adult cases, and high frequency (>100 Hz) vs low frequency (