Search

Objective To present a case of refractory medication-induced tremor successfully treated with deep brain stimulation (DBS) of the thalamic ventral intermediate nucleus (Vim) and to propose a medical and surgical treatment algorithm based on a systematical review of the literature. Methods Patient data were retrospectively collected. A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Subjective and objective data were pooled for analysis by classifying them into 5 predefined categories(no, minimal, moderate, good, and excellent effects). Results The patient presented with lithium-induced bilateral progressive hand tremor lasting 25 years. After DBS, he reported excellent tremor suppression until the last follow-up (36 months after Vim-DBS). For the review, 34 of 140 studies were included and evaluated (178 unique subjects, 31 different treatments). A good-to-excellent tremor suppression (50%-100%) in at least 50% of subjects was achieved using propranolol (12 studies, 50% of 56 subjects), tetrabenazine (5 studies, 51% of 13 subjects), and metoprolol (4 studies, 75% of 8 subjects). The effect of benztropine and diphenhydramine was none or only minimal to moderate (up to 50% improvement; both: 3 studies, 50% of 4 patients). One article reported minimal-to-moderate effectiveness after DBS of the ventral oral posterior nucleus of the thalamus. Methods were highly heterogeneous. All studies scored grade III or IV quality of evidence, which was insufficient for recommendations (level U). Conclusion Treatment decision making should be performed on a case-by-case basis considering the low level of evidence, and we propose a practically oriented treatment algorithm. Propranolol, tetrabenazine, and metoprolol might be effective. For selected and refractory cases, DBS might be considered.

Background: Caregivers of Parkinson’s disease (PD) patients provide important support during the pre- and postoperative phase of deep brain stimulation (DBS). High levels of caregiver burden have been reported after DBS. However, a comparison between preoperative and postoperative burden and associated factors has been insufficiently studied. Objective: To investigate the influence of DBS on caregiver burden, and to identify the differential impact of patient-related factors on caregiver burden before and after DBS. Methods: Consecutive patients referred for DBS eligibility screening or during one-year follow-up assessments were included. Caregiver burden was measured with the short Zarit Burden Interview (ZBI-12). Inverse Probability Weighting (IPW) was used to compare caregiver burden between preoperative and postoperative assessments. Results: We included 47 patients (24 screening, 23 follow-up) (median age 65 years, 29.4% female sex). DBS did not impact caregiver burden (screening: median ZBI-12 9.5 (IQR 3.25, 16.75); follow-up median ZBI-12 6 (IQR 4, 14); IPW-coefficient 0.57 (95% CI –2.75, 3.89)). Worse caregiver burden during DBS screening was associated with worse patient-related scores on depressive symptoms, anxiety, QoL, and impulsiveness. Worse scores on depressive symptoms, anxiety, apathy, postural-instability-gait-disorder, and QoL were associated with worse caregiver burden at one-year follow-up. Conclusion: DBS appears not associated with changes in caregiver burden. Various symptoms are valued differently between screening and follow-up assessments in terms of caregiver burden. Early recognition of caregivers “at risk” may improve guidance of patient-caregiver dyads throughout the DBS process.

Contains fulltext : 174078.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access) BACKGROUND: Genetic disorders causing dystonia show great heterogeneity. Recent studies have suggested that next-generation sequencing techniques such as gene panel analysis can be effective in diagnosing heterogeneous conditions. The objective of this study was to investigate whether dystonia patients with a suspected genetic cause could benefit from the use of gene panel analysis. METHODS: In this post hoc study, we describe gene panel analysis results of 61 dystonia patients (mean age, 31 years; 72% young onset) in our tertiary referral center. The panel covered 94 dystonia-associated genes. As comparison with a historic cohort was not possible because of the rapidly growing list of dystonia genes, we compared the diagnostic workup with and without gene panel analysis in the same patients. The workup without gene panel analysis (control group) included theoretical diagnostic strategies formulated by independent experts in the field, based on detailed case descriptions. The primary outcome measure was diagnostic yield; secondary measures were cost and duration of diagnostic workup. RESULTS: Workup with gene panel analysis led to a confirmed molecular diagnosis in 14.8%, versus 7.4% in the control group (P = 0.096). In the control group, on average 3 genes/case were requested. The mean costs were lower in the gene panel analysis group (euro1822/case) than in the controls (euro2660/case). The duration of the workup was considerably shorter with gene panel analysis (28 vs 102 days). CONCLUSIONS: Gene panel analysis facilitates molecular diagnosis in complex cases of dystonia, with a good diagnostic yield (14.8%), a quicker diagnostic workup, and lower costs, representing a major improvement for patients and their families. (c) 2016 International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.

Patients with Parkinson's Disease may be eligible for Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS) in case of severe motor complications. This thesis provides indications for improving patient selection for DBS, as well as describing new biomarkers based on Electroencephalography (EEG) to aid during the DBS selection process.