Machine versus physician-based programming of deep brain stimulation in isolated dystonia: A feasibility study.

Background: Deep brain stimulation of the internal globus pallidus effectively alleviates dystonia motor symptoms. However, delayed symptom control and a lack of therapeutic biomarkers and a single pallidal sweetspot region complicates optimal programming. Postoperative management is complex, typically requiring multiple, lengthy follow-ups with an experienced physician - an important barrier to widespread adoption in medication-refractory dystonia patients.
Objective: Here we prospectively tested the best machine-predicted programming settings in a dystonia cohort treated with GPi-DBS against the settings derived from clinical long-term care in a specialised DBS centre.
Methods: Previously, we reconstructed an anatomical map of motor improvement probability across the pallidal region using individual stimulation volumes and clinical outcomes in dystonia patients. We used this to develop an algorithm that tests in silico thousands of putative stimulation settings in de novo patients after reconstructing an individual, image-based anatomical model of electrode positions, and suggests stimulation parameters with the highest likelihood of optimal symptom control. To test real-life application, our prospective study compared results in 10 patients against programming settings derived from long-term care.
Results: In this cohort, dystonia symptom reduction was observed at 74.9 ± 15.3% with C-SURF programming as compared to 66.3 ± 16.3% with clinical programming (p < 0.012). The average total electrical energy delivered (TEED) was similar for both the clinical and C-SURF programming (262.0 μJ/s vs. 306.1 μJ/s respectively).
Conclusion: Our findings highlight the clinical potential of machine-based programming in dystonia, which could markedly reduce the programming burden in postoperative management.
Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: FL reports grants from Boston Scientific not relevant to the submitted manuscript. MMR reports grants and personal fees from Boston Scientific and Medtronic, not relevant to the submitted work. MJR reports grants and personal fees from Boston Scientific, Medtronic and Zambon, not relevant to the submitted work. JV reports grants and personal fees from Medtronic, personal fees from St. Jude, grants and personal fees from Boston Scientific, personal fees from UCB, personal fees from Merz, personal fees from Allergan, personal fees from TEVA, personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from AbbVie and personal fees from Grünenthal, all outside the submitted work. All other authors report no competing interests.
(Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)