TY - JOUR
T1 - An international survey of SEEG cortical stimulation practices
AU - Cockle, Emily
AU - Rayner, Genevieve
AU - Malpas, Charles
AU - Alpitsis, Rubina
AU - Rheims, Sylvain
AU - O'Brien, Terence J.
AU - Neal, Andrew
N1 - Funding Information:
We greatly appreciate the support of our colleagues who gave their time to complete the survey. Emily Cockle was supported by a Research Training Program and Monash Research Scholarship. Dr Andrew Neal was supported by a NHMRC Investigator Grant.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2023 The Authors. Epilepsia Open published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International League Against Epilepsy.
PY - 2023/9
Y1 - 2023/9
N2 - Objective: Cortical stimulation is an important component of stereoelectroencephalography (SEEG). Despite this, there is currently no standardized approach and significant heterogeneity in the literature regarding cortical stimulation practices. Via an international survey of SEEG clinicians, we sought to examine the spectrum of cortical stimulation practices to reveal areas of consensus and variability. Methods: A 68-item questionnaire was developed to understand cortical stimulation practices including neurostimulation parameters, interpretation of epileptogenicity, functional and cognitive assessment and subsequent surgical decisions. Multiple recruitment pathways were pursued, with the questionnaire distributed directly to 183 clinicians. Results: Responses were received from 56 clinicians across 17 countries with experience ranging from 2 to 60 years (M = 10.73, SD = 9.44). Neurostimulation parameters varied considerably, with maximum current ranging from 3 to 10 mA (M = 5.33, SD = 2.29) for 1 Hz and from 2 to 15 mA (M = 6.54, SD = 3.68) for 50 Hz stimulation. Charge density ranged from 8 to 200 μC/cm2, with up to 43% of responders utilizing charge densities higher than recommended upper safety limits, i.e. 55 μC/cm2. North American responders reported statistically significant higher maximum current (P < 0.001) for 1 Hz stimulation and lower pulse width for 1 and 50 Hz stimulation (P = 0.008, P < 0.001, respectively) compared to European responders. All clinicians evaluated language, speech, and motor function during cortical stimulation; in contrast, 42% assessed visuospatial or visual function, 29% memory, and 13% executive function. Striking differences were reported in approaches to assessment, classification of positive sites, and surgical decisions guided by cortical stimulation. Patterns of consistency were observed for interpretation of the localizing capacity of stimulated electroclinical seizures and auras, with habitual electroclinical seizures induced by 1 Hz stimulation considered the most localizing. Significance: SEEG cortical stimulation practices differed vastly across clinicians internationally, highlighting the need for consensus-based clinical guidelines. In particular, an internationally standardized approach to assessment, classification, and functional prognostication will provide a common clinical and research framework for optimizing outcomes for people with drug-resistant epilepsy.
AB - Objective: Cortical stimulation is an important component of stereoelectroencephalography (SEEG). Despite this, there is currently no standardized approach and significant heterogeneity in the literature regarding cortical stimulation practices. Via an international survey of SEEG clinicians, we sought to examine the spectrum of cortical stimulation practices to reveal areas of consensus and variability. Methods: A 68-item questionnaire was developed to understand cortical stimulation practices including neurostimulation parameters, interpretation of epileptogenicity, functional and cognitive assessment and subsequent surgical decisions. Multiple recruitment pathways were pursued, with the questionnaire distributed directly to 183 clinicians. Results: Responses were received from 56 clinicians across 17 countries with experience ranging from 2 to 60 years (M = 10.73, SD = 9.44). Neurostimulation parameters varied considerably, with maximum current ranging from 3 to 10 mA (M = 5.33, SD = 2.29) for 1 Hz and from 2 to 15 mA (M = 6.54, SD = 3.68) for 50 Hz stimulation. Charge density ranged from 8 to 200 μC/cm2, with up to 43% of responders utilizing charge densities higher than recommended upper safety limits, i.e. 55 μC/cm2. North American responders reported statistically significant higher maximum current (P < 0.001) for 1 Hz stimulation and lower pulse width for 1 and 50 Hz stimulation (P = 0.008, P < 0.001, respectively) compared to European responders. All clinicians evaluated language, speech, and motor function during cortical stimulation; in contrast, 42% assessed visuospatial or visual function, 29% memory, and 13% executive function. Striking differences were reported in approaches to assessment, classification of positive sites, and surgical decisions guided by cortical stimulation. Patterns of consistency were observed for interpretation of the localizing capacity of stimulated electroclinical seizures and auras, with habitual electroclinical seizures induced by 1 Hz stimulation considered the most localizing. Significance: SEEG cortical stimulation practices differed vastly across clinicians internationally, highlighting the need for consensus-based clinical guidelines. In particular, an internationally standardized approach to assessment, classification, and functional prognostication will provide a common clinical and research framework for optimizing outcomes for people with drug-resistant epilepsy.
KW - direct cortical stimulation
KW - epilepsy
KW - mapping
KW - stereo-EEG
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85165423775
U2 - 10.1002/epi4.12790
DO - 10.1002/epi4.12790
M3 - Article
C2 - 37437189
AN - SCOPUS:85165423775
SN - 2470-9239
VL - 8
SP - 1084
EP - 1095
JO - Epilepsia Open
JF - Epilepsia Open
IS - 3
ER -