Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36578694›Full record

ArticleTherapeutic advances in neurological disorders2022

Effectiveness of vagus nerve stimulation therapy in refractory hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy-induced epilepsy.

Mengyi Guo, Jing Wang, Chongyang Tang, Jiahui Deng, Jing Zhang, Zhonghua Xiong, Siqi Liu, Yuguang Guan, Jian Zhou, Feng Zhai and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Therapeutic advances in neurological disorders, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 41% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Mengyi GuoDepartment of Brain Institute, Center of Epilepsy, Beijing Institute for Brain Disorders, Beijing Key Laboratory of Epilepsy Research, Sanbo Brain Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Jing WangDepartment of Neurology, Center of Epilepsy, Beijing Institute for Brain Disorders, Sanbo Brain Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Chongyang TangDepartment of Brain Institute, Center of Epilepsy, Beijing Institute for Brain Disorders, Beijing Key Laboratory of Epilepsy Research, Sanbo Brain Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Jiahui DengDepartment of Brain Institute, Center of Epilepsy, Beijing Institute for Brain Disorders, Beijing Key Laboratory of Epilepsy Research, Sanbo Brain Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Jing ZhangDepartment of Brain Institute, Center of Epilepsy, Beijing Institute for Brain Disorders, Beijing Key Laboratory of Epilepsy Research, Sanbo Brain Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Zhonghua XiongDepartment of Brain Institute, Center of Epilepsy, Beijing Institute for Brain Disorders, Beijing Key Laboratory of Epilepsy Research, Sanbo Brain Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Siqi LiuDepartment of Brain Institute, Center of Epilepsy, Beijing Institute for Brain Disorders, Beijing Key Laboratory of Epilepsy Research, Sanbo Brain Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Yuguang GuanDepartment of Brain Institute, Center of Epilepsy, Beijing Institute for Brain Disorders, Beijing Key Laboratory of Epilepsy Research, Sanbo Brain Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Jian ZhouDepartment of Brain Institute, Center of Epilepsy, Beijing Institute for Brain Disorders, Beijing Key Laboratory of Epilepsy Research, Sanbo Brain Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Feng ZhaiDepartment of Brain Institute, Center of Epilepsy, Beijing Institute for Brain Disorders, Beijing Key Laboratory of Epilepsy Research, Sanbo Brain Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Guoming LuanDepartment of Neurosurgery, Center of Epilepsy, Beijing Institute for Brain Disorders, Beijing Key Laboratory of Epilepsy Research, Sanbo Brain Hospital, Capital Medical University, XiangshanYikesong 50, Haidian District, Beijing 100093, China.
Tianfu LiDepartment of Neurology, Center of Epilepsy, Beijing Institute for Brain Disorders, Beijing Key Laboratory of Epilepsy Research, Sanbo Brain Hospital, Capital Medical University, XiangshanYikesong 50, Haidian District, Beijing 100093, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0883-4988
Capital Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Epilepsy is one of the important long-term sequelae of neonatal hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy (HIE) and is typically characterized by drug resistance and poor surgical outcomes. Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) is a promising neuromodulation therapy for refractory epilepsy. Objectives: The present study aimed to first evaluate the effectiveness of VNS in patients with refractory HIE-induced epilepsy and scrutinize potential clinical predictors. Methods: We retrospectively collected the outcomes of VNS in all patients with refractory HIE-induced epilepsy and at least 2 years of follow-up. Subgroups were classified as responders and nonresponders according to the effectiveness of VNS (⩾50% or <50% reduction in seizure frequency). Preoperative data were analyzed to screen for potential predictors of VNS effectiveness. Results: A total of 55 patients with refractory HIE-induced epilepsy who underwent VNS therapy were enrolled. Responders represented 56.4% of patients, and 12.7% of patients achieved seizure freedom at the last follow-up. In addition, the responder rate increased over time with rates of 23.6%, 38.2%, 50.9%, and 56.4% at the 3-, 6-, 12- and 24-month follow-ups, respectively. After multivariate analysis, neonatal seizure was identified as a negative predictor (OR: 4.640, 95% CI: 1.129-19.066), and a predominant seizure type of generalized onset was identified as a positive predictor (OR: 0.261, 95% CI: 0.078-0.873) of VNS effectiveness. Conclusion: VNS therapy was effective in patients with refractory HIE-induced epilepsy and was well tolerated over a 2-year follow-up period. VNS therapy demonstrated better effectiveness in patients without neonatal seizures or with a predominant seizure type of generalized onset.

Indexed as

effectivenesshypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy-induced epilepsyneonatal seizurepredictorvagus nerve stimulation

Identifiers

PMID36578694
PMCPMC9791287
OpenAlexW4312571029

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.