Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36686529›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neurology2022

Vagus nerve stimulation for pharmacoresistant epilepsy secondary to encephalomalacia: A single-center retrospective study.

Mengyi Guo, Jing Wang, Zhonghua Xiong, Jiahui Deng, Jing Zhang, Chongyang Tang, Xiangru Kong, Xiongfei Wang, Yuguang Guan, Jian Zhou and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in neurology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 37% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. 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

13 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Mengyi GuoBeijing Key Laboratory of Epilepsy Research, Department of Brain Institute, Center of Epilepsy, Beijing Institute for Brain Disorders, 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.
Zhonghua XiongBeijing Key Laboratory of Epilepsy Research, Department of Brain Institute, Center of Epilepsy, Beijing Institute for Brain Disorders, Sanbo Brain Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Jiahui DengBeijing Key Laboratory of Epilepsy Research, Department of Brain Institute, Center of Epilepsy, Beijing Institute for Brain Disorders, Sanbo Brain Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Jing ZhangBeijing Key Laboratory of Epilepsy Research, Department of Brain Institute, Center of Epilepsy, Beijing Institute for Brain Disorders, Sanbo Brain Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Chongyang TangBeijing Key Laboratory of Epilepsy Research, Department of Brain Institute, Center of Epilepsy, Beijing Institute for Brain Disorders, Sanbo Brain Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Xiangru KongBeijing Key Laboratory of Epilepsy Research, Department of Brain Institute, Center of Epilepsy, Beijing Institute for Brain Disorders, Sanbo Brain Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Xiongfei WangBeijing Key Laboratory of Epilepsy Research, Department of Brain Institute, Center of Epilepsy, Beijing Institute for Brain Disorders, Sanbo Brain Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Yuguang GuanBeijing Key Laboratory of Epilepsy Research, Department of Brain Institute, Center of Epilepsy, Beijing Institute for Brain Disorders, Sanbo Brain Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Jian ZhouBeijing Key Laboratory of Epilepsy Research, Department of Brain Institute, Center of Epilepsy, Beijing Institute for Brain Disorders, Sanbo Brain Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Feng ZhaiBeijing Key Laboratory of Epilepsy Research, Department of Brain Institute, Center of Epilepsy, Beijing Institute for Brain Disorders, Sanbo Brain Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Guoming LuanBeijing Key Laboratory of Epilepsy Research, Department of Brain Institute, Center of Epilepsy, Beijing Institute for Brain Disorders, Sanbo Brain Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Tianfu LiBeijing Key Laboratory of Epilepsy Research, Department of Brain Institute, Center of Epilepsy, Beijing Institute for Brain Disorders, Sanbo Brain Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Capital Medical University · CNChinese Institute for Brain Research · CNBeijing Sanbo Brain Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) is an adjunctive treatment for pharmacoresistant epilepsy. Encephalomalacia is one of the most common MRI findings in the preoperative evaluation of patients with pharmacoresistant epilepsy. This is the first study that aimed to determine the effectiveness of VNS for pharmacoresistant epilepsy secondary to encephalomalacia and evaluate the potential predictors of VNS effectiveness. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the seizure outcomes of VNS with at least 1 year of follow-up in all patients with pharmacoresistant epilepsy secondary to encephalomalacia. Based on the effectiveness of VNS (≥50% or <50% reduction in seizure frequency), patients were divided into two subgroups: responders and non-responders. Preoperative data were analyzed to screen for potential predictors of VNS effectiveness. Results: A total of 93 patients with epilepsy secondary to encephalomalacia who underwent VNS therapy were recruited. Responders were found in 64.5% of patients, and 16.1% of patients achieved seizure freedom at the last follow-up. In addition, the responder rate increased over time, with 36.6, 50.5, 64.5, and 65.4% at the 3-, 6-, 12-, and 24-month follow-ups, respectively. After multivariate analysis, seizure onset in adults (>18 years old) (OR: 0.236, 95%CI: 0.059-0.949) was found to be a positive predictor, and the bilateral interictal epileptic discharges (IEDs) (OR: 3.397, 95%CI: 1.148-10.054) and the bilateral encephalomalacia on MRI (OR: 3.193, 95%CI: 1.217-8.381) were found to be negative predictors of VNS effectiveness. Conclusion: The results demonstrated the effectiveness and safety of VNS therapy in patients with pharmacoresistant epilepsy secondary to encephalomalacia. Patients with seizure onset in adults (>18 years old), unilateral IEDs, or unilateral encephalomalacia on MRI were found to have better seizure outcomes after VNS therapy.

Indexed as

effectivenessencephalomalaciapharmacoresistant epilepsypredictorvagus nerve stimulation

Identifiers

PMID36686529
PMCPMC9853158
OpenAlexW4313644767

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.