Trial reportEpilepsia open2025
A pilot study on the programming protocol of vagus nerve stimulation in children with drug-resistant epilepsy: High pulse amplitude or high duty cycle.
Trial report in Epilepsia open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the efficacy and safety of vagus nerve stimulation using different modes in patients with drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE).
methodsChildren with DRE who underwent vagus nerve stimulator implantation between March 2019 and December 2022 were prospectively enrolled at the Peking University First Hospital. Ninety-four children were randomly divided into the high pulse amplitude [pulse amplitude was gradually increased to maximum tolerance value (≤2.8 mA) and duty cycle was maintained at 10%] and high duty cycle groups [pulse amplitude was maintained at 1.5 mA and duty cycle was subsequently increased to maximum tolerance value (≤37%)]. At the 55-week follow-up, the responder rate, seizure-free rate, and adverse effects were compared between the two groups.
resultsNinety-four children with DRE were included (47 patients each in the high pulse amplitude group and the high duty cycle group). For epileptic seizures, the responder rate of the high pulse amplitude group was 53.2% (25/47), while that of the high duty cycle group was 38.3% (18/47). High pulse amplitude had a higher responder rate of focal seizures (60.7% in the high pulse amplitude group vs. 29.2% in the high duty cycle group; chi-squared test, p = 0.023). Among children with a ≥ 75% reduction in epileptic spasms, the high duty cycle group had a higher responder rate than the high pulse amplitude group (54.5% vs. 16.7%; Fisher's exact test, p = 0.022). In addition, in the high duty cycle group, the responder rate in children with epileptic spasms was higher than that in children without epileptic spasms (59.1% vs. 20.0%; chi-square test, p = 0.011). Among children with implantation age <6 years, the responder rate of the high pulse amplitude group was higher (chi-square test, p = 0.024). The incidence of adverse effects in the two groups was not statistically different. SIGNIFICANCE: The overall responder rates in the two modes were similar. The high pulse amplitude mode may be more effective for focal seizures, whereas the high duty cycle mode may be more effective for epileptic spasms. Patients aged <6 years with DRE and VNS implantation may require a higher pulse amplitude to achieve better efficacy. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: This study compared the anti-seizure efficacy of two different vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) treatments. We found that the overall efficacy of the two treatments was similar. The high pulse amplitude mode may be more effective for focal seizures, whereas the high duty cycle mode may be more effective for epileptic spasms. Patients aged <6 years with drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) and VNS treatment may require a higher pulse amplitude to achieve better efficacy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.