ArticleHeadache2025
The clinical effect of an implanted vagus nerve stimulator in a patient with chronic cluster headache and focal epilepsy - A case report.
Article in Headache, 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.
- Without getting under your skin: non-invasive stimulation activates the vagus nerve.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2026Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTreatment for chronic cluster headache (CCH) is often insufficient. Non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS) was shown to be effective as acute treatment in episodic cluster headache (ECH) and open-label studies have shown a potential effect in CCH. The effect of invasive vagus nerve stimulation (iVNS) has not been formally studied in cluster headache (CH). CASE DESCRIPTION: We report on a 71-year-old male with CCH and refractory epilepsy. His CH attacks present as extreme left-sided orbital pain with autonomic symptoms and fulfill the International Classification of Headache Disorder, third edition criteria. ECH started at the age of 8 years and progressed to CCH at the age of 10 years. Abortive treatment with sumatriptan or oxygen was effective, but prophylactic treatment was not tolerated or insufficient. Separately, he experienced episodic paroxysmal symptoms without pain, diagnosed as right frontotemporal focal epilepsy by ictal video-electroencephalogram recording. His seizures were refractory to treatment and a vagus nerve stimulator was implanted. Following surgery, both his seizures and CCH improved. Simultaneously with the titration of iVNS stimulation settings, his CH frequency decreased from 7 to 1 attack/week. Over 70 weeks post-implantation, this decrease in attack frequency persists. His only side-effect was hoarseness during the 7-s stimulation period of each duty cycle. Interestingly, CH frequency increased during a temporary iVNS deactivation for an unrelated procedure and decreased again once iVNS was reactivated.
conclusionIn this case, iVNS was followed by >75% decrease in CH attack frequency. While natural disease course or placebo effect cannot be excluded, (i) the continued effect 70 weeks post-surgery, (ii) the dose-response effect with stimulation settings, and (iii) return of daily attacks during temporary iVNS deactivation suggest that iVNS could be responsible for the decreased attack frequency. As patients with CCH need more treatment options, further research into VNS as preventive treatment for CCH could be beneficial.
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.