Risk of seizures induced by intracranial research stimulation: analysis of 770 stimulation sessions

• Authors: Hannah E Goldstein, Columbia University; Eliot H Smith, Columbia University; Robert Gross, Emory University; Barbara C Jobst, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center; Bradley C Lega, University of Texas, Southwestern, Dallas; Michael R Sperling, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital; Gregory A Worrell, Mayo Clinic, Rochester; Kareem A Zaghloul, NINDS, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda; Paul A Wanda, University of Pennsylvania; Michael J Kahana, University of Pennsylvania; Daniel S Rizzuto, University of Pennsylvania; Catherien A Schevon, Columbia University; Guy M McKhann, Columbia University; Sameer A Sheth, Baylor College of Medicine
• Journal Title: JOURNAL OF NEURAL ENGINEERING
• Volume: Volume 16, Number 6
• Publisher: IOP PUBLISHING LTD | 2019-12-01, Pages 066039-066039
• Type of Work: Article | Post-print: After Peer Review
• Publisher DOI: http://doi.org/10.1088/1741-2552/ab4365
• Subjects: Health Sciences, Medicine and Surgery
• Keywords: Science & Technology; Technology; Life Sciences & Biomedicine; Engineering, Biomedical; Neurosciences; Engineering; Neurosciences & Neurology; research stimulation; seizures; intracranial stimulation; neuroethics; MOTOR EVOKED-POTENTIALS; CORTICAL STIMULATION; TUMOR-SURGERY; SAFETY; CORTEX; LOCALIZATION; DISCHARGES

Abstract

Objective. Patients with medically refractory epilepsy often undergo intracranial electroencephalography (iEEG) monitoring to identify a seizure focus and determine their candidacy for surgical intervention. This clinically necessary monitoring period provides an increasingly utilized research opportunity to study human neurophysiology, however ethical concerns demand a thorough appreciation of the associated risks. We measured the incidence of research stimulation-Associated seizures in a large multi-institutional dataset in order to determine whether brain stimulation was statistically associated with seizure incidence and identify potential risk factors for stimulation-Associated seizures. Approach. 188 subjects undergoing iEEG monitoring across ten institutions participated in 770 research stimulation sessions over 3.5 yr. Seizures within 30 min of a stimulation session were included in our retrospective analysis. We analyzed stimulation parameters, seizure incidence, and typical seizure patterns, to assess the likelihood that recorded seizures were stimulation-induced, rather than events that occurred by chance in epilepsy patients prone to seizing. Main results. In total, 14 seizures were included in our analysis. All events were single seizures, and no adverse events occurred. The mean amplitude of seizure-Associated stimulation did not differ significantly from the mean amplitude delivered in sessions without seizures. In order to determine the likelihood that seizures were stimulation induced, we used three sets of analyses: visual iEEG analysis, statistical frequency, and power analyses. We determined that three of the 14 seizures were likely stimulation-induced, five were possibly stimulation-induced, and six were unlikely stimulation-induced. Overall, we estimate a rate of stimulation-induced seizures between 0.39% and 1.82% of sessions. Significance. The rarity of stimulation-Associated seizures and the fact that none added morbidity or affected the clinical course of any patient are important findings for understanding the feasibility and safety of intracranial stimulation for research purposes.