4.7 Article

Evidence-based guideline update: Vagus nerve stimulation for the treatment of epilepsy Report of the Guideline Development Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology

期刊

NEUROLOGY
卷 81, 期 16, 页码 1453-1459

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e3182a393d1

关键词

-

资金

  1. American Academy of Neurology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To evaluate the evidence since the 1999 assessment regarding efficacy and safety of vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) for epilepsy, currently approved as adjunctive therapy for partial-onset seizures in patients >12 years. Methods: We reviewed the literature and identified relevant published studies. We classified these studies according to the American Academy of Neurology evidence-based methodology. Results: VNS is associated with a >50% seizure reduction in 55%(95% confidence interval [CI] 50%-59%) of 470 children with partial or generalized epilepsy (13 Class III studies). VNS is associated with a >50% seizure reduction in 55% (95% CI 46%-64%) of 113 patients with Lennox-Gastaut syndrome (LGS) (4 Class III studies). VNS is associated with an increase in >= 50% seizure frequency reduction rates of similar to 7% from 1 to 5 years postimplantation (2 Class III studies). VNS is associated with a significant improvement in standard mood scales in 31 adults with epilepsy (2 Class III studies). Infection risk at the VNS implantation site in children is increased relative to that in adults (odds ratio 3.4, 95% CI 1.0-11.2). VNS is possibly effective for seizures (both partial and generalized) in children, for LGS-associated seizures, and for mood problems in adults with epilepsy. VNS may have improved efficacy over time. Recommendations: VNS may be considered for seizures in children, for LGS-associated seizures, and for improving mood in adults with epilepsy (Level C). VNS may be considered to have improved efficacy over time (Level C). Children should be carefully monitored for site infection after VNS implantation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据