4.5 Article

The effect of dexmedetomidine on the firing properties of STN neurons in Parkinson's disease

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE
卷 42, 期 4, 页码 2070-2077

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ejn.13004

关键词

alpha-2 adrenergic agonist; beta oscillations; burst pattern; deep brain stimulation; intra-operative sedation; microelectrode recording

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Dexmedetomidine (an alpha-2 adrenergic agonist) sedation is commonly used during subthalamic nucleus (STN) deep-brain stimulation (DBS). Its effects on the electrophysiological characteristics of human STN neurons are largely unknown. We hypothesised that dexmedetomidine modulates the firing rates and bursting of human STN neurons. We analysed microelectrode recording (MER) data from patients with Parkinson's disease who underwent STN DBS. A Dex bolus' group (dexmedetomidine bolus prior to MER; 27 cells from seven patients) was compared with a no sedation' group (29 cells from 11 patients). We also performed within-patient comparisons with varying dexmedetomidine states. Cells were classified as dorsal half or ventral half based on their relative location in the STN. Neuronal burst and oscillation characteristics were analysed using the Kaneoke-Vitek methodology and local field potential (LFP) oscillatory activity was also investigated. Dexmedetomidine was associated with a slight increase in firing rate (41.1 +/- 9.9 vs. 34.5 +/- 10.6Hz, P=0.02) but a significant decrease in burstiness (number of bursts, P=0.02; burst index, P<0.001; percentage of spikes in burst, P=0.002) of dorsal but not ventral STN neurons. This was not associated with modulation of beta oscillations in the spike-oscillations analysis(beta peak, P = 0.4; signal-to-noise ratio in the beta range for spikes and bursts, P = 0.3 and P = 0.5, respectively) and LFP analysis (Beta power, P = 0.17). As bursting pattern is often used to identify STN and guide electrode placement, we recommend that high-dose dexmedetomidine should be avoided during DBS surgery.

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

4.5
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