Latency of subthalamic nucleus deep brain stimulation-evoked cortical activity as a potential biomarker for postoperative motor side effects

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2020.02.021Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Motor adverse deep brain stimulation (DBS) activates cortex at shorter latencies than therapeutic DBS.

  • This latency shift is maintained under general anesthesia.

  • DBS-evoked cortical activation can accurately predict DBS motor side effects.

Abstract

Objective

Here, we investigate whether cortical activation predicts motor side effects of deep brain stimulation (DBS) and whether these potential biomarkers have utility under general anesthesia.

Methods

We recorded scalp potentials elicited by DBS during surgery (n = 11), both awake and under general anesthesia, and in an independent ambulatory cohort (n = 8). Across a range of stimulus configurations, we measured the amplitude and timing of short- and long-latency response components and linked them to motor side effects.

Results

Regardless of anesthesia state, in both cohorts, DBS settings with capsular side effects elicited early responses with peak latencies clustering at <1 ms. This early response was preserved under anesthesia in all participants (11/11). In contrast, the long-latency components were suppressed completely in 6/11 participants. Finally, the latency of the earliest response could predict the presence of postoperative motor side effects both awake and under general anesthesia (84.8% and 75.8% accuracy, awake and under anesthesia, respectively).

Conclusion

DBS elicits short-latency cortical activation, both awake and under general anesthesia, which appears to reveal interactions between the stimulus and the corticospinal tract.

Significance

Short-latency evoked cortical activity can potentially be used to aid both DBS lead placement and post-operative programming.

Introduction

Parkinson’s disease (PD) is a debilitating disorder that impacts approximately 1% of people over age 60 worldwide (de Lau and Breteler, 2006). Deep brain stimulation (DBS) improves the motor symptoms of PD; however, we lack fundamental knowledge about how it modulates brain activity and which neural circuits are critical for both the therapeutic and adverse effects of stimulation. Consequently, individual responses to DBS vary widely in efficacy and tolerability.

Although stimulation sites in dorsal subthalamic nucleus (STN) or in the zona incerta are often clinically effective (Butson et al., 2011, Herzog et al., 2004, Saint-Cyr et al., 2009), DBS contacts just millimeters apart can have dramatically different effects (Eisenstein et al., 2014, Martens et al., 2011, Steigerwald et al., 2016, Tommasi et al., 2008). This presumably results from variations in functional neuroanatomy surrounding the electrode, with multiple gray and white matter structures in close proximity. In particular, the STN and other established targets for movement disorders are directly adjacent to the internal capsule. Incidental capsular activation can worsen speech, gait, and bradykinesia, forcing some patients to trade bothersome side effects for efficacy or to undergo additional craniotomy for lead revision (Falowski and Bakay, 2016, Nestor et al., 2014, Tommasi et al., 2008, Xu et al., 2011).

To mitigate the unpredictable effects of stimulation, exhaustive behavioral testing has historically guided clinical decision-making during implantation and programming (Machado et al., 2006). Most centers still use electrophysiology to guide lead placement in awake patients, despite the discomforts of craniotomy, in order to verify efficacy and measure dose-limiting side effects at a given stimulation site. Recent advances in intraoperative imaging now allow targeting under general anesthesia and show some promise (Chen et al., 2017) but may produce more stimulation side effects versus awake procedures (Ho et al., 2018). Additionally, regardless of surgical targeting methods, postoperative DBS programming is a time-consuming, trial-and-error process (Krack et al., 2002), often taking weeks to months to achieve stable, effective settings (Volkmann et al., 2006). Because of its subjective and heuristic nature, this process can lead to unsatisfactory, sub-optimal outcomes, even with well-placed leads (Okun et al., 2005).

Predictive biomarkers to quickly identify DBS contacts for inclusion/exclusion could vastly simplify and expedite both DBS targeting (awake or asleep) and postoperative programming. Among a variety of candidate DBS biomarkers, local field potentials (LFPs) have been studied most extensively and show promise for guiding DBS therapy (Little and Brown, 2012). Notably, spectral power in the beta frequency range (10–30 Hz) in STN and cortex correlates with symptom severity and DBS efficacy, and can identify the STN dorsal border during surgery (Bronte-Stewart et al., 2009, de Hemptinne et al., 2015, Ince et al., 2010, Kühn et al., 2006, Swann et al., 2016, Tinkhauser et al., 2018). However, to our knowledge, little is known about whether LFPs predict stimulation side effects or the extent to which LFPs are altered under general anesthesia.

The neural responses evoked by DBS, time-locked to each stimulus pulse, are an alternative and potentially complementary biomarker. Early feasibility studies show that various components of STN, thalamic, and cortical evoked potentials (EPs) appear to correlate with efficacy (Baker et al., 2002, Gmel et al., 2015, Kent et al., 2015, Sinclair et al., 2019, Sinclair et al., 2018, Walker et al., 2012b, Walker et al., 2012a). Cortical EPs also result from capsular activation producing contralateral electromyography (EMG) activation (Ashby et al., 2001). Thus, beyond predicting efficacy, cortical EPs might additionally serve as a biomarker for motor side effects without the need for placing EMG electrodes on every potentially activated muscle.

We have previously shown that long latency cortical EPs can predict capsular motor side effects from DBS (Romeo et al., 2019). However, it is unknown whether this information can be obtained under general anesthesia. Here, we further investigate whether short latency cortical activation by STN DBS can predict the presence of motor side effects and explore whether short- and long-latency EPs could have utility under general anesthesia.

Section snippets

Participants

All patients were diagnosed with PD by a movement disorders specialist based on UK Brain Bank criteria, and DBS was recommended as part of routine care. We examined cortical EPs elicited by STN DBS in two cohorts (n = 19 total). To study the effects of general anesthesia on DBS evoked activity, we enrolled a cohort of patients who had been approved for DBS surgery (n = 11, 44 electrode contacts) and examined EPs both awake during lead placement and under general anesthesia during connection of

Demographics and clinical outcomes

The age and duration of disease on the day of surgery was 65.0 ± 6.2 and 7.4 ± 3.8 years, respectively (n = 19, mean ± SD). We implanted the left hemisphere in 12 of 19 cases (63%), and 7 of 19 of the participants were women (37%). Both the surgical and ambulatory cohorts showed significant improvement in the contralateral Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) part 3 subscore “off” medications during intraoperative macrostimulation (mean change 8.4 ± 1.7, 42% improvement, p < 0.001,

Discussion

Here we provide early evidence that the precise timing of scalp potentials elicited by stimulation in the STN region can predict motor side effects from DBS. Very short latency EPs (<1 ms), most compatible with antidromic activation of the corticospinal/corticobulbar tracts, were associated with stimulation parameters that elicited capsular side effects. We observed this phenomenon at the STN target in two independent cohorts and across three different clinical venues (awake and under general

Funding

This work was supported by Medtronic, Inc.; the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke of the National Institutes of Health (grant no. UH3NS100553); and the Michael J. Fox Foundation. Funding sources had no involvement in the collection, analysis, or interpretation of data, or in the writing of this manuscript.

Author contributions

HW, BG, KS, and TM contributed to conception and design of the study. MA, CG, AN, BG, KS, TM, and HW contributed to data collection. ZT, MA, CG, AN, and HW contributed to data analysis. ZT, MA, CG, JB, and HW wrote the manuscript draft. All authors contributed to manuscript revisions, and have read and approved the submitted version.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

References (50)

  • A.D. Kirsch et al.

    Anodic versus cathodic neurostimulation of the subthalamic nucleus: A randomized-controlled study of acute clinical effects

    Parkinsonism Relat Disord

    (2018)
  • H.C.F. Martens et al.

    Spatial steering of deep brain stimulation volumes using a novel lead design

    Clin Neurophysiol

    (2011)
  • K. Novak et al.

    The refractory period of fast conducting corticospinal tract axons in man and its implications for intraoperative monitoring of motor evoked potentials

    Clin Neurophysiol

    (2004)
  • A. Romeo et al.

    Cortical activation elicited by subthalamic deep brain stimulation predicts postoperative motor side effects

    Neuromodulation Technol Neural Interface

    (2019)
  • N.C. Sinclair et al.

    Deep brain stimulation for Parkinson’s disease modulates high-frequency evoked and spontaneous neural activity

    Neurobiol Dis

    (2019)
  • W. Xu et al.

    Dissociation of motor symptoms during deep brain stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus in the region of the internal capsule

    Exp Neurol

    (2011)
  • M.T. Alkire et al.

    Consciousness and Anesthesia

    Science

    (2008)
  • K.B. Baker et al.

    Subthalamic nucleus deep brain stimulus evoked potentials: Physiological and therapeutic implications

    Mov Disord

    (2002)
  • S.G. Boyd et al.

    A method of monitoring function in corticospinal pathways during scoliosis surgery with a note on motor conduction velocities

    J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry

    (1986)
  • C. de Hemptinne et al.

    Therapeutic deep brain stimulation reduces cortical phase-amplitude coupling in Parkinson’s disease

    Nat Neurosci

    (2015)
  • S.A. Eisenstein et al.

    Functional anatomy of subthalamic nucleus stimulation in Parkinson disease

    Ann Neurol

    (2014)
  • L. Firmin et al.

    Axon diameters and conduction velocities in the macaque pyramidal tract

    J Neurophysiol

    (2014)
  • G.E. Gmel et al.

    A new biomarker for subthalamic deep brain stimulation for patients with advanced Parkinson’s disease–a pilot study

    J Neural Eng

    (2015)
  • V. Gradinaru et al.

    Optical deconstruction of Parkinsonian neural circuitry

    Science

    (2009)
  • J. Herzog et al.

    Most effective stimulation site in subthalamic deep brain stimulation for Parkinson’s disease

    Mov Disord

    (2004)
  • Cited by (9)

    • Evoked potentials generated by deep brain stimulation for Parkinson's disease

      2022, Brain Stimulation
      Citation Excerpt :

      Further, studies in anesthetized rats report the presence of only short-latency STN-induced cEPs whereas conscious rats also exhibit intermediate- and long-latency cEPs [19,31,44]. Irwin et al. [35] similarly found R1 components preserved and R2/R3 components suppressed under anesthesia in humans. Activity that arises from polysynaptic activation is strongly suppressed by anesthesia [45] supporting that R1 is due to direct activation of fibers and antidromic propagation to cortex.

    • Electrophysiological characterization of the hyperdirect pathway and its functional relevance for subthalamic deep brain stimulation

      2022, Experimental Neurology
      Citation Excerpt :

      Short-latency EP are less variable in timing than the later responses (Walker et al., 2012a) and are accompanied by motor evoked potentials (MEP) in most of the studies co-registering electromyography (EMG) (Ashby et al., 2001; Irwin et al., 2020; Miocinovic et al., 2018). Moreover, if the first eCR has a very short latency (<1 ms), this is indicative of motor side effects (Irwin et al., 2020). This relationship between MEP and eCR further supports the idea that cortical responses at short latencies occur due to CST activation (Irwin et al., 2020; Miocinovic et al., 2018).

    • Image-based biophysical modeling predicts cortical potentials evoked with subthalamic deep brain stimulation

      2021, Brain Stimulation
      Citation Excerpt :

      We propose that standards are needed for the application of connectomic DBS modeling methods to clinical DBS studies, which begins with redefining the objectives. We recommend that connectomic models be evaluated based on well-defined electrophysiological measurements of neuronal activation [105–107]. Doing so distills concepts into testable hypotheses on which neural pathways are directly tied to symptom relief and/or disease state.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    1

    These authors contributed equally to this work.

    View full text