Skip to content

Comparison of the Efficacy of Double Monopolar Versus Interleaving Stimulation Modes for Pallidal Deep Brain Stimulation

Comparison of the Efficacy of Double Monopolar Versus Interleaving Stimulation Modes for the Deep Brain Stimulation Treatment of Primary Generalized or Segmental Dystonia

Status
Completed
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT01497639
Enrollment
34
Registered
2011-12-22
Start date
2012-03-31
Completion date
2018-06-07
Last updated
2018-11-26

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Primary Dystonia

Keywords

dystonia, pallidal stimulation, deep brain stimulation, deep brain stimulation of GPi, GPi, interleaving stimulation

Brief summary

The aim of the study is to compare the efficacy and the safety profile of the newly introduced interleaving stimulation mode to those of the standard double monopolar stimulation mode during pallidal deep brain stimulation of primary generalized or segmental dystonia.

Detailed description

Background: For the treatment of drug-refractory dystonia, bilateral pallidal deep brain stimulation (GPi-DBS) is proven to be an efficient option. On average, 40-55% improvement on dystonia rating scales (DRS) could be achieved according to the results of multicenter trials lasting for years. However, a considerable portion (10-25%) of the patients experience minimal alleviation despite of good electrode placement. These patients can be regarded as non-responders to GPi-DBS defined as having either limited improvement (\< 25% on DRS) or worsening. Besides adjusting the amplitude, frequency or pulse-width of stimulation, one can change the electrode configuration from the commonly applied single monopolar stimulation mode (one contact on the electrode is negative) to either double monopolar stimulation (two -usually adjacent- negative contacts on the electrode are stimulated with same amplitude and pulse-width values) or bipolar stimulation mode (one contact on the electrode is positive) in case of unsatisfactory outcomes. Although these techniques had been utilized in multicenter trials, non-responsiveness to GPi-DBS did occur. Recently the investigators have reported in the Movement Disorders that the newly introduced interleaving stimulation mode was superior to single or double monopolar stimulation in four patients who had initially (6-12 months after implantation) limited response to GPi DBS. Aims of the study: To systematically compare the efficacy and the side-effect profile of double monopolar stimulation mode to those of interleaving stimulation mode in a prospective, randomized, double-blind, and cross-over study. Methods: The investigators would enroll 20-25 patients with drug refractory segmental or generalized primary dystonia undergoing bilateral GPi-DBS implantation within a 2-3 year time frame. The inclusion and exclusion criteria would follow those of the study of Kupsch et al.

Interventions

DEVICEInterleaving stimulation mode (Medtronic)

Interleaving stimulation mode with constant frequency (125 Hz) and pulse-width (120us)parameters 'Interleavingr stimulation mode (Medtronic)'

DEVICEDouble monopolar stimulation mode (Medtronic)

Double monopolar stimulation mode with constant frequency (125 Hz) and pulse-width (120us)parameters 'Double monopolar stimulation mode (Medtronic)'

Sponsors

University of Pecs
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
CROSSOVER
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
QUADRUPLE (Subject, Caregiver, Investigator, Outcomes Assessor)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
7 Years to 75 Years
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* ages of 7 and 75 years * marked disability owing to primary generalized or segmental dystonia, despite optimal pharmacologic treatment * disease duration of at least 5 years.

Exclusion criteria

* previous brain surgery; * cognitive impairment (\< 120 points on the Mattis Dementia Rating Scale) * moderate-to-severe depression (\> 25 points on the Beck Depression Inventory) * marked brain atrophy as detected by magnetic resonance imaging * other medical or psychiatric coexisting disorders that could increase the surgical risk or interfere with completion of the trial

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Differences in severity of dystonia7 monthsDifferences in severity of dystonia measured by Burke-Fahn-Marsden Dystonia Rating Scale

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Number of treatment responders after three months deep brain stimulation7 monthsDifferences in number of treatment responders (at least 25% improvement on Burke-Fahn-Marsden Dystonia Rating Scale compared to baseline)
Health-related quality of life after three months deep brain stimulation7 monthsDifferences in health-related quality of life measured by EQ-5D and SF-36 scales
Side-effect profile after three months deep brain stimulation7 monthsDifferences in side-effect profile measured by stuctured deep brain stimulation-related side-effect questionnaire

Countries

Hungary

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026