Natural disease progression vs. DBS-related worsening in essential tremor
Bakri, N.; Ramirez-Zamora, A.; Okun, M. S.; Foote, K.; Christou, E. A.; Oweiss, K.
Show abstract
Essential tremor is a disabling and highly prevalent movement disorder. Deep brain stimulation of the ventral intermediate nucleus provides substantial symptom relief; however, many patients experience diminishing benefit over time. The underlying causes range from natural disease progression and worsening ataxia to, less commonly, habituation or tolerance. We performed a retrospective longitudinal analysis of 86 individuals with essential tremor who underwent unilateral ventral intermediate nucleus deep brain stimulation and had three or more follow-up visits (mean follow-up duration 5.2 years; maximum 15.4 years; >470 total visits). This approach provided a unique opportunity to assess contralateral limbs in addition to long term effects of stimulation. Tremor severity was quantified using the Fahn-Tolosa-Marin Tremor Rating Scale total score and subscores, with particular focus on contralateral and ipsilateral upper-extremity tremor. Longitudinal trajectories were assessed across limbs and stimulation states at both the population and individual levels. Comparison of tremor between the non-stimulated side and the stimulated side were conducted in the stimulation off condition and served as an intrinsic control to disentangle natural disease progression from tolerance to deep brain stimulation. Contralateral and ipsilateral upper-extremity tremor assessed with stimulation off showed slow, bilateral progression over time. Tremor in the ipsilateral limb followed the same trajectory as the unstimulated contralateral limb, consistent with natural disease progression. Stimulation exerted no measurable cross-hemispheric influence, as ipsilateral tremor progressed similarly with stimulation on and off. During chronic stimulation, tremor progression in the stimulated limb closely tracked that of the ipsilateral limb, with most patients showing no meaningful difference between sides. Progression in the stimulated limb was also similar during stimulation on and off conditions, suggesting that habituation, stimulation-induced maladaptation, or deep brain stimulation-accelerated decline was not observed in this cohort. Long-term symptoms of worsening tremor in essential tremor patients with unilateral ventral intermediate nucleus deep brain stimulation were primarily driven by natural disease progression, not by deep brain stimulation-related causes. While tolerance may rarely emerge, the dominant effect of worsening is disease progression. In this cohort, the stimulation programming parameters were individually optimised over time, likely minimizing the influence of suboptimal programming or stimulation-related decline. These findings underscore the importance of extended comprehensive outcome assessment in essential tremor, incorporating objective measures to distinguish disease progression from treatment-related effects. Follow-up studies are needed to better characterise the relative contributions of tremor and ataxia to long-term disability.
Matching journals
The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Analyses of biomarkers for tremor using local field potentials recorded from deep brain stimulation electrodes in the thalamus 94%
- Persistent synaptic inhibition of the subthalamic nucleus by high frequency stimulation 93%
- Automated Deep Brain Stimulation programming based on electrode location – a randomized, cross-over trial using a data-driven algorithm 93%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Shared pathway-specific network mechanisms of dopamine and deep brain stimulation for the treatment of Parkinson's disease 94%
- A human brain network linked to restoration of consciousness after deep brain stimulation 94%
- Toward a unified connectomic target for deep brain stimulation in obsessive-compulsive disorder 92%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.