Skip to main content
OpenTrials
Completed

NCT Number: NCT01497639

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

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.

Completed

Looking for future studies?

Notify Me

Key information

Age range

7 year–75 year

Sex eligibility

All sexes

Study type

Interventional

Phase

Not applicable

Primary location

Department of Neurology, University of Pécs

Pécs, Baranya, H-7623, Hungary

About this study

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.

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: No

Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.

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

Treatment and study plan

Interleaving stimulation mode (Medtronic)

Device

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

Other names: Medtronic Activa RC Interleaving Stimulation Mode

Double monopolar stimulation mode (Medtronic)

Device

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

Other names: Medtronic Activa RC Double Monopolar Stimulation Mode

Primary outcomes

  1. Differences in severity of dystonia

    Time frame: 7 months

    Differences in severity of dystonia measured by Burke-Fahn-Marsden Dystonia Rating Scale

Secondary outcomes

  1. Number of treatment responders after three months deep brain stimulation

    Time frame: 7 months

    Differences in number of treatment responders (at least 25% improvement on Burke-Fahn-Marsden Dystonia Rating Scale compared to baseline)

  2. Health-related quality of life after three months deep brain stimulation

    Time frame: 7 months

    Differences in health-related quality of life measured by EQ-5D and SF-36 scales

  3. Side-effect profile after three months deep brain stimulation

    Time frame: 7 months

    Differences in side-effect profile measured by stuctured deep brain stimulation-related side-effect questionnaire

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

University of Pecs

Other

Registry information

Official study title

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

Important dates

Study start
2012
Primary completion
2018
Study completion
2018
First posted
Dec 22, 2011
Registry last updated
Nov 26, 2018

OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.

View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)

This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.

Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.