Vagus Nerve Stimulation Paired With Rehabilitation for Upper Limb Motor Impairment and Function After Chronic Ischemic Stroke: Subgroup Analysis of the Randomized, Blinded, Pivotal, VNS-REHAB Device Trial

Background Vagus Nerve Stimulation (VNS) paired with rehabilitation improved upper extremity impairment and function in a recent pivotal, randomized, triple-blind, sham-controlled trial in people with chronic arm weakness after stroke. Objective We aimed to determine whether treatment effects varied across candidate subgroups, such as younger age or less injury. Methods Participants were randomized to receive rehabilitation paired with active VNS or rehabilitation paired with sham stimulation (Control). The primary outcome was the change in impairment measured by the Fugl-Meyer Assessment Upper Extremity (FMA-UE) score on the first day after completion of 6-weeks in-clinic therapy. We explored the effect of VNS treatment by sex, age (≥62 years), time from stroke (>2 years), severity (baseline FMA-UE score >34), paretic side of body, country of enrollment (USA vs UK) and presence of cortical involvement of the index infarction. We assessed whether there was any interaction with treatment. Findings The primary outcome increased by 5.0 points (SD 4.4) in the VNS group and by 2.4 points (SD 3.8) in the Control group (P=.001, between group difference 2.6, 95% CI 1.03-4.2). The between group difference was similar across all subgroups and there were no significant treatment interactions. There was no important difference in rates of adverse events across subgroups. Conclusion The response was similar across subgroups examined. The findings suggest that the effects of paired VNS observed in the VNS-REHAB trial are likely to be consistent in wide range of stroke survivors with moderate to severe upper extremity impairment

Variation in neurosurgical management of traumatic brain injury

Background: Neurosurgical management of traumatic brain injury (TBI) is challenging, with only low-quality evidence. We aimed to explore differences in neurosurgical strategies for TBI across Europe. Methods: A survey was sent to 68 centers participating in the Collaborative European Neurotrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study. The questionnaire contained 21 questions, including the decision when to operate (or not) on traumatic acute subdural hematoma (ASDH) and intracerebral hematoma (ICH), and when to perform a decompressive craniectomy (DC) in raised intracranial pressure (ICP). Results: The survey was completed by 68 centers (100%). On average, 10 neurosurgeons work in each trauma center. In all centers, a neurosurgeon was available within 30 min. Forty percent of responders reported a thickness or volume threshold for evacuation of an ASDH. Most responders (78%) decide on a primary DC in evacuating an ASDH during the operation, when swelling is present. For ICH, 3% would perform an evacuation directly to prevent secondary deterioration and 66% only in case of clinical deterioration. Most respondents (91%) reported to consider a DC for refractory high ICP. The reported cut-off ICP for DC in refractory high ICP, however, differed: 60% uses 25 mmHg, 18% 30 mmHg, and 17% 20 mmHg. Treatment strategies varied substantially between regions, specifically for the threshold for ASDH surgery and DC for refractory raised ICP. Also within center variation was present: 31% reported variation within the hospital for inserting an ICP monitor and 43% for evacuating mass lesions. Conclusion: Despite a homogeneous organization, considerable practice variation exists of neurosurgical strategies for TBI in Europe. These results provide an incentive for comparative effectiveness research to determine elements of effective neurosurgical care