Endovascular deep brain stimulation: Investigating the relationship between vascular structures and deep brain stimulation targets

BackgroundEndovascular delivery of current using ‘stentrodes’ – electrode bearing stents – constitutes a potential alternative to conventional deep brain stimulation (DBS). The precise neuroanatomical relationships between DBS targets and the vascular system, however, are poorly characterized to date.ObjectiveTo establish the relationships between cerebrovascular system and DBS targets and investigate the feasibility of endovascular stimulation as an alternative to DBS.MethodsNeuroanatomical targets as employed during deep brain stimulation (anterior limb of the internal capsule, dentatorubrothalamic tract, fornix, globus pallidus pars interna, medial forebrain bundle, nucleus accumbens, pedunculopontine nucleus, subcallosal cingulate cortex, subthalamic nucleus, and ventral intermediate nucleus) were superimposed onto probabilistic vascular atlases obtained from 42 healthy individuals. Euclidian distances between targets and associated vessels were measured. To determine the electrical currents necessary to encapsulate the predefined neurosurgical targets and identify potentially side-effect inducing substrates, a preliminary volume of tissue activated (VTA) analysis was performed.ResultsSix out of ten DBS targets were deemed suitable for endovascular stimulation: medial forebrain bundle (vascular site: P1 segment of posterior cerebral artery), nucleus accumbens (vascular site: A1 segment of anterior cerebral artery), dentatorubrothalamic tract (vascular site: s2 segment of superior cerebellar artery), fornix (vascular site: internal cerebral vein), pedunculopontine nucleus (vascular site: lateral mesencephalic vein), and subcallosal cingulate cortex (vascular site: A2 segment of anterior cerebral artery). While VTAs effectively encapsulated mfb and NA at current thresholds of 3.5 V and 4.5 V respectively, incremental amplitude increases were required to effectively cover fornix, PPN and SCC target (mean voltage: 8.2 ± 4.8 V, range: 3.0–17.0 V). The side-effect profile associated with endovascular stimulation seems to be comparable to conventional lead implantation. Tailoring of targets towards vascular sites, however, may allow to reduce adverse effects, while maintaining the efficacy of neural entrainment within the target tissue.ConclusionsWhile several challenges remain at present, endovascular stimulation of select DBS targets seems feasible offering novel and exciting opportunities in the neuromodulation armamentarium.