Outcomes after deep brain stimulation for elderly versus non-elderly patients with Parkinson’s disease

Le résumé fourni par la source

INTRODUCTION: The decision to offer deep brain stimulation (DBS) to elderly patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) presents challenges due to higher perceived risks and uncertain long-term benefits. Here, we aimed to compare the outcomes after DBS for elderly versus non-elderly patients with PD. METHODS: We analyzed data from our institutional cohort and retrieved publicly available data through a systematic review. The exposure was age at DBS electrode insertion, which was defined as elderly (≥70 years old) and non-elderly (<70 years old). The outcomes examined were changes in the Movement Disorders Society-Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) or UPDRS part III total score, levodopa-equivalent daily dose (LEDD), and adverse events. RESULTS: The included studies and our cohort comprised a total of 527 patients, with 111 (21.1 %) classified as elderly. There was no statistically significant difference in the change in MDS-UPDRS or UPDRS part III total score and generally no statistically significant difference in the change in LEDD between the elderly and non-elderly patients. Elderly patients had a higher incidence of wound infection (elderly 5.4 % vs non-elderly 1.9 %; p = 0.087) and inadequate wound healing (elderly 3.6 % vs non-elderly 1.4 %; p = 0.230), but this difference was not statistically significant. There was no significant difference in the incidence of mortality (elderly 0 % vs non-elderly 0 %; p = 1.000), stroke (elderly 0 % vs non-elderly 0.2 %; p = 1.000), and cognitive decline between the age groups. CONCLUSIONS: Notwithstanding the trend towards a higher risk of wound infection and inadequate wound healing, elderly patients have similar motor outcomes and levels of PD medication reduction as non-elderly patients after DBS for PD. Hence, age should not be used as the sole criterion for determining eligibility for DBS, and the decision to offer DBS to elderly patients should be personalized and made in a multidisciplinary setting, taking into consideration patient- and disease-related factors.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.