Search

This study explored illness experiences and decision-making among patients with epilepsy who underwent two different types of surgical interventions: resection versus implantation of the NeuroPace Responsive Neurostimulation System (RNS). We recruited 31 participants from a level four epilepsy center in an academic medical institution. We observed 22 patient clinic visits (resection: n = 10, RNS: n = 12) and conducted 18 in-depth patient interviews (resection: n = seven, RNS: n = 11); most visits and interviews included patient caregivers. Using an applied ethnographic approach, we identified three major themes in the experiences of resection versus RNS patients. First, for patients in both cohorts, the therapeutic journey was circuitous in ways that defied standardized first-, second-, and third- line of care models. Second, in conceptualizing risk, resection patients emphasized the permanent loss of "taking out" brain tissue whereas RNS patients highlighted the reversibility of "putting in" a device. Lastly, in considering benefit, resection patients perceived their surgery as potentially curative while RNS patients understood implantation as primarily palliative with possible additional diagnostic benefit from chronic electrocorticography. Insight into the perspectives of patients and caregivers may help identify key topics for counseling and exploration by clinicians., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Newer "closed-loop" neurostimulation devices in development could, in theory, induce changes to patients' personalities and self-perceptions. Empirically, however, only limited data of patient and family experiences exist. Responsive neurostimulation (RNS) as a treatment for refractory epilepsy is the first approved and commercially available closed-loop brain stimulation system in clinical practice, presenting an opportunity to observe how conceptual neuroethical concerns manifest in clinical treatment. Methods: We conducted ethnographic research at a single academic medical center with an active RNS treatment program and collected data via direct observation of clinic visits and in-depth interviews with 12 patients and their caregivers. We used deductive and inductive analyses to identify the relationship between these devices and patient changes in personality and self-perception. Results: Participants generally did not attribute changes in patients' personalities or self-perception to implantation of or stimulation using RNS. They did report that RNS affected patients' experiences and conceptions of illness. In particular, the capacity to store and display electrophysiological data produced a common frame of reference and a shared vocabulary among patients and clinicians. Discussion: Empirical experiences of a clinical population being treated with closed-loop neuromodulation do not corroborate theoretical concerns about RNS devices described by neuroethicists and technology developers. However, closed-loop devices demonstrated an ability to change illness experiences. Even without altering identify and self-perception, they provided new cultural tools and metaphors for conceiving of epilepsy as an illness and of the process of diagnosis and treatment. These findings call attention to the need to situate neuroethical concerns in the broader contexts of patients' illness experiences and social circumstances.

This study explored illness experiences and decision-making among patients with epilepsy who underwent two different types of surgical interventions: resection versus implantation of the NeuroPace Responsive Neurostimulation System (RNS). We recruited 31 participants from a level four epilepsy center in an academic medical institution. We observed 22 patient clinic visits (resection: n = 10, RNS: n = 12) and conducted 18 in-depth patient interviews (resection: n = seven, RNS: n = 11); most visits and interviews included patient caregivers. Using an applied ethnographic approach, we identified three major themes in the experiences of resection versus RNS patients. First, for patients in both cohorts, the therapeutic journey was circuitous in ways that defied standardized first-, second-, and third- line of care models. Second, in conceptualizing risk, resection patients emphasized the permanent loss of taking out brain tissue whereas RNS patients highlighted the reversibility of putting in a device. Lastly, in considering benefit, resection patients perceived their surgery as potentially curative while RNS patients understood implantation as primarily palliative with possible additional diagnostic benefit from chronic electrocorticography. Insight into the perspectives of patients and caregivers may help identify key topics for counseling and exploration by clinicians.

BackgroundNewer "closed-loop" neurostimulation devices in development could, in theory, induce changes to patients' personalities and self-perceptions. Empirically, however, only limited data of patient and family experiences exist. Responsive neurostimulation (RNS) as a treatment for refractory epilepsy is the first approved and commercially available closed-loop brain stimulation system in clinical practice, presenting an opportunity to observe how conceptual neuroethical concerns manifest in clinical treatment.MethodsWe conducted ethnographic research at a single academic medical center with an active RNS treatment program and collected data via direct observation of clinic visits and in-depth interviews with 12 patients and their caregivers. We used deductive and inductive analyses to identify the relationship between these devices and patient changes in personality and self-perception.ResultsParticipants generally did not attribute changes in patients' personalities or self-perception to implantation of or stimulation using RNS. They did report that RNS affected patients' experiences and conceptions of illness. In particular, the capacity to store and display electrophysiological data produced a common frame of reference and a shared vocabulary among patients and clinicians.DiscussionEmpirical experiences of a clinical population being treated with closed-loop neuromodulation do not corroborate theoretical concerns about RNS devices described by neuroethicists and technology developers. However, closed-loop devices demonstrated an ability to change illness experiences. Even without altering identify and self-perception, they provided new cultural tools and metaphors for conceiving of epilepsy as an illness and of the process of diagnosis and treatment. These findings call attention to the need to situate neuroethical concerns in the broader contexts of patients' illness experiences and social circumstances.