Development of intraoperative electrochemical detection: Wireless instantaneous neurochemical concentration sensor for deep brain stimulation feedback

Department of Neurological Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota 55905, USA.
Neurosurgical FOCUS (Impact Factor: 2.11). 08/2010; 29(2):E6. DOI: 10.3171/2010.5.FOCUS10110
Source: PubMed


Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is effective when there appears to be a distortion in the complex neurochemical circuitry of the brain. Currently, the mechanism of DBS is incompletely understood; however, it has been hypothesized that DBS evokes release of neurochemicals. Well-established chemical detection systems such as microdialysis and mass spectrometry are impractical if one is assessing changes that are happening on a second-to-second time scale or for chronically used implanted recordings, as would be required for DBS feedback. Electrochemical detection techniques such as fast-scan cyclic voltammetry (FSCV) and amperometry have until recently remained in the realm of basic science; however, it is enticing to apply these powerful recording technologies to clinical and translational applications. The Wireless Instantaneous Neurochemical Concentration Sensor (WINCS) currently is a research device designed for human use capable of in vivo FSCV and amperometry, sampling at subsecond time resolution. In this paper, the authors review recent advances in this electrochemical application to DBS technologies. The WINCS can detect dopamine, adenosine, and serotonin by FSCV. For example, FSCV is capable of detecting dopamine in the caudate evoked by stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus/substantia nigra in pig and rat models of DBS. It is further capable of detecting dopamine by amperometry and, when used with enzyme linked sensors, both glutamate and adenosine. In conclusion, WINCS is a highly versatile instrument that allows near real-time (millisecond) detection of neurochemicals important to DBS research. In the future, the neurochemical changes detected using WINCS may be important as surrogate markers for proper DBS placement as well as the sensor component for a "smart" DBS system with electrochemical feedback that allows automatic modulation of stimulation parameters. Current work is under way to establish WINCS use in humans.

Download full-text


Available from: Kevin Bennet,
  • Source
    • "of extra - cellular neuronal activity ( Smith and Grace , 1992 ; Benazzouz et al . , 2000 ; Hashimoto et al . , 2003 ; Maurice et al . , 2003 ; Johnson et al . , 2005 ; Kita et al . , 2005 ; Miocinovic et al . , 2006 ) recent advances in electrode technology allow in vivo mon - itoring of synaptic neurotransmitter activity ( Roham et al . , 2007 ; van Gompel et al . , 2010 ) ."
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Current strategies for optimizing deep brain stimulation (DBS) therapy involve multiple postoperative visits. During each visit, stimulation parameters are adjusted until desired therapeutic effects are achieved and adverse effects are minimized. However, the efficacy of these therapeutic parameters may decline with time due at least in part to disease progression, interactions between the host environment and the electrode, and lead migration. As such, development of closed-loop control systems that can respond to changing neurochemical environments, tailoring DBS therapy to individual patients, is paramount for improving the therapeutic efficacy of DBS. Evidence obtained using electrophysiology and imaging techniques in both animals and humans suggests that DBS works by modulating neural network activity. Recently, animal studies have shown that stimulation-evoked changes in neurotransmitter release that mirror normal physiology are associated with the therapeutic benefits of DBS. Therefore, to fully understand the neurophysiology of DBS and optimize its efficacy, it may be necessary to look beyond conventional electrophysiological analyses and characterize the neurochemical effects of therapeutic and non-therapeutic stimulation. By combining electrochemical monitoring and mathematical modeling techniques, we can potentially replace the trial-and-error process used in clinical programming with deterministic approaches that help attain optimal and stable neurochemical profiles. In this manuscript, we summarize the current understanding of electrophysiological and electrochemical processing for control of neuromodulation therapies. Additionally, we describe a proof-of-principle closed-loop controller that characterizes DBS-evoked dopamine changes to adjust stimulation parameters in a rodent model of DBS. The work described herein represents the initial steps toward achieving a "smart" neuroprosthetic system for treatment of neurologic and psychiatric disorders.
    Frontiers in Neuroscience 06/2014; 8(8):169. DOI:10.3389/fnins.2014.00169 · 3.66 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "As a matter of fact, the Wireless Instantaneous Neurochemical Concentration Sensor (WINCS) is currently a research device, whose resolution was established on pig brain, but it is designed for human use and is capable of in vivo FSCV plus amperometry, sampling at sub-second time resolution (Agnesi et al., 2009; Van Gompel et al., 2010). It promises, for instance, to assess if and to what extent effective STN-DBS is actually changing the tonic/phasic release of endogenous dopamine in human caudate/putamen (Covey and Garris, 2009; Van Gompel et al., 2010). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Deep brain stimulation (DBS) of the subthalamic nucleus (STN), in Parkinson's disease (PD) patients, is a well established therapeutic option, but its mechanisms of action are only partially known. In our previous study, the clinical transitions from OFF- to ON-state were not correlated with significant changes of GABA content inside GPi or substantia nigra reticulata. Here, biochemical effects of STN-DBS have been assessed in putamen (PUT), internal pallidus (GPi), and inside the antero-ventral thalamus (VA), the key station receiving pallidothalamic fibers. In 10 advanced PD patients undergoing surgery, microdialysis samples were collected before and during STN-DBS. cGMP, an index of glutamatergic transmission, was measured in GPi and PUT by radioimmunoassay, whereas GABA from VA was measured by HPLC. During clinically effective STN-DBS, we found a significant decrease in GABA extracellular concentrations in VA (-30%). Simultaneously, cGMP extracellular concentrations were enhanced in PUT (+200%) and GPi (+481%). These findings support a thalamic dis-inhibition, in turn re-establishing a more physiological corticostriatal transmission, as the source of motor improvement. They indirectly confirm the relevance of patterning (instead of mere changes of excitability) and suggest that a rigid interpretation of the standard model, at least when it indicates the hyperactive indirect pathway as key feature of hypokinetic signs, is unlikely to be correct. Finally, given the demonstration of a key role of VA in inducing clinical relief, locally administration of drugs modulating GABA transmission in thalamic nuclei could become an innovative therapeutic strategy.
    Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience 04/2011; 5:17. DOI:10.3389/fnsys.2011.00017
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Restorations from disorders of consciousness such as the minimally conscious state and the vegetative state have been achieved spontaneously or by pharmacological agents such as zolpidem, baclofen, dopaminergic agents and tricyclic antidepressants in some patients. Other restoration methods have included electric and magnetic nerve stimulation, oxygen, Kreb's cycle constituent substitution and axonal re-growth. Although apparently unrelated, these methods all influence neurotransmitter availability or production within the brain. This review proposes depleted neurotransmitter function as a cause for long term brain suppression and disorders of consciousness. It unifies fundamentally different treatment approaches and explores the restoration of neurotransmitter function as a common theme to improve brain function after brain damage.
    Medical Hypotheses 05/2011; 77(2):209-13. DOI:10.1016/j.mehy.2011.04.014 · 1.07 Impact Factor
Show more