Background: Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is used to modulate the activity of dysfunctional brain circuits. The safety and efficacy of DBS in dementia is unknown.Objective: To assess DBS of memory circuits as a treatment for patients with mild Alzheimer’s disease (AD).Methods: We evaluated active “on” versus sham “off” bilateral DBS directed at the fornix-a major fiber bundle in the brain’s memory circuit-in a randomized, double-blind trial (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01608061) in 42 patients with mild AD. We measured cognitive function and cerebral glucose metabolism up to 12 months post-implantation.Results: Surgery and electrical stimulation were safe and well tolerated. There were no significant differences in the primary cognitive outcomes (ADAS-Cog 13, CDR-SB) in the “on” versus “off” stimulation group at 12 months for the whole cohort. Patients receiving stimulation showed increased metabolism at 6 months but this was not significant at 12 months. On post-hoc analysis, there was a significant interaction between age and treatment outcome: in contrast to patients <65 years old (n = 12) whose results trended toward being worse with DBS ON versus OFF, in patients≥65 (n = 30) DBS-f ON treatment was associated with a trend toward both benefit on clinical outcomes and a greater increase in cerebral glucose metabolism.Conclusion: DBS for AD was safe and associated with increased cerebral glucose metabolism. There were no differences in cognitive outcomes for participants as a whole, but participants aged≥65 years may have derived benefit while there was possible worsening in patients below age 65 years with stimulation.

Combining Grades I and II AVMs and combining Grades IV and V AVMs is justified in part because the differences in surgical results between these respective pairs are small. The proposed 3-tier classification of AVMs offers simplification of the Spetzler-Martin system, provides a guide to treatment, and is predictive of outcome. The revised classification not only simplifies treatment recommendations; by placing patients into 3 as opposed to 5 groups, statistical power is markedly increased for series comparisons.

The hemorrhage risk of 1.5% per year, which was associated with Grades IV and V AVMs appears to be lower than that reported for Grades I through III AVMs. The authors recommend that no treatment be given for most Grades IV and V AVMs. No evidence indicates that partial treatment of an AVM reduces a patient's risk of hemorrhage. In fact, partial treatment may worsen the natural history of an AVM. The authors do not support palliative treatment of AVMs, except in the specific circumstances of arterial or intranidal aneurysms or progressive neurological deficits related to vascular steal. Complete treatment is warranted for patients with progressive neurological deficits caused by hemorrhage of the AVM. This selection process plays a significant role in the relatively low combined morbidity and mortality rates for Grade IV and Grade V AVMs (17 and 22%, respectively) reported by the cerebrovascular group in both retrospective and prospective studies.