Short-term 30-day adverse events following awake versus asleep deep brain stimulation for movement disorders: a nationwide registry-based study
- PMID: 40895027
- PMCID: PMC12396027
- DOI: 10.1016/j.bas.2025.104393
Short-term 30-day adverse events following awake versus asleep deep brain stimulation for movement disorders: a nationwide registry-based study
Abstract
Introduction: Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS) is FDA-approved for the management of medically refractory movement disorders and epilepsy. We aim to assess potential differences in adverse eventsamong patients undergoing asleep versus awake DBS, to facilitate a patient centric decision-making process for the selection of ideal anesthesia modality for individuals undergoing DBS procedures.
Methods: The ACS National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database was queried for all patients undergoing DBS treatment between 2011 and 2020 in patients with a diagnosis of Parkinson's Disease, and Essential Tremor. Propensity score matching in a 2:1 ratio was performed. The primary endpoint was to quantify any short-term adverse events.
Results: In total, 1778 patients undergoing asleep (75.7 %) and awake DBS procedures (24.3 %) were identified. The median age among included was 68.0 with most being males (65 %). After 2:1 propensity score matching there was no remaining baseline difference. 30-day complication rates were comparable between groups (2.3 % asleep vs. 0.7 % awake; p = 0.062). Similarly, there were no significant differences in 30-day readmission (3.5 % vs. 3.5 %; p = 0.96), reoperation (1.4 % vs. 0.9 %; p = 0.48), or non-home discharge (3.5 % vs. 3.0 %; p = 0.63). Median hospital length of stay did not differ significantly (0 vs. 0 days; p = 0.23).
Conclusion: In this matched analysis using data from a prospective multicenter database of U.S. hospitals, asleep and awake DBS demonstrated comparable 30-day outcomes. No significant differences were observed in complication rates, readmissions, reoperations, discharge disposition, or length of hospital stay. These findings support clinical equipoise between the two approaches and underscore the importance of tailoring the choice of technique to individual patient characteristics and preferences.
Keywords: Asleep; Awake; Deep brain stimulation; General anesthesia; Local anesthesia.
© 2025 The Authors.
Conflict of interest statement
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.
Figures
References
-
- Chen T., Mirzadeh Z., Chapple K., Lambert M., Ponce F.A. Complication rates, lengths of stay, and readmission rates in “awake” and “asleep” deep brain simulation. J. Neurosurg. 2017;127(2):360–369. - PubMed
-
- El-Hajj V.G., Ghaith A.K., Gharios M., et al. General versus nongeneral anesthesia for carotid endarterectomy: a prospective multicenter registry-based study on 25 000 patients. Neurosurgery. 2024;95(2):365–371. - PubMed
-
- Engelhardt J., Caire F., Damon-Perrière N., et al. A phase 2 randomized trial of asleep versus awake subthalamic nucleus deep brain stimulation for Parkinson's disease. Stereotact. Funct. Neurosurg. 2021;99(3):230–240. - PubMed
-
- Ghaith A.K., El-Hajj V.G., Sanchez-Garavito J.E., et al. Trends in the utilization of surgical modalities for the treatment of drug-resistant epilepsy: a comprehensive 10-year analysis using the national inpatient sample. Neurosurgery. 2024 doi: 10.1227/neu.0000000000002811. Published online January 8. - DOI - PubMed
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
