Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T13:15:20.126Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A Systematic Review of Clinical Practice Guidelines on the Use of Deep Brain Stimulation for Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2023

Adele Mazzoleni*
Affiliation:
Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, London, United Kingdom
Shreya Bhatia
Affiliation:
Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, United Kingdom
Maria Anna Bantounou
Affiliation:
University of Aberdeen College of Life Sciences & Medicine, Aberdeen, United Kingdom National Medical Research Association, London, United Kingdom
Niraj S. Kumar
Affiliation:
National Medical Research Association, London, United Kingdom University College London, London, United Kingdom
Monika Dzalto
Affiliation:
Brighton and Sussex Medical School, Brighton, United Kingdom
Roy L. Soiza
Affiliation:
University of Aberdeen College of Life Sciences & Medicine, Aberdeen, United Kingdom
*
*Corresponding author.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Aims

Deep brain stimulation (DBS), an invasive neurosurgical treatment where electrical stimuli are delivered in target brain areas, is an intervention that has traditionally been used for neurological movement disorders, but that has recently been considered for the management of psychiatric conditions, one of these being obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD). This review aimed to identify and assess clinical practice guidelines on the use of DBS for OCD, and, secondly, whether or not recommendations are tailored to individual patient characteristics, such as age, gender and comorbidities.

Methods

A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, APA Psych Info and Scopus was conducted, along with guideline development organisation websites, using all relevant synonyms of: “Guideline and DBS and OCD”. Studies were assessed by two independent reviewers, and discrepancies managed by a third reviewer. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO, following the PRISMA checklist. Included guidelines were appraised using the AGREE-II instrument.

Results

Nine guidelines were identified in total. Eight recommended DBS as a last-line option in the management of OCD, whilst the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommended DBS should be used for research purposes only in OCD. Variability in the recommendations was also noted; indeed, only NICE undertook a cost-effectiveness analysis, and only the Congress of Neurological Surgeons (CNS) recommended target areas for electrode placement (i.e. subthalamic nucleus and nucleus accumbens). No guidelines clarified DBS settings, nor peri-operative optimisation measures. Patients’ preferences, age groups differences, ethnicity or comorbidities were not considered by any guideline. The guidelines’ quality ranged from moderate to high (50–92%), as per AGREE-II, with domains ‘scope and purpose’ and ‘editorial independence’ scoring the highest and ‘applicability’ and ‘stakeholder involvement’ the lowest across all guidelines.

Conclusion

Whilst eight guidelines supported the use of DBS for OCD as last-line therapy, a lack of cost-analysis, specific DBS settings, peri-operative procedures, and patients’ circumstances were analysed. Given the lack of randomised controlled trials in this field, more rigorous research is needed prior to wider DBS implementation.

Type
Research
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NC
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. This does not need to be placed under each abstract, just each page is fine.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Royal College of Psychiatrists

Footnotes

Abstracts were reviewed by the RCPsych Academic Faculty rather than by the standard BJPsych Open peer review process and should not be quoted as peer-reviewed by BJPsych Open in any subsequent publication.

Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.