SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Short-term 30-day adverse events following awake versus asleep deep brain stimulation for movement disorders: a nationwide registry-based study.

Brain Spine · 2025-08-13

DOI: 10.1016/j.bas.2025.104393PMID: 40895027

Open accessresearch-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

IntroductionDeep 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.MethodsThe 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.ResultsIn 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).ConclusionIn 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.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.