» Articles » PMID: 36639237

Interim Safety Profile From the Feasibility Study of the BrainGate Neural Interface System

Abstract

Background And Objectives: Brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) are being developed to restore mobility, communication, and functional independence to people with paralysis. Though supported by decades of preclinical data, the safety of chronically implanted microelectrode array BCIs in humans is unknown. We report safety results from the prospective, open-label, nonrandomized BrainGate feasibility study (NCT00912041), the largest and longest-running clinical trial of an implanted BCI.

Methods: Adults aged 18-75 years with quadriparesis from spinal cord injury, brainstem stroke, or motor neuron disease were enrolled through 7 clinical sites in the United States. Participants underwent surgical implantation of 1 or 2 microelectrode arrays in the motor cortex of the dominant cerebral hemisphere. The primary safety outcome was device-related serious adverse events (SAEs) requiring device explantation or resulting in death or permanently increased disability during the 1-year postimplant evaluation period. The secondary outcomes included the type and frequency of other adverse events and the feasibility of the BrainGate system for controlling a computer or other assistive technologies.

Results: From 2004 to 2021, 14 adults enrolled in the BrainGate trial had devices surgically implanted. The average duration of device implantation was 872 days, yielding 12,203 days of safety experience. There were 68 device-related adverse events, including 6 device-related SAEs. The most common device-related adverse event was skin irritation around the percutaneous pedestal. There were no safety events that required device explantation, no unanticipated adverse device events, no intracranial infections, and no participant deaths or adverse events resulting in permanently increased disability related to the investigational device.

Discussion: The BrainGate Neural Interface system has a safety record comparable with other chronically implanted medical devices. Given rapid recent advances in this technology and continued performance gains, these data suggest a favorable risk/benefit ratio in appropriately selected individuals to support ongoing research and development.

Trial Registration Information: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00912041.

Classification Of Evidence: This study provides Class IV evidence that the neurosurgically placed BrainGate Neural Interface system is associated with a low rate of SAEs defined as those requiring device explantation, resulting in death, or resulting in permanently increased disability during the 1-year postimplant period.

Citing Articles

Bacteria invade the brain following intracortical microelectrode implantation, inducing gut-brain axis disruption and contributing to reduced microelectrode performance.

Hoeferlin G, Grabinski S, Druschel L, Duncan J, Burkhart G, Weagraff G Nat Commun. 2025; 16(1):1829.

PMID: 39979293 PMC: 11842729. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-025-56979-4.


A method for efficient, rapid, and minimally invasive implantation of individual non-functional motes with penetrating subcellular-diameter carbon fiber electrodes into rat cortex.

Letner J, Lam J, Copenhaver M, Barrow M, Patel P, Richie J bioRxiv. 2025; .

PMID: 39974888 PMC: 11838573. DOI: 10.1101/2025.02.05.636655.


Caregivers in implantable brain-computer interface research: a scoping review.

Wohns N, Dorfman N, Klein E Front Hum Neurosci. 2024; 18:1490066.

PMID: 39545148 PMC: 11560881. DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2024.1490066.


Implanted cortical neuroprosthetics for speech and movement restoration.

Muirhead W, Layard Horsfall H, Aicardi C, Carolan J, Akram H, Vanhoestenberghe A J Neurol. 2024; 271(11):7156-7168.

PMID: 39446156 PMC: 11561076. DOI: 10.1007/s00415-024-12604-w.


The speech neuroprosthesis.

Silva A, Littlejohn K, Liu J, Moses D, Chang E Nat Rev Neurosci. 2024; 25(7):473-492.

PMID: 38745103 PMC: 11540306. DOI: 10.1038/s41583-024-00819-9.


References
1.
Bacher D, Jarosiewicz B, Masse N, Stavisky S, Simeral J, Newell K . Neural Point-and-Click Communication by a Person With Incomplete Locked-In Syndrome. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2014; 29(5):462-71. PMC: 4426256. DOI: 10.1177/1545968314554624. View

2.
Bolu Ajiboye A, Willett F, Young D, Memberg W, Murphy B, Miller J . Restoration of reaching and grasping movements through brain-controlled muscle stimulation in a person with tetraplegia: a proof-of-concept demonstration. Lancet. 2017; 389(10081):1821-1830. PMC: 5516547. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30601-3. View

3.
Vergani F, Landi A, Pirillo D, Cilia R, Antonini A, Sganzerla E . Surgical, medical, and hardware adverse events in a series of 141 patients undergoing subthalamic deep brain stimulation for Parkinson disease. World Neurosurg. 2010; 73(4):338-44. DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2010.01.017. View

4.
Degenhart A, Eles J, Dum R, Mischel J, Smalianchuk I, Endler B . Histological evaluation of a chronically-implanted electrocorticographic electrode grid in a non-human primate. J Neural Eng. 2016; 13(4):046019. PMC: 4993459. DOI: 10.1088/1741-2560/13/4/046019. View

5.
Doshi P . Long-term surgical and hardware-related complications of deep brain stimulation. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg. 2011; 89(2):89-95. DOI: 10.1159/000323372. View