Literature DB >> 17409389

Transcranial magnetic stimulation and muscle contraction to enhance stroke recovery: a randomized proof-of-principle and feasibility investigation.

Valerie M Pomeroy1, Geoffrey Cloud, Raymond C Tallis, Catherine Donaldson, Veena Nayak, Simon Miller.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To explore the efficacy of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and voluntary muscle contraction (VMC) to improve corticospinal transmission, muscle function, and purposeful movement early after stroke.
METHODS: Factorial 2 x 2 randomized single-blind trial.
SUBJECTS: n = 27, mean age 75 years, mean 27 days after middle cerebral artery infarct (24 subjects completed outcome measures). PROCEDURE: after baseline measurement (day 1), subjects were randomized to 1 of 4 groups. Treatment was given for the next 8 working days, and outcome was measured on day 10.
INTERVENTIONS: (a) Real-rTMS + RealVMC, (b) Real-rTMS + PlaceboVMC, (c) Placebo-rTMS + RealVMC, and (d) Placebo-rTMS + PlaceboVMC. Real-rTMS consisted of 200 1-Hz stimuli at 120% motor threshold in 5 blocks of 40 separated by 3 minutes delivered to the lesioned hemisphere. Placebo-rTMS used a dummy coil. In RealVMC, the paretic elbow was repeatedly flexed/extended for 5 minutes. In PlaceboVMC, subjects viewed pairs of drawings of upper limbs and reported their likeness. OUTCOMES: frequency of motor-evoked potentials in biceps and triceps, muscle function (torque about elbow), and purposeful movement (Action Research Arm Test). ANALYSIS: group mean changes (outcome - baseline) were compared.
RESULTS: In the Real-rTMS + RealVMC group, motor-evoked potential frequency increased 14% for biceps and 20% for triceps, whereas in the Placebo-rTMS + PlaceboVMC group, it decreased 12% for biceps and 6% for triceps. For other groups, there were changes of intermediate values. No meaningful differences were found for secondary outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: A positive trend for motor-evoked potential frequency was found for Real-rTMS + RealVMC, whereas a negative trend for motor-evoked potential frequency was found for Placebo-rTMS + PlaceboVMC.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17409389     DOI: 10.1177/1545968307300418

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neurorehabil Neural Repair        ISSN: 1545-9683            Impact factor:   3.919


  27 in total

Review 1.  Noninvasive brain stimulation in neurorehabilitation.

Authors:  Marco Sandrini; Leonardo G Cohen
Journal:  Handb Clin Neurol       Date:  2013

2.  Rethinking stimulation of the brain in stroke rehabilitation: why higher motor areas might be better alternatives for patients with greater impairments.

Authors:  Ela B Plow; David A Cunningham; Nicole Varnerin; Andre Machado
Journal:  Neuroscientist       Date:  2014-06-20       Impact factor: 7.519

3.  Differential effect of conditioning sequences in coupling inhibitory/facilitatory repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for poststroke motor recovery.

Authors:  Chih-Pin Wang; Po-Yi Tsai; Tsui Fen Yang; Kuang-Yao Yang; Chien-Chih Wang
Journal:  CNS Neurosci Ther       Date:  2014-01-15       Impact factor: 5.243

Review 4.  Shaping plasticity to enhance recovery after injury.

Authors:  Numa Dancause; Randolph J Nudo
Journal:  Prog Brain Res       Date:  2011       Impact factor: 2.453

5.  Bilateral motor priming for post stroke upper extremity hemiparesis: A randomized pilot study.

Authors:  Mary Ellen Stoykov; Erin King; Fabian J David; Amanda Vatinno; Louis Fogg; Daniel M Corcos
Journal:  Restor Neurol Neurosci       Date:  2020       Impact factor: 2.406

6.  Active-passive bilateral therapy as a priming mechanism for individuals in the subacute phase of post-stroke recovery: a feasibility study.

Authors:  Mary Ellen Stoykov; James W Stinear
Journal:  Am J Phys Med Rehabil       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 2.159

Review 7.  Understanding and enhancing motor recovery after stroke using transcranial magnetic stimulation.

Authors:  Erik H Hoyer; Pablo A Celnik
Journal:  Restor Neurol Neurosci       Date:  2011       Impact factor: 2.406

Review 8.  Effects of non-invasive brain stimulation on post-stroke dysphagia: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Jessica M Pisegna; Asako Kaneoka; William G Pearson; Sandeep Kumar; Susan E Langmore
Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  2015-05-09       Impact factor: 3.708

9.  Challenges in Recruitment for the Study of Noninvasive Brain Stimulation in Stroke: Lessons from Deep Brain Stimulation.

Authors:  Kelsey A Potter-Baker; Corin E Bonnett; Patrick Chabra; Sarah Roelle; Nicole Varnerin; David A Cunningham; Vishwanath Sankarasubramanian; Svetlana Pundik; Adriana B Conforto; Andre G Machado; Ela B Plow
Journal:  J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis       Date:  2016-02-02       Impact factor: 2.136

Review 10.  Invasive cortical stimulation to promote recovery of function after stroke: a critical appraisal.

Authors:  Ela B Plow; James R Carey; Randolph J Nudo; Alvaro Pascual-Leone
Journal:  Stroke       Date:  2009-04-09       Impact factor: 7.914

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.