PURPOSE: To evaluate the use of EEG responses to transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS-EEG responses) as a noninvasive tool for the diagnosis of focal epilepsy. METHODS: Fifteen patients and 15 healthy subjects were studied. TMS at an intensity set at resting corticomotor threshold were delivered at the standard EEG electrode positions. For each position, EEG responses to TMS were evaluated before and after averaging EEG recordings synchronized with the TMS pulse. RESULTS: Two types of TMS-EEG responses were seen: (A) early responses: consisting of a single slow wave seen after the TMS pulse; and (B) late TMS-EEG responses, which were subclassified into (b.1) delayed responses: waveforms resembling interictal epileptiform discharges induced by TMS; or (b.2) repetitive responses: onset of a new rhythym induced by TMS. Early responses were observed in patients and healthy subjects when stimulating at various sites and were considered normal responses to TMS. Late TMS-EEG responses were not seen in healthy subjects, whereas they were seen in 11 of the 15 epileptic patients. Late TMS-EEG responses occurred when stimulating the epileptogenic side in eight out of the nine patients who had lateralized late TMS-EEG responses. The combined use of late TMS-EEG responses and interictal scalp EEG would have suggested the diagnosis of focal epilepsy in all patients, despite the absence of late TMS-EEG responses in four patients and the presence of normal interictal scalp EEG in three. CONCLUSIONS: TMS-EEG responses can identify epileptogenic cortex and may substantially improve the diagnosis of focal epilepsy, particularly, if combined with standard EEG studies.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the use of EEG responses to transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS-EEG responses) as a noninvasive tool for the diagnosis of focal epilepsy. METHODS: Fifteen patients and 15 healthy subjects were studied. TMS at an intensity set at resting corticomotor threshold were delivered at the standard EEG electrode positions. For each position, EEG responses to TMS were evaluated before and after averaging EEG recordings synchronized with the TMS pulse. RESULTS: Two types of TMS-EEG responses were seen: (A) early responses: consisting of a single slow wave seen after the TMS pulse; and (B) late TMS-EEG responses, which were subclassified into (b.1) delayed responses: waveforms resembling interictal epileptiform discharges induced by TMS; or (b.2) repetitive responses: onset of a new rhythym induced by TMS. Early responses were observed in patients and healthy subjects when stimulating at various sites and were considered normal responses to TMS. Late TMS-EEG responses were not seen in healthy subjects, whereas they were seen in 11 of the 15 epilepticpatients. Late TMS-EEG responses occurred when stimulating the epileptogenic side in eight out of the nine patients who had lateralized late TMS-EEG responses. The combined use of late TMS-EEG responses and interictal scalp EEG would have suggested the diagnosis of focal epilepsy in all patients, despite the absence of late TMS-EEG responses in four patients and the presence of normal interictal scalp EEG in three. CONCLUSIONS: TMS-EEG responses can identify epileptogenic cortex and may substantially improve the diagnosis of focal epilepsy, particularly, if combined with standard EEG studies.
Authors: Mouhsin M Shafi; Marine Vernet; Debby Klooster; Catherine J Chu; Katica Boric; Mollie E Barnard; Kelsey Romatoski; M Brandon Westover; Joanna A Christodoulou; John D E Gabrieli; Susan Whitfield-Gabrieli; Alvaro Pascual-Leone; Bernard S Chang Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2015-01-29 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Mouhsin M Shafi; Susan Whitfield-Gabrieli; Catherine J Chu; Alvaro Pascual-Leone; Bernard S Chang Journal: J Vis Exp Date: 2016-11-13 Impact factor: 1.355
Authors: Simone Rossi; Andrea Antal; Sven Bestmann; Marom Bikson; Carmen Brewer; Jürgen Brockmöller; Linda L Carpenter; Massimo Cincotta; Robert Chen; Jeff D Daskalakis; Vincenzo Di Lazzaro; Michael D Fox; Mark S George; Donald Gilbert; Vasilios K Kimiskidis; Giacomo Koch; Risto J Ilmoniemi; Jean Pascal Lefaucheur; Letizia Leocani; Sarah H Lisanby; Carlo Miniussi; Frank Padberg; Alvaro Pascual-Leone; Walter Paulus; Angel V Peterchev; Angelo Quartarone; Alexander Rotenberg; John Rothwell; Paolo M Rossini; Emiliano Santarnecchi; Mouhsin M Shafi; Hartwig R Siebner; Yoshikatzu Ugawa; Eric M Wassermann; Abraham Zangen; Ulf Ziemann; Mark Hallett Journal: Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2020-10-24 Impact factor: 4.861