| Literature DB >> 21188156 |
Takuji Kurimoto1, Shinichirou Oono, Hidehiro Oku, Yuichi Tagami, Ryousuke Kashimoto, Masashi Takata, Norio Okamoto, Tsunehiko Ikeda, Osamu Mimura.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this article is to investigate the effect of transcorneal electrical stimulation (TES) on chorioretinal blood flow in healthy human subjects.Entities:
Keywords: chorioretinal blood flow; healthy human subjects; laser speckle flowgraphy; transcorneal electrical stimulation
Year: 2010 PMID: 21188156 PMCID: PMC3000770 DOI: 10.2147/OPTH.S14573
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Clin Ophthalmol ISSN: 1177-5467
Figure 1Representative images of the chorioretinal blood flow taken by a LSFG instrument with a SBR. A) Before TES. Squares were positioned in three different areas: the rim of the optic disc flanked by two branched vessels crossing the margin of optic disc. This area was selected so that there were no blood vessels. The other two areas were a point midway between the optic disc and macula and the macula area. The macula area was identified by the region without retinal vessels. B) Twenty-four hours after TES. The averaged SBR values within the square for each measurement are indicated below the square. The color map of chorioretinal blood flow shows an increase of blood flow after TES. In all areas, the chorioretinal blood flow was increased, especially in the midway point.
Figure 2Changes of the mean standardized blur ratio in volunteers with (n = 6) or without (n = 4) TES (mean ± SEM). Dash lines indicate the TES group and solid lines the sham stimulation group. A) In optic disc area, there were no significant differences between the sham stimulation and TES at any times. B) However, for the point located midway between the optic disc and macula, the mean standardized blur ratio was significantly increased at immediate, 3, and 24 h after TES. C) Similarly in the macula area, the mean standardized blur ratio was significantly increased at 3 and 24 h after TES.
Notes: Statistical analysis was performed by two-way repeated measures ANOVA post hoc unpaired t test, *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01. The mean standardized blur ratio was calculated as the ratio of the standardized SBR, which was the ratio of the stimulated eye to the fellow eye, at each measurement point to that of prestimulation at the baseline.
Time course of standardized blur ratio after TES in optic disc and macula
| Time course (h) | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pre | Im(0) | 0.5 | 1.0 | 1.5 | 2.0 | 2.5 | 3.0 | 24 | 40 | |||
| Subject 1 | 1.00 | 1.21 | 0.98 | 1.05 | 1.01 | 1.01 | 1.01 | 1.07 | 1.23 | 1.05 | ||
| Subject 2 | 1.00 | 1.40 | 1.37 | 1.53 | 1.46 | 1.38 | 1.16 | 1.82 | 1.64 | 1.29 | ||
| Subject 3 | 1.00 | 0.96 | 0.88 | 1.76 | 1.60 | 1.64 | 1.48 | 1.23 | 1.53 | 1.51 | ||
| Subject 4 | 1.00 | 1.35 | 1.01 | 1.18 | 1.17 | 1.19 | 1.15 | 1.46 | 1.34 | 1.25 | ||
| Subject 5 | 1.00 | 1.10 | 1.08 | 1.03 | 1.14 | 1.09 | 1.02 | 1.21 | 1.05 | 0.97 | ||
| Subject 6 | 1.00 | 1.25 | 1.91 | 1.79 | 1.16 | 1.35 | 1.74 | 1.27 | 1.59 | 1.06 | ||
| Mean ± SEM | 1.21 ± 0.07 | 1.21 ± 0.16 | 1.39 ± 0.14 | 1.26 ± 0.09 | 1.28 ± 0.09 | 1.26 ± 0.12 | 1.34 ± 0.11 | 1.40 ± 0.09 | 1.19 ± 0.08 | |||
| Subject 1 | 1.00 | 1.01 | 0.96 | 1.06 | 0 99 | 0.95 | 0.87 | 1.06 | 1.05 | 1.07 | ||
| Subject 2 | 1.00 | 0.83 | 0.75 | 0.79 | 0.94 | 0.92 | 0.96 | 0.66 | 0.84 | 0.89 | ||
| Subject 3 | 1.00 | 0.87 | 1.05 | 1.18 | 1.24 | 1.23 | 1.25 | 1.10 | 0.91 | 1.21 | ||
| Subject 4 | 1.00 | 0.98 | 0.99 | 1.06 | 0.98 | 0.97 | 0.97 | 0.95 | 0.97 | 0.83 | ||
| Mean ± SEM | 0.92 ± 0.04 | 0.94 ± 0.07 | 1.03 ± 0.08 | 1.04 ± 0.07 | 1.02 ± 0.07 | 1.01 ± 0.08 | 0.94 ± 0.10 | 0.94 ± 0.05 | 1.00 ± 0.09 | |||
| Subject 1 | 1.00 | 1.45 | 1.02 | 0.97 | 1.04 | 0.99 | 1.20 | 1.22 | 0.78 | 1.00 | ||
| Subject 2 | 1.00 | 1.35 | 1.39 | 1.66 | 1.27 | 0.97 | 1.33 | 1.78 | 1.43 | 1.15 | ||
| Subject 3 | 1.00 | 1.32 | 1.03 | 1.12 | 1.25 | 1.09 | 1.27 | 1.07 | 0.91 | 1.04 | ||
| Subject 4 | 1.00 | 1.24 | 0.74 | 0.86 | 1.17 | 1.04 | 1.03 | 1.05 | 1.68 | 1 38 | ||
| Subject 5 | 1.00 | 1.27 | 1.45 | 1.17 | 1.75 | 1.16 | 1.02 | 0.90 | 1.59 | 1.46 | ||
| Subject 6 | 1.00 | 1.75 | 2.24 | 1.58 | 1.50 | 1.70 | 2.18 | 1.61 | 1.83 | 1.20 | ||
| Mean ± SEM | 1.40 ± 0.08 | 1.31 ± 0.21 | 1.23 ± 0.13 | 1.33 ± 0.10 | 1.16 ± 0.11 | 1.34 ± 0.18 | 1.27 ± 0.14 | 1.37 ± 0.18 | 1.20 ± 0.08 | |||
| Subject 1 | 1.00 | 1.19 | 1.38 | 1.30 | 1.07 | 1.05 | 0.91 | 1.16 | 0.91 | 0.99 | ||
| Subject 2 | 1.00 | 1.25 | 1.20 | 1.11 | 1.07 | 0.96 | 1.03 | 0.92 | 0.90 | 1.08 | ||
| Subject 3 | 1.00 | 1.06 | 0.96 | 1.43 | 1.72 | 1.40 | 1.35 | 1.19 | 1.06 | 1.12 | ||
| Subject 4 | 1.00 | 1.05 | 1.10 | 1.17 | 0.93 | 1.02 | 0.89 | 0.99 | 0.79 | 0.93 | ||
| Mean ± SEM | 1.14 ± 0.05 | 1.16 ± 0.09 | 1.25 ± 0.07 | 1.12 ± 0.18 | 1.11 ± 0.10 | 1.05 ± 0.11 | 1.07 ± 0.07 | 0.91 ± 0.05 | 1.03 ± 0.04 | |||
| Subject 1 | 1.00 | 1.30 | 1.16 | 1.18 | 1.07 | 1.11 | 1.21 | 1.21 | 1.38 | 1.29 | ||
| Subject 2 | 1.00 | 1.03 | 0.92 | 1.06 | 1.33 | 1.14 | 0.95 | 1.34 | 1.40 | 1.23 | ||
| Subject 3 | 1.00 | 0.82 | 1.06 | 1.21 | 1.39 | 1.17 | 1.15 | 1.29 | 1.32 | 1.94 | ||
| Subject 4 | 1.00 | 1.40 | 1.28 | 1.40 | 1.62 | 1.48 | 1.76 | 2.07 | 1.95 | 1.62 | ||
| Subject 5 | 1.00 | 1.17 | 1.61 | 0.97 | 1.03 | 1.04 | 1.22 | 1.32 | 1.76 | 2.44 | ||
| Subject 6 | 1.00 | 1.22 | 1.74 | 1.41 | 0.96 | 1.43 | 1.59 | 1.19 | 1.39 | 1.04 | ||
| Mean ± SEM | 1.16 ± 0.09 | 1.30 ± 0.13 | 1.20 ± 0.07 | 1.23 ± 0.10 | 1.23 ± 0.07 | 1.31 ± 0.12 | 1.40 ± 0.14 | 1.53 ± 0.11 | 1.59 ± 0.21 | |||
| Subject 1 | 1.00 | 0.75 | 0.75 | 0.81 | 0.89 | 0.83 | 0.71 | 0.84 | 0.85 | 0.96 | ||
| Subject 2 | 1.00 | 0.98 | 1.02 | 0.87 | 1.05 | 1.17 | 1.08 | 0.84 | 0.84 | 1.03 | ||
| Subject 3 | 1.00 | 0.92 | 0.96 | 1.14 | 1.24 | 1.37 | 1.24 | 1.05 | 0.97 | 1.18 | ||
| Subject 4 | 1.00 | 1.05 | 1.06 | 1.05 | 1.06 | 1.05 | 0.79 | 0.86 | 0.80 | 0.95 | ||
| Mean ± SEM | 0.92 ± 0.06 | 0.95 ± 0.07 | 0.97 ± 0.08 | 1.06 ± 0.07 | 1.10 ± 0.11 | 0.96 ± 0.12 | 0.90 ± 0.05 | 0.86 ± 0.04 | 1.03 ± 0.05 | |||
Notes: At the point midway between the optic disc and macula and macula area, the standardized blur ratio was significantly increased from 3 h after TES. Two-way repeated measures ANOVA followed by unpaired t-test,
P < 0.05,
P < 0.01.
Changes of ocular and systemic parameters in the subjects with TES or sham stimulation
| Time course (h) | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pre | Im(0) | 0.5 | 1 | 1.5 | 2 | 2.5 | 3 | 24 | 40 | ||
| 72 ± 8.3 | 68 ± 7.2 | 69 ± 9.0 | 67 ± 8.9 | 65 ± 7.3 | 67 ± 5.5 | 64 ± 5.6 | 68 ± 9.6 | 75 ± 7.3 | 75 ± 8.3 | ||
| 64 ± 13 | 64 ± 12 | 60 ± 14 | 59 ± 7.9 | 58 ± 6.2 | 55 ± 3.4 | 57 ± 9.4 | 59 ± 9.5 | 65 ± 7.0 | 61 ± 12 | ||
| 13 ± 2.0 | 11 ± 1.4 | 12 ± 1.5 | 12 ± 1.2 | 12 ± 1.3 | 12 ± 1.7 | 12 ± 2.0 | 12 ± 2.1 | 13 ± 1.1 | 12 ± 1.3 | ||
| 14 ± 3.0 | 15 ± 3.4 | 16 ± 2.8 | 14 ± 2.3 | 14 ± 2.8 | 14 ± 2.5 | 15 ± 2.4 | 14 ± 2.2 | 14 ± 4.1 | 14 ± 3.2 | ||
| 13 ± 2.0 | 11 ± 1.4 | 12 ± 1.5 | 12 ± 1.2 | 12 ± 1.3 | 12 ± 1.7 | 12 ± 1.9 | 12 ± 2.1 | 13 ± 1.1 | 12 ± 1.3 | ||
| 74 ± 7.3 | 78 ± 6.0 | 79 ± 5.7 | 78 ± 12 | 75 ± 9.1 | 0 ± 3.1 | 69 ± 8.4 | 75 ± 8.1 | 69 ± 4.3 | 74 ± 8.0 | ||
| 36 ± 2.4 | 34 ± 3.0 | 34 ± 5.6 | 32 ± 6.0 | 30 ± 6.0 | 36 ± 5.2 | 39 ± 4.2 | 31 ± 5.6 | 35 ± 2.1 | 37 ± 4.5 | ||
| 35 ± 5.2 | 37 ± 6.3 | 37 ± 3.4 | 38 ± 10 | 36 ± 8.7 | 39 ± 2.6 | 30 ± 7.0 | 36 ± 6.0 | 32 ± 6.3 | 35 ± 3.4 | ||
Notes: All parameters are not significantly different between prestimulation and each measurement point. The data are the means ± standard deviations.
Abbreviations: MBP, mean blood pressure; OPP, ocular perfusion pressure; PR, pulse rate. TES and sham stimulation group have six and four subjects, respectively. Statistical analyses were performed by two-way repeated measures ANOVA with post hoc test, unpaired Student t-tests.