OBJECTIVES: Preclinical studies found that epidural motor cortex stimulation improved motor deficits after stroke, but a phase III trial in humans did not corroborate these results. The current retrospective analysis examined subjects randomized to stimulation in order to identify features distinguishing responders from nonresponders. METHODS:Anatomic (MRI measures of gray matter thickness and of white matter tract injury) and physiologic methods (motor evoked responses) were examined as predictors of treatment response. RESULTS: Among 60 subjects randomized tocortical stimulation, both anatomic and physiologic measures at baseline predicted behavioral response to therapy. Anatomically, those achieving the primary efficacy endpoint had a smaller fraction of the corticospinal tract injured by stroke compared to those who did not (44% vs 72%, p < 0.04), and rarely had severe tract injury. Physiologically, the primary efficacy endpoint was reached more often (67%) by those with preserved motor evoked responses (MER) upon cortical stimulation compared to those lacking MER (27%, p < 0.05). Those with an elicitable MER also had a lower rate of precentral gyrus injury (0% vs 33%, p < 0.05) by stroke, as compared to those lacking MER, and had higher gray matter volume compared to those lacking MER in regions including ipsilesional precentral gyrus. CONCLUSIONS: In this clinical stroke trial, the more that the physiologic integrity of the motor system was preserved, the more likely that a patient was to derive gains from subsequent therapy, consistent with preclinical models. Functional and structural preservation of key brain substrates are important to deriving gain from a restorative therapy.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: Preclinical studies found that epidural motor cortex stimulation improved motor deficits after stroke, but a phase III trial in humans did not corroborate these results. The current retrospective analysis examined subjects randomized to stimulation in order to identify features distinguishing responders from nonresponders. METHODS: Anatomic (MRI measures of gray matter thickness and of white matter tract injury) and physiologic methods (motor evoked responses) were examined as predictors of treatment response. RESULTS: Among 60 subjects randomized to cortical stimulation, both anatomic and physiologic measures at baseline predicted behavioral response to therapy. Anatomically, those achieving the primary efficacy endpoint had a smaller fraction of the corticospinal tract injured by stroke compared to those who did not (44% vs 72%, p < 0.04), and rarely had severe tract injury. Physiologically, the primary efficacy endpoint was reached more often (67%) by those with preserved motor evoked responses (MER) upon cortical stimulation compared to those lacking MER (27%, p < 0.05). Those with an elicitable MER also had a lower rate of precentral gyrus injury (0% vs 33%, p < 0.05) by stroke, as compared to those lacking MER, and had higher gray matter volume compared to those lacking MER in regions including ipsilesional precentral gyrus. CONCLUSIONS: In this clinical stroke trial, the more that the physiologic integrity of the motor system was preserved, the more likely that a patient was to derive gains from subsequent therapy, consistent with preclinical models. Functional and structural preservation of key brain substrates are important to deriving gain from a restorative therapy.
Authors: Erik J Plautz; Scott Barbay; Shawn B Frost; Kathleen M Friel; Numa Dancause; Elena V Zoubina; Ann M Stowe; Barbara M Quaney; Randolph J Nudo Journal: Neurol Res Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 2.448
Authors: Xin Wang; Mischka Gerken; Michael Dennis; Richard Mooney; John Kane; Sadik Khuder; Hong Xie; William Bauer; A Vania Apkarian; John Wall Journal: Cereb Cortex Date: 2009-10-13 Impact factor: 5.357
Authors: Cathy M Stinear; P Alan Barber; Peter R Smale; James P Coxon; Melanie K Fleming; Winston D Byblow Journal: Brain Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Jeff D Riley; Vu Le; Lucy Der-Yeghiaian; Jill See; Jennifer M Newton; Nick S Ward; Steven C Cramer Journal: Stroke Date: 2010-12-16 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Judith D Schaechter; Christopher I Moore; Brendan D Connell; Bruce R Rosen; Rick M Dijkhuizen Journal: Brain Date: 2006-08-18 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Andreas R Luft; Sandy Waller; Larry Forrester; Gerald V Smith; Jill Whitall; Richard F Macko; Jörg B Schulz; Daniel F Hanley Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Vishwanath Sankarasubramanian; Andre G Machado; Adriana B Conforto; Kelsey A Potter-Baker; David A Cunningham; Nicole M Varnerin; Xiaofeng Wang; Ken Sakaie; Ela B Plow Journal: Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2017-03-21 Impact factor: 3.708
Authors: Claudio L Ferre; Jason B Carmel; Véronique H Flamand; Andrew M Gordon; Kathleen M Friel Journal: Neurorehabil Neural Repair Date: 2020-01-26 Impact factor: 3.919
Authors: James R Carey; Huiqiong Deng; Bernadette T Gillick; Jessica M Cassidy; David C Anderson; Lei Zhang; William Thomas Journal: Restor Neurol Neurosci Date: 2014 Impact factor: 2.406
Authors: David A Cunningham; Nicole Varnerin; Andre Machado; Corin Bonnett; Daniel Janini; Sarah Roelle; Kelsey Potter-Baker; Vishwanath Sankarasubramanian; Xiaofeng Wang; Guang Yue; Ela B Plow Journal: Restor Neurol Neurosci Date: 2015 Impact factor: 2.406
Authors: Jessica M Cassidy; Anirudh Wodeyar; Jennifer Wu; Kiranjot Kaur; Ashley K Masuda; Ramesh Srinivasan; Steven C Cramer Journal: Stroke Date: 2020-04-17 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Matthew D Johnson; Hubert H Lim; Theoden I Netoff; Allison T Connolly; Nessa Johnson; Abhrajeet Roy; Abbey Holt; Kelvin O Lim; James R Carey; Jerrold L Vitek; Bin He Journal: IEEE Trans Biomed Eng Date: 2013-02-01 Impact factor: 4.538
Authors: H Isaac Chen; Dennis Jgamadze; James Lim; Kobina Mensah-Brown; John A Wolf; Jason A Mills; Douglas H Smith Journal: Tissue Eng Part A Date: 2019-03-29 Impact factor: 3.845