Vincenzo Di Lazzaro1, Michele Dileone2, Fioravante Capone3, Giovanni Pellegrino4, Federico Ranieri3, Gabriella Musumeci3, Lucia Florio3, Giovanni Di Pino3, Felipe Fregni5. 1. Institute of Neurology, Campus Bio-Medico University, Rome, Italy; Fondazione Alberto Sordi - Research Institute for Ageing, Rome, Italy. Electronic address: v.dilazzaro@unicampus.it. 2. Neuroscience Department, San Bortolo Hospital, Vicenza, Italy. 3. Institute of Neurology, Campus Bio-Medico University, Rome, Italy; Fondazione Alberto Sordi - Research Institute for Ageing, Rome, Italy. 4. Institute of Neurology, Campus Bio-Medico University, Rome, Italy. 5. Spaulding Neuromodulation Center, Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Significant changes in neurophysiological and clinical outcomes in chronic stroke had been reported after tDCS; but there is a paucity of data in acute stroke. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate whether a tDCS-induced modulation of primary motor cortex excitability in patients with acute stroke enhances motor recovery associated with rehabilitation and induces differential neuroplasticity. METHODS: We conducted two experiments in acute stroke patients. In experiment 1 (14 patients), we tested the immediate effects of bilateral tDCS alone as compared to sham tDCS on recovery. Experiment 2 (20 patients) was designed to assess effects of bilateral tDCS delivered together with constraint-induced movement therapy (CIMT). In this experiment, we included a longer follow-up (3 months) and measured, in addition to the same clinical outcomes of experiment 1, changes of motor cortex excitability and the amount of promoted LTP-like activity. RESULTS: Despite the expected improvement at 1 week, none of the clinical measures showed any different modulation in dependence of CIMT and tDCS. On the neurophysiological assessments, on the other hand, the Real_tDCS group, compared to Sham_tDCS group, showed a reduction of inter-hemispheric imbalance when considering the differences of motor evoked potential between both 3-month and 1 week follow up (P = 0.007) and three month and baseline (P = 0.015). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the lack of additional clinical changes, real bilateral tDCS, together with CIMT, significantly reduces inter-hemispheric imbalance between affected and unaffected hemispheres. These findings may shed light on plasticity changes in acute stroke and its potential impact in chronic phases.
BACKGROUND: Significant changes in neurophysiological and clinical outcomes in chronic stroke had been reported after tDCS; but there is a paucity of data in acute stroke. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate whether a tDCS-induced modulation of primary motor cortex excitability in patients with acute stroke enhances motor recovery associated with rehabilitation and induces differential neuroplasticity. METHODS: We conducted two experiments in acute strokepatients. In experiment 1 (14 patients), we tested the immediate effects of bilateral tDCS alone as compared to sham tDCS on recovery. Experiment 2 (20 patients) was designed to assess effects of bilateral tDCS delivered together with constraint-induced movement therapy (CIMT). In this experiment, we included a longer follow-up (3 months) and measured, in addition to the same clinical outcomes of experiment 1, changes of motor cortex excitability and the amount of promoted LTP-like activity. RESULTS: Despite the expected improvement at 1 week, none of the clinical measures showed any different modulation in dependence of CIMT and tDCS. On the neurophysiological assessments, on the other hand, the Real_tDCS group, compared to Sham_tDCS group, showed a reduction of inter-hemispheric imbalance when considering the differences of motor evoked potential between both 3-month and 1 week follow up (P = 0.007) and three month and baseline (P = 0.015). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the lack of additional clinical changes, real bilateral tDCS, together with CIMT, significantly reduces inter-hemispheric imbalance between affected and unaffected hemispheres. These findings may shed light on plasticity changes in acute stroke and its potential impact in chronic phases.
Authors: Marom Bikson; Zeinab Esmaeilpour; Devin Adair; Greg Kronberg; William J Tyler; Andrea Antal; Abhishek Datta; Bernhard A Sabel; Michael A Nitsche; Colleen Loo; Dylan Edwards; Hamed Ekhtiari; Helena Knotkova; Adam J Woods; Benjamin M Hampstead; Bashar W Badran; Angel V Peterchev Journal: Brain Stimul Date: 2019-07-17 Impact factor: 8.955
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: Pratik Y Chhatbar; Viswanathan Ramakrishnan; Steven Kautz; Mark S George; Robert J Adams; Wuwei Feng Journal: Brain Stimul Date: 2015-09-07 Impact factor: 8.955
Authors: Giovanni Pellegrino; Giorgio Arcara; Giovanni Di Pino; Cristina Turco; Matteo Maran; Luca Weis; Francesco Piccione; Hartwig Roman Siebner Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2019-03-10 Impact factor: 5.038
Authors: Jacqueline A Palmer; Lewis A Wheaton; Whitney A Gray; Mary Alice Saltão da Silva; Steven L Wolf; Michael R Borich Journal: Neurorehabil Neural Repair Date: 2019-07-22 Impact factor: 3.919
Authors: Derek R Verley; Daniel Torolira; Brittany A Hessell; Richard L Sutton; Neil G Harris Journal: J Neurotrauma Date: 2018-10-04 Impact factor: 5.269