Vishwanath Sankarasubramanian1, Andre G Machado2, Adriana B Conforto3, Kelsey A Potter-Baker1, David A Cunningham4, Nicole M Varnerin1, Xiaofeng Wang5, Ken Sakaie6, Ela B Plow7. 1. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH 44195, USA. 2. Center for Neurological Restoration, Neurological Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH 44195, USA. 3. Neurology Clinical Division, Neurology Department, Hospital das Clinicas, São Paulo University, 05508-090 São Paulo, SP, Brazil; Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, 05652-900 São Paulo, SP, Brazil. 4. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH 44195, USA; School of Biomedical Sciences, Kent State University, Kent, OH 44242, USA. 5. Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH 44195, USA. 6. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Imaging Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH 44195, USA. 7. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH 44195, USA; Center for Neurological Restoration, Neurological Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH 44195, USA; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Neurological Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH 44195, USA. Electronic address: plowe2@ccf.org.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The standard approach to brain stimulation in stroke is based on the premise that ipsilesional M1 (iM1) is important for motor function of the paretic upper limb, while contralesional cortices compete with iM1. Therefore, the approach typically advocates facilitating iM1 and/or inhibiting contralesional M1 (cM1). But, this approach fails to elicit much improvement in severely affected patients, who on account of extensive damage to ipsilesional pathways, cannot rely on iM1. These patients are believed to instead rely on the undamaged cortices, especially the contralesional dorsal premotor cortex (cPMd), for support of function of the paretic limb. Here, we tested for the first time whether facilitation of cPMd could improve paretic limb function in severely affected patients, and if a cut-off could be identified to separate responders to cPMd from responders to the standard approach to stimulation. METHODS: In a randomized, sham-controlled crossover study, fifteen patients received thestandard approach of stimulation involving inhibition of cM1 and a new approach involving facilitation of cPMd using repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS). Patients also received rTMS to control areas. At baseline, impairment [Upper Extremity Fugl-Meyer (UEFMPROXIMAL, max=36)] and damage to pathways [fractional anisotropy (FA)] was measured. We measured changes in time to perform proximal paretic limb reaching, and neurophysiology using TMS. RESULTS: Facilitation of cPMd generated more improvement in severely affected patients, who had experienced greater damage and impairment than a cut-off value of FA (0.5) and UEFMPROXIMAL (26-28). The standard approach instead generated more improvement in mildly affected patients. Responders to cPMd showed alleviation of interhemispheric competition imposed on iM1, while responders to the standard approach showed gains in ipsilesional excitability in association with improvement. CONCLUSIONS: A preliminary cut-off level of severity separated responders for standard approach vs. facilitation of cPMd. SIGNIFICANCE: Cut-offs identified here could help select candidates for tailored stimulation in future studies so patients in all ranges of severity could potentially achieve maximum benefit in function of the paretic upper limb.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The standard approach to brain stimulation in stroke is based on the premise that ipsilesional M1 (iM1) is important for motor function of the paretic upper limb, while contralesional cortices compete with iM1. Therefore, the approach typically advocates facilitating iM1 and/or inhibiting contralesional M1 (cM1). But, this approach fails to elicit much improvement in severely affected patients, who on account of extensive damage to ipsilesional pathways, cannot rely on iM1. These patients are believed to instead rely on the undamaged cortices, especially the contralesional dorsal premotor cortex (cPMd), for support of function of the paretic limb. Here, we tested for the first time whether facilitation of cPMd could improve paretic limb function in severely affected patients, and if a cut-off could be identified to separate responders to cPMd from responders to the standard approach to stimulation. METHODS: In a randomized, sham-controlled crossover study, fifteen patients received the standard approach of stimulation involving inhibition of cM1 and a new approach involving facilitation of cPMd using repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS). Patients also received rTMS to control areas. At baseline, impairment [Upper Extremity Fugl-Meyer (UEFMPROXIMAL, max=36)] and damage to pathways [fractional anisotropy (FA)] was measured. We measured changes in time to perform proximal paretic limb reaching, and neurophysiology using TMS. RESULTS: Facilitation of cPMd generated more improvement in severely affected patients, who had experienced greater damage and impairment than a cut-off value of FA (0.5) and UEFMPROXIMAL (26-28). The standard approach instead generated more improvement in mildly affected patients. Responders to cPMd showed alleviation of interhemispheric competition imposed on iM1, while responders to the standard approach showed gains in ipsilesional excitability in association with improvement. CONCLUSIONS: A preliminary cut-off level of severity separated responders for standard approach vs. facilitation of cPMd. SIGNIFICANCE: Cut-offs identified here could help select candidates for tailored stimulation in future studies so patients in all ranges of severity could potentially achieve maximum benefit in function of the paretic upper limb.
Authors: Tobias Bäumer; Rüdiger Lange; Joachim Liepert; Cornelius Weiller; Hartwig R Siebner; John C Rothwell; Alexander Münchau Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 6.556
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: David A Cunningham; Andre Machado; Daniel Janini; Nicole Varnerin; Corin Bonnett; Guang Yue; Stephen Jones; Mark Lowe; Erik Beall; Ken Sakaie; Ela B Plow Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2014-09-03 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: E B Plow; V Sankarasubramanian; D A Cunningham; K Potter-Baker; N Varnerin; L G Cohen; A Sterr; A B Conforto; A G Machado Journal: Neural Plast Date: 2016-02-23 Impact factor: 3.599
Authors: Yin-Liang Lin; Kelsey A Potter-Baker; David A Cunningham; Manshi Li; Vishwanath Sankarasubramanian; John Lee; Stephen Jones; Ken Sakaie; Xiaofeng Wang; Andre G Machado; Ela B Plow Journal: Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2020-07-03 Impact factor: 3.708
Authors: Rachael M Harrington; Evan Chan; Amanda K Rounds; Clinton J Wutzke; Alexander W Dromerick; Peter E Turkeltaub; Michelle L Harris-Love Journal: Neurorehabil Neural Repair Date: 2019-12-20 Impact factor: 3.919
Authors: David A Cunningham; Jayme S Knutson; Vishwanath Sankarasubramanian; Kelsey A Potter-Baker; Andre G Machado; Ela B Plow Journal: Neurorehabil Neural Repair Date: 2019-07-18 Impact factor: 3.919
Authors: Kathryn Hayward; Jennifer K Ferris; Keith R Lohse; Michael R Borich; Alexandra Borstad; Jessica M Cassidy; Steven C Cramer; Sean P Dukelow; Sonja E Findlater; Rachel L Hawe; Sook-Lei Liew; Jason L Neva; Jill C Stewart; Lara A Boyd Journal: Neurology Date: 2022-05-12 Impact factor: 11.800
Authors: Camarin E Rolle; Fiona M Baumer; Joshua T Jordan; Ketura Berry; Madelleine Garcia; Karen Monusko; Hersh Trivedi; Wei Wu; Russell Toll; Marion S Buckwalter; Maarten Lansberg; Amit Etkin Journal: BMC Neurol Date: 2021-07-16 Impact factor: 2.474