Ruud C Van Kaam1,2, Michel J A M van Putten1,3, Sarah E Vermeer2, Jeannette Hofmeijer1,2. 1. Clinical Neurophysiology, University of Twente, MIRA Institute for Biomedical Technology and Technical Medicine, Enschede, the Netherlands. 2. Department of Neurology, Rijnstate Hospital, Arnhem, the Netherlands. 3. Department of Clinical Neurophysiology, Medical Spectrum Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The noninjured, contralateral hemisphere is increasingly acknowledged in the process of recovery from acute ischemic stroke. We estimated the value of conventional electroencephalography (EEG) recordings for identifying contralateral hemisphere involvement in relation to functional recovery. METHODS: We analyzed 2-min epochs from 21 electrode EEG registrations of 18 patients with acute hemispheric ischemic stroke and compared with 18 age-matched controls. Outcome was dichotomized as good (modified Rankin Scale [mRS] 0-2) or poor (mRS 3-5 or death) at 3 months. Effects of the infarct on the ipsi-and contralateral hemispheres were analyzed by the delta/alpha ratio (DAR) and 2 measures of functional connectivity (magnitude squared coherence [MSC] and weighted phase lag index [WPLI]). RESULTS: DAR was higher in patients than in controls, both in the ipsilateral and in the contralateral hemisphere (median 4.5 ± 6.7 ipsilateral and 2.4 ± 2.0 contralateral vs. 0.5 ± 0.5 in the control group, p < 0.001), indicating robust EEG changes in both lesioned and non-lesioned hemisphere. MSC and WPLI in the alpha and beta frequency bands were lower in patients than in controls in both hemispheres, indicating clear disturbances of functional connectivity (p < 0.05). In the poor outcome group, contralateral MSC and WPLI were lower than in the good outcome group, although these differences did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: Short conventional EEG measurements show robust changes of brain activity and functional connectivity in both ipsilateral and contralateral hemispheres of patients with acute ischemic stroke. Changes of remote functional connectivity tend to interact with functional recovery. Future studies should estimate predictive values for individual patients and interactions with plasticity enhancing treatments.
BACKGROUND: The noninjured, contralateral hemisphere is increasingly acknowledged in the process of recovery from acute ischemic stroke. We estimated the value of conventional electroencephalography (EEG) recordings for identifying contralateral hemisphere involvement in relation to functional recovery. METHODS: We analyzed 2-min epochs from 21 electrode EEG registrations of 18 patients with acute hemispheric ischemic stroke and compared with 18 age-matched controls. Outcome was dichotomized as good (modified Rankin Scale [mRS] 0-2) or poor (mRS 3-5 or death) at 3 months. Effects of the infarct on the ipsi-and contralateral hemispheres were analyzed by the delta/alpha ratio (DAR) and 2 measures of functional connectivity (magnitude squared coherence [MSC] and weighted phase lag index [WPLI]). RESULTS:DAR was higher in patients than in controls, both in the ipsilateral and in the contralateral hemisphere (median 4.5 ± 6.7 ipsilateral and 2.4 ± 2.0 contralateral vs. 0.5 ± 0.5 in the control group, p < 0.001), indicating robust EEG changes in both lesioned and non-lesioned hemisphere. MSC and WPLI in the alpha and beta frequency bands were lower in patients than in controls in both hemispheres, indicating clear disturbances of functional connectivity (p < 0.05). In the poor outcome group, contralateral MSC and WPLI were lower than in the good outcome group, although these differences did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: Short conventional EEG measurements show robust changes of brain activity and functional connectivity in both ipsilateral and contralateral hemispheres of patients with acute ischemic stroke. Changes of remote functional connectivity tend to interact with functional recovery. Future studies should estimate predictive values for individual patients and interactions with plasticity enhancing treatments.
Authors: Lauren Shreve; Arshdeep Kaur; Christopher Vo; Jennifer Wu; Jessica M Cassidy; Andrew Nguyen; Robert J Zhou; Thuong B Tran; Derek Z Yang; Ariana I Medizade; Bharath Chakravarthy; Wirachin Hoonpongsimanont; Erik Barton; Wengui Yu; Ramesh Srinivasan; Steven C Cramer Journal: J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis Date: 2019-06-04 Impact factor: 2.136
Authors: Maritta N van Stigt; Anita A G A van de Munckhof; Laura C C van Meenen; Eva A Groenendijk; Monique Theunissen; Gaby Franschman; Martin D Smeekes; Joffry A F van Grondelle; Geertje Geuzebroek; Arjen Siegers; Henk A Marquering; Charles B L M Majoie; Yvo B W E M Roos; Johannes H T M Koelman; Wouter V Potters; Jonathan M Coutinho Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2022-10-03 Impact factor: 4.086
Authors: Miloš Ajčević; Giovanni Furlanis; Aleksandar Miladinović; Alex Buoite Stella; Paola Caruso; Maja Ukmar; Maria Assunta Cova; Marcello Naccarato; Agostino Accardo; Paolo Manganotti Journal: Ann Biomed Eng Date: 2021-02-18 Impact factor: 3.934
Authors: Zafer Keser; Samuel C Buchl; Nathan A Seven; Matej Markota; Heather M Clark; David T Jones; Giuseppe Lanzino; Robert D Brown; Gregory A Worrell; Brian N Lundstrom Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2022-02-22 Impact factor: 4.003