Literature DB >> 30354990

Randomized Sham-Controlled Trial of Navigated Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for Motor Recovery in Stroke.

Richard L Harvey1, Dylan Edwards2, Kari Dunning3, Felipe Fregni4, Joel Stein5, Jarmo Laine6, Lynn M Rogers1, Ford Vox7, Ana Durand-Sanchez8, Marcia Bockbrader9, Larry B Goldstein10, Gerard E Francisco11, Carolyn L Kinney12, Charles Y Liu13.   

Abstract

Background and Purpose- We aimed to determine whether low-frequency electric field navigated repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation to noninjured motor cortex versus sham repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation avoiding motor cortex could improve arm motor function in hemiplegic stroke patients when combined with motor training. Methods- Twelve outpatient US rehabilitation centers enrolled participants between May 2014 and December 2015. We delivered 1 Hz active or sham repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation to noninjured motor cortex before each of eighteen 60-minute therapy sessions over a 6-week period, with outcomes measured at 1 week and 1, 3, and 6 months after end of treatment. The primary end point was the percentage of participants improving ≥5 points on upper extremity Fugl-Meyer score 6 months after end of treatment. Secondary analyses assessed changes on the upper extremity Fugl-Meyer and Action Research Arm Test and Wolf Motor Function Test and safety. Results- Of 199 participants, 167 completed treatment and follow-up because of early discontinuation of data collection. Upper extremity Fugl-Meyer gains were significant for experimental ( P<0.001) and sham groups ( P<0.001). Sixty-seven percent of the experimental group (95% CI, 58%-75%) and 65% of sham group (95% CI, 52%-76%) improved ≥5 points on 6-month upper extremity Fugl-Meyer ( P=0.76). There was also no difference between experimental and sham groups in the Action Research Arm Test ( P=0.80) or the Wolf Motor Function Test ( P=0.55). A total of 26 serious adverse events occurred in 18 participants, with none related to the study or device, and with no difference between groups. Conclusions- Among patients 3 to 12 months poststroke, goal-oriented motor rehabilitation improved motor function 6 months after end of treatment. There was no difference between the active and sham repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation trial arms. Clinical Trial Registration- URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT02089464.

Entities:  

Keywords:  motor cortex; neuronal plasticity; rehabilitation; stroke; transcranial magnetic stimulation

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30354990     DOI: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.117.020607

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stroke        ISSN: 0039-2499            Impact factor:   7.914


  31 in total

1.  Poststroke Impairment and Recovery Are Predicted by Task-Specific Regionalization of Injury.

Authors:  Matthew S Jeffers; Boris Touvykine; Allyson Ripley; Gillian Lahey; Anthony Carter; Numa Dancause; Dale Corbett
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2020-06-30       Impact factor: 6.167

Review 2.  [Brain stimulation for treating stroke-related motor deficits].

Authors:  Caroline Tscherpel; Christian Grefkes
Journal:  Nervenarzt       Date:  2019-10       Impact factor: 1.214

3.  Bilateral motor priming for post stroke upper extremity hemiparesis: A randomized pilot study.

Authors:  Mary Ellen Stoykov; Erin King; Fabian J David; Amanda Vatinno; Louis Fogg; Daniel M Corcos
Journal:  Restor Neurol Neurosci       Date:  2020       Impact factor: 2.406

Review 4.  Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for Upper Extremity Motor Recovery: Does It Help?

Authors:  Heidi M Schambra
Journal:  Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep       Date:  2018-10-23       Impact factor: 5.081

5.  Machine Learning Methods Predict Individual Upper-Limb Motor Impairment Following Therapy in Chronic Stroke.

Authors:  Ceren Tozlu; Dylan Edwards; Aaron Boes; Douglas Labar; K Zoe Tsagaris; Joshua Silverstein; Heather Pepper Lane; Mert R Sabuncu; Charles Liu; Amy Kuceyeski
Journal:  Neurorehabil Neural Repair       Date:  2020-03-20       Impact factor: 3.919

6.  Vagus nerve stimulation paired with rehabilitation for upper limb motor function after ischaemic stroke (VNS-REHAB): a randomised, blinded, pivotal, device trial.

Authors:  Jesse Dawson; Charles Y Liu; Gerard E Francisco; Steven C Cramer; Steven L Wolf; Anand Dixit; Jen Alexander; Rushna Ali; Benjamin L Brown; Wuwei Feng; Louis DeMark; Leigh R Hochberg; Steven A Kautz; Arshad Majid; Michael W O'Dell; David Pierce; Cecília N Prudente; Jessica Redgrave; Duncan L Turner; Navzer D Engineer; Teresa J Kimberley
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2021-04-24       Impact factor: 79.321

7.  Low-frequency stimulation enhances ensemble co-firing and dexterity after stroke.

Authors:  Preeya Khanna; Douglas Totten; Lisa Novik; Jeffrey Roberts; Robert J Morecraft; Karunesh Ganguly
Journal:  Cell       Date:  2021-02-10       Impact factor: 41.582

Review 8.  Transcranial magnetic stimulation for post-operative neurorehabilitation in neuro-oncology: a review of the literature and future directions.

Authors:  Evan H Einstein; Nicholas B Dadario; Hamza Khilji; Justin W Silverstein; Michael E Sughrue; Randy S D'Amico
Journal:  J Neurooncol       Date:  2022-03-25       Impact factor: 4.130

9.  Inaccurate Use of the Upper Extremity Fugl-Meyer Negatively Affects Upper Extremity Rehabilitation Trial Design: Findings From the ICARE Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Shashwati Geed; Christianne J Lane; Monica A Nelsen; Steven L Wolf; Carolee J Winstein; Alexander W Dromerick
Journal:  Arch Phys Med Rehabil       Date:  2020-09-28       Impact factor: 3.966

10.  Brain-Derived Neurotrophic Factor Gene Polymorphism Predicts Response to Continuous Theta Burst Stimulation in Chronic Stroke Patients.

Authors:  Shreya Parchure; Denise Y Harvey; Priyanka P Shah-Basak; Laura DeLoretta; Rachel Wurzman; Daniela Sacchetti; Olufunsho Faseyitan; Falk W Lohoff; Roy H Hamilton
Journal:  Neuromodulation       Date:  2021-07-12
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.