| Literature DB >> 35493813 |
Yuxin Chen1, Xiuzhen Li2, Lubin Wang1, Shushi Tian3, Yuanwang Chen2, Feng Wang2, Kesheng Gu2, Ying Wang2, Guangkai Xu3, Shangrong Zhang2, Jie Liu2, Haipeng Wang2, Zongxin Jia2, Liqing Li4, Xiaohui Wang2, Fang Xie1, Xue Wang1, Shida Wang1, Cong Xue1, Yun Zhao1, Lingjia Qian1.
Abstract
Objectives: To reveal the effects of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) on the improvement of cognitive function in patients with stress-related depression, and to enrich the neural mechanism(s) underlying rTMS so as to improve cognitive function in patients with stress-related depression.Entities:
Keywords: cognitive function; fMRI; neurotransmitter; rTMS; stress
Year: 2022 PMID: 35493813 PMCID: PMC9051398 DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2022.844606
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Neurol ISSN: 1664-2295 Impact factor: 4.086
Figure 1Participant flowchart.
Figure 2A single voxel was placed in the left DLPFC (in BA 46, shown at right). A typical spectrum from this voxel is shown on the left and demonstrates metabolite peaks for N-acetyl-aspartate (NAA), choline (Cho), and creatine (Cr), which have been implicated in the pathophysiology of depression.
Clinical and socio-demographic information of study participants.
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| Sex (male/female) | 15/0 | 14/1 | 1.034 | 0.309 |
| Age (years) | 26.47 (6.96) | 28.80 (4.94) | −1.059 | 0.299 |
| Education (years) | 12.07 (1.79) | 13.67 (2.74) | −1.891 | 0.069 |
| Duration of illness (months) | 22.93 (22.27) | 28.33 (22.75) | −0.657 | 0.517 |
| Duration of hospitalization | 2.53 (3.79) | 2.77 (3.02) | −0.107 | 0.916 |
|
| ||||
| HAMD | 12.07 (9.06) | 13.20 (9.37) | −0.337 | 0.739 |
| HAMA | 7.80 (7.15) | 11.00 (8.98) | −1.080 | 0.289 |
| DASS | 66.14 (28.72) | 64.80 (29.84) | 0.125 | 0.902 |
| MOCA | 20.93 (3.51) | 21.93 (2.87) | −0.854 | 0.400 |
|
| ||||
| Sodium valproate | 3/12 | 4/11 | 0.186 | 0.666 |
| Olanzapine | 3/12 | 2/13 | 0.240 | 0.624 |
| Sertraline | 3/12 | 0/15 | 3.333 | 0.068 |
| Tandospirone | 5/10 | 6/9 | 0.144 | 0.705 |
| Dutoxetine | 7/8 | 6/9 | 0.136 | 0.713 |
| Mitrazapine | 9/6 | 7/8 | 0.536 | 0.464 |
| Oxazepam | 3/12 | 1/14 | 1.154 | 0.283 |
| Lithium carbonate | 0/15 | 2/13 | 2.143 | 0.143 |
| Escitalopram oxalate | 2/13 | 1/14 | 0.370 | 0.543 |
| Sulpiride | 0/15 | 1/14 | 1.034 | 0.309 |
| Trazodone | 2/13 | 2/13 | 0.000 | 1.000 |
| Quetiapine fumarate | 0/15 | 3/12 | 3.333 | 0.068 |
| Lorazepam | 1/14 | 2/13 | 0.370 | 0.543 |
| Zilacetone hydrochloride | 0/15 | 1/14 | 1.034 | 0.309 |
| Venlafaxine | 1/14 | 0/15 | 1.034 | 0.309 |
|
| ||||
| Hcy (μmol/L) | 13.84 (6.84) | 13.96 (6.31) | −0.050 | 0.961 |
| Family history of mental illness | 2/13 | 1/14 | 0.370 | 0.543 |
Student's t test for continuous data and χ.
Values in brackets reflect standard deviation of the mean.
Clinical characteristics and neuropsychologic assessments of the participants.
|
|
|
| |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|
| |||||||
| HAMD score | 12.07 (9.06) | 5.73 (5.04) | 13.20 (9.37) | 5.20 (3.59) | 0.894 | 0.000 | 0.556 |
| HAMA score | 7.80 (7.15) | 3.07 (3.56) | 11.00 (8.98) | 4.13 (3.02) | 0.264 | 0.000 | 0.41 |
| DASS-depression score | 22.80 (10.58) | 15.60 (10.80) | 22.26 (10.00) | 15.34 (11.86) | 0.908 | 0.001 | 0.946 |
| DASS-anxiety score | 18.00 (10.02) | 10.94 (8.34) | 19.20 (11.36) | 12.80 (10.34) | 0.640 | 0.001 | 0.855 |
| DASS-stress score | 25.34 (10.66) | 16.40 (11.88) | 23.34 (10.90) | 13.60 (12.72) | 0.526 | 0.000 | 0.841 |
|
| |||||||
| Total points | 20.93 (3.51) | 24.67 (2.99) | 21.93 (2.87) | 22.77 (2.76) | 0.614 | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Visuospatial abilities | 3.26 (0.59) | 3.40 (0.63) | 2.77 (0.89) | 2.53 (0.83) | 0.006 | 1.000 | 0.263 |
| Language | 3.60 (0.99) | 3.93 (1.09) | 3.53 (0.99) | 4.00 (0.93) | 1.000 | 0.017 | 0.677 |
| Executive functions | 2.07 (1.39) | 2.80 (0.86) | 2.40 (1.12) | 2.70 (0.98) | 0.845 | 0.045 | 0.239 |
| Attention | 5.47 (0.74) | 5.67 (0.49) | 5.33 (1.11) | 4.93 (1.09) | 0.135 | 0.559 | 0.087 |
| Short-term memory | 1.67 (1.35) | 3.27 (1.49) | 2.53 (1.36) | 3.07 (1.33) | 0.446 | 0.000 | 0.051 |
| Orientation to time and place | 4.87 (1.06) | 5.60 (0.83) | 5.47 (0.74) | 5.47 (0.64) | 0.341 | 0.058 | 0.058 |
|
| |||||||
| Accuracy of Stroop task (%) | 56.97 (21.5) | 76.58 (15.68) | 62.87 (24.85) | 72.84 (19.54) | 0.872 | 0.000 | 0.191 |
| Number correct | 68.93 (26.02) | 92.67 (18.98) | 76.07 (30.07) | 88.13 (23.64) | 0.872 | 0.000 | 0.191 |
| Number of errors | 20.6 (11.47) | 10.40 (6.75) | 18.53 (13.69) | 14.53 (10.53) | 0.763 | 0.000 | 0.147 |
| Number of omissions | 31.13 (15.31) | 17.73 (12.53) | 26.20 (18.69) | 18.07 (13.47) | 0.642 | 0.000 | 0.321 |
| RT stroop task (ms) | 994.9 (114.2) | 1061.6 (85.8) | 985.4 (101.9) | 1035.9 (88.2) | 0.539 | 0.012 | 0.716 |
|
| |||||||
| Trials administered | 115 (16.0) | 102 (22.7) | 121 (10.9) | 112 (17.4) | 0.142 | 0.004 | 0.479 |
| Perseverative errors | 6.60 (2.82) | 2.20 (3.28) | 4.80 (3.49) | 3.60 (3.42) | 0.827 | 0.001 | 0.048 |
| Percent perseverative error (%) | 5.68 (2.21) | 2.02 (2.95) | 4.14 (3.18) | 3.13 (2.91) | 0.782 | 0.002 | 0.062 |
| Trials to complete first category | 27.3 (19.4) | 14.3 (7.32) | 25.2 (18.1) | 19.4 (10.8) | 0.717 | 0.015 | 0.328 |
| Time (s) | 753.9 (372.1) | 388.3 (166.7) | 613.9 (190.0) | 449.9 (213.5) | 0.612 | 0.000 | 0.05 |
P < 0.05, post-rTMS compared with pre-rTMS in the same groups.
Figure 3Significant changes in the experimental group after rTMS. (A) Significant changes in ReHo values in the experimental group after rTMS. (B) Significant changes in DC values in the experimental group after rTMS. The color bar represents the t value of the paired t test.
ReHo and DC alterations after rTMS treatment in the experimental group.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| |||||
|
| |||||||
| Lingual gyrus | 18 | R | 9 | −60 | −3 | 118 | −6.7456 |
| Cuneus | 18, 19 | L, R | 18 | −84 | 33 | 202 | −5.0873 |
|
| |||||||
| Postcentral gyrus | 4 | L | 48 | −21 | 39 | 69 | −6.0176 |
| Cuneus | 18, 19 | L, R | 15 | −81 | 27 | 122 | −5.5859 |
Gaussian random field (GRF) corrected; voxel p value < 0.001; cluster p value < 0.05; two-tailed.
Brain regions showing significantly altered FC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| |||||
|
| |||||||
| Cuneus (18 −84 33) | |||||||
| Cuneus | 18L | −6 | −99 | 3 | 318 | 5.4351 | |
| Cuneus (15 −81 27) | |||||||
| Middle occipital gyrus | 18, 19L | −30 | −93 | 12 | 176 | 5.7132 | |
| Middle occipital gyrus | 18, 19R | 24 | −96 | 15 | 177 | 4.6835 | |
|
| |||||||
| Postcentral gyrus (−48 −21 39) | |||||||
| Inferior temporal gyrus | 20, 37R | 63 | −48 | 15 | 155 | 5.1516 | |
| Supramarginal gyrus | 7, 39L | −36 | −54 | 27 | 117 | 5.2488 | |
Gaussian random field (GRF) corrected; voxel p value < 0.001; cluster p value < 0.05; two tailed.
Figure 4Significantly altered FC after treatment in the rTMS group (voxel p < 0.001, cluster p < 0.05, two-tailed, GRF-corrected). (A) The results of functional connectivity analyses with the seed region located in the CUN.R (18 −84 33). (B) The panel displays the FC strength values from CUN.R to CUN.L. (C) The results of the functional connectivity analyses with the seed region located in the CUN.R (15 −81 27). (D) The panel displays the FC strength values from CUN.R to MOG.L and MOG.R. CUN, cuneus; MOG, middle occipital gyrus. *P < 0.05, Post-rTMS compared with pre-rTMS in the same groups.
Figure 5Significantly different FC after treatment between the two groups (voxel p < 0.01, cluster p < 0.05, two-tailed, GRF-corrected). (A) The results of the functional connectivity analyses with the seed region located in the PoCG.L (−48 −21 39). (B) The panel displays the FC strength values from PoCG to ITG.R and SMG.L. PoCG, postcentral gyrus; ITG, inferior temporal gyrus; SMG, supramarginal gyrus. *P < 0.05, Treatment group compared with control group at the same timepoint.
Figure 6Scatter diagrams showing significant correlations among the clinical data, neurophysiologic assessments, ReHo, DC, and FC strength for all patients (pretherapy and posttherapy). (A) The ReHo value of the lingual region was positively correlated with the perseverative error of the WCST. (B,C) The DC value of the postcentral gyrus was positively correlated with the time taken for the WCST and perseverative error of the WCST. (D) The ReHo value of the cuneus was positively correlated with the time taken for the WCST. (E,F) The DC value of the cuneus was positively correlated with perseverative error of the WCST and time of the WCST. (G) The ReHo value of the cuneus was positively correlated with DASS score. (H–J) FC strength between the CUN.R and CUN.L was positively correlated with anxiety score on the DASS, depression score on the DASS, and perseverative error on the WCST. (K) FC strength between the CUN.R and MOG.L was negatively correlated with reaction time (RT) on the Stroop task. (L) FC strength between the CUN.R and MOG.R was positively correlated with perseverative error of WCST. (M) FC strength between the PoCG.L and ITG.R was positively correlated with percent correct responses on the WCST. (N) FC strength between the PoCG.L and ITG.R was negatively correlated with percent non-perseverative errors. (O) FC strength between the PoCG.L and SMG.L was negatively correlated with the HAMA score. (P,Q) FC strength between the IPL.R and PAL.L was positively correlated with stress score of the DASS and HAMA scores. (R) Increase in ReHo value in lingual was positively correlated with an increase in the anxiety score in the DASS. (S) Increase in the DC value in cuneus was positively correlated with an increase in anxiety score in the DASS. (T,U) Increase in the Reho value in cuneus was positively correlated with an increase of DASS Anxiety Score and negatively correlated with increase in MoCA orientation score. (V) Increase in FC strength between Cuneus.R and Cuneus.L was positively correlated with an increase in depression score (DASS). (W) Increase in FC strength between Cuneus.R and Cuneus.L was positively correlated with an increase in anxiety score (DASS). (X) Increase in FC strength between PoCG.L and ITG.R was positively correlated with an increase in the MoCA score.
Comparisons of neurotransmitters in the left DLPFC by MRS between pre- and post-rTMS treatment of the two groups.
|
|
|
| |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|
|
|
|
| ||||
| NAA | 0.0192 (0.0044) | 0.0173 (0.0033) | 0.0186 (0.0041) | 0.0189 (0.0037) | 0.632 | 0.433 | 0.270 |
| NAA/Cr | 1.7567 (0.2042) | 1.8125 (0.1940) | 1.6007 (0.1509) | 1.5449 (0.1066) | 0.001 | 1.000 | 0.067 |
| Cho | 0.0084 (0.0016) | 0.0074 (0.0019) | 0.0089 (0.0015) | 0.0092 (0.0015) | 0.013 | 0.427 | 0.168 |
| Cho/Cr | 0.7805 (0.1153) | 0.7881 (0.1804) | 0.7720 (0.090) | 0.7654 (0.1051) | 0.702 | 0.982 | 0.760 |
| Cr | 0.0110 (0.0228) | 0.0096 (0.0021) | 0.0117 (0.0024) | 0.0123 (0.0024) | 0.006 | 0.500 | 0.111 |
P < 0.05, Treatment group compared with control group at the same timepoints.
Figure 7The level of Cho and NAA/Cr in the left DLPFC before and after treatment and its relationship with cognitive testing. (A) The change in Cho in the left DLPFC in the experimental group was significantly lower than that in the control group. (B) The change in Cho in the left DLPFC was positively correlated with change in the RT on the Stroop task. (C) The change in NAA/Cr in the left DLPFC in the experimental group was significantly higher than that in the control group. (D) The NAA/Cr value in the left DLPFC was positively correlated with correct response rate on the WCST. *P < 0.05, Treatment group compared with control group.