| Literature DB >> 35959205 |
Guangwei Hou1, Yiqing Chen1, Hui Zhu1, Jianting Li1, Qingqing Song1, Jun Lu1, Qi Han1, Jing Wang1.
Abstract
In order to further explore the therapeutic effects of high-frequency and low-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on depression and cognitive function in the elderly, this paper proposed a study on cortical plasticity mechanism and efficacy prediction of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation based on continuous short pulse fast pulse stimulation (CTBS). This paper selected 92 patients with depression in a hospital from January to December 2020 as the research object and divided them into control group, low-frequency group, and high-frequency group, 31 cases, 29 cases, and 32 cases, respectively. The continuous short pulse rapid pulse stimulation (CTBS) mode was used to explore the effect of brain network on patients' emotional processing. After clinical treatment contrast, there was no significant difference in HAMD-24 scores and RBANS scores before treatment (P > 0.05), and there was a significant negative correlation between factors of cognitive impairment in patients and RBANS scores (P < 0.01 or P < 0.05), so it was proved that the repeated transcranial magnetic stimulation (cTBS) could be used as an effective treatment for depression.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35959205 PMCID: PMC9363215 DOI: 10.1155/2022/5741114
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Mediators Inflamm ISSN: 0962-9351 Impact factor: 4.529
Figure 1Network small-world attributes before and after pseudostimulus.
Figure 2Brain functional network analysis flow based on EEG signals.
Characteristic parameters of brain functional network based on positive correlation coefficient.
| State | Node degree | Clustering coefficient | Characteristic path length |
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before pseudostimulus | 11.745 | 0.663 | 2.685 | 3.453 | 1.130 | 3.056 |
| After pseudostimulus | 11.649 | 0.670 | 2.736 | 3.490 | 1.151 | 3.032 |
| Before cTBS stimulus | 11.696 | 0.675 | 2.694 | 3.516 | 1.133 | 3.103 |
| After cTBS stimulus | 10.423 | 0.634 | 3.055 | 3.302 | 1.285 | 2.570 |
Figure 3Network node degree before and after pseudostimulus.
Figure 4Network node degree before and after cTBS stimulation.
Figure 5Network clustering coefficient before and after pseudostimulus.
Figure 6Network clustering coefficient before and after cTBS stimulation.
Figure 7Network characteristic path length before and after pseudostimulus.
Figure 8Network characteristic path length before and after cTBS stimulation.
Figure 9Network small-world attributes before and after cTBS stimulation.
Statistical test table of network parameters.
| Network parameters | Difference in pairs |
|
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean value | Standard deviation | Standard error of the mean | 95% confidence interval | ||||
| Node degrees | Before the pseudostimulus-after the pseudostimulus | 0.096 | 0.273 | 0.079 | -0.078-0.270 | 1.215 | 0.250 |
| Before cTBS stimulation-after cTBS stimulation | 1.273 | 0.854 | 0.247 | 0.730-1.816 | 5.162 | 0.001 | |
| Clustering coefficient | Before the pseudostimulus-after the pseudostimulus | -0.003 | 0.049 | 0.014 | -0.039-0.023 | -0.557 | 0.589 |
| Before cTBS stimulation-after cTBS stimulation | 0.041 | 0.033 | 0.010 | 0.020-0.062 | 4.255 | 0.001 | |
| Characteristic path length | Before the pseudostimulus-after the pseudostimulus | -0.051 | 0.100 | 0.029 | -0.115-0.012 | -1.792 | 0.101 |
| Before cTBS stimulation-after cTBS stimulation | -0.361 | 0.277 | 0.080 | -0.536-0.184 | -4.506 | 0.001 | |
| Small-world attribute | Before the pseudostimulus-after the pseudostimulus | 0.024 | 0.252 | 0.073 | -0.136-0.184 | 0.329 | 0.749 |
| Before cTBS stimulation-after cTBS stimulation | 0.533 | 0.277 | 0.080 | 0.256-0.617 | 5.511 | 0.001 | |
Parameter analysis of finger button motion test.
| State | Average accuracy/% | Mean reaction time/ms |
|---|---|---|
| Before pseudostimulus | 95.43 | 488.59 |
| After pseudostimulus | 96.25 | 485.43 |
| Before cTBS stimulus | 95.89 | 486.32 |
| After cTBS stimulus | 96.25 | 58.96 |
General demographic information of patients in the three groups ().
| Options | The high-frequency group ( | The low-frequency group ( | Drug group ( |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender, | 0.134 | 0.935 | |||
| Male | 23 (71.9%) | 20 (69.0%) | 21 (67.7%) | ||
| Female | 9 (28.1%) | 9 (31.0%) | 10 (32.3%) | ||
| Age | 69.19 ± 3.80 | 70.31 ± 4.13 | 71.03 ± 3.99 | 0.304 | 0.966 |
| Level of education, | 0.852 | 0.931 | |||
| Primary school | 15 (46.9%) | 16 (55.2%) | 15 (48.4%) | ||
| Middle school | 9 (28.1%) | 8 (27.6%) | 10(32.3%) | ||
| College | 8 (25.0%) | 5 (17.2%) | 6 (19.4%) | ||
| Marital status, | 0.581 | 0.977 | |||
| Married | 24 (75.0%) | 22 (75.9%) | 23 (74.2%) | ||
| Unmarried | 2 (6.2%) | 3 (10.3%) | 3 (9.7%) | ||
| Others | 6 (18.8%) | 4 (13.8%) | 5 (16.1%) | ||
| Course of the disease | 3.91 ± 0.89 | 4.17 ± 1.36 | 3.77 ± 1.09 | 3.16 | 0.407 |
| Long-term residence | 0.077 | 0.966 | |||
| City | 17 (53.1%) | 16 (55.2%) | 16 (51.6%) | ||
| Countryside | 15 (46.9%) | 13 (44.8%) | 15 (46.7%) |
Note: the gender, age, educational level, marital status, course of disease, and long-term residence of patients in the three groups were compared in pairs, and there was no statistically significant difference in the above indicators among the three groups (P > 0.05).
Score analysis of Hamilton Depression Scale in three groups ().
| Project | High-frequency group | Low-frequency group | Drug group |
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before treatment | Total score | 46.72 ± 2.26 | 47.86 ± 2.66 | 47.42 ± 2.86 | 1.509 | 0.227 |
| Somatization | 11.72 ± 1.53 | 12.14 ± 1.36 | 12.10 ± 1.33 | 0.839 | 0.436 | |
| Cognitive impairment | 12.31 ± 1.64 | 12.52 ± 1.40 | 12.45 ± 1.59 | 0.140 | 0.869 | |
| Block | 8.97 ± 1.33 | 9.03 ± 1.45 | 9.00 ± 1.39 | 0.017 | 0.983 | |
| Sleep disorders | 4.41 ± 1.01 | 4.38 ± 0.98 | 4.36 ± 0.98 | 0.021 | 0.979 | |
| Desperation | 6.41 ± 1.04 | 6.86 ± 1.06 | 6.65 ± 1.17 | 1.328 | 0.270 | |
|
| ||||||
| 8 weeks later | Total score | 18.56 ± 2.01 | 19.03 ± 2.04 | 25.61 ± 4.97 | 43.46 | 0.001 |
| Somatization | 4.47 ± 1.29 | 4.76 ± 1.24 | 6.77 ± 1.73 | 23.58 | 0.001 | |
| Cognitive impairment | 4.78 ± 1.16 | 4.90 ± 1.18 | 7.39 ± 2.01 | 29.58 | 0.001 | |
| Block | 3.34 ± 0.97 | 3.35 ± 0.97 | 4.61 ± 1.63 | 10.89 | 0.001 | |
| Sleep disorders | 1.94 ± 0.72 | 1.90 ± 0.72 | 1.97 ± 0.71 | 0.08 | 0.928 | |
| Desperation | 2.94 ± 1.05 | 3.00 ± 1.10 | 3.68 ± 1.28 | 3.98 | 0.020 | |
Note: before treatment, there were no significant differences in HAMD scores, somatization, confusion, block, sleep, depression, etc. among the three groups (P > 0.05). There were significant differences in lag, sleep, depression, and other aspects (P < 0.05), but there was no significant difference between the two treatment groups (P > 0.05). The difference between the treatment group and the drug group was statistically significant (P < 0.05) [24, 25].
Comparison of repeatable neuropsychological state measurements in each group ().
| Project | High-frequency group | Low-frequency group | Drug group |
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline period | Immediate memory | 28.47 ± 3.75 | 28.21 ± 3.90 | 27.97 ± 3.71 | 0.138 | 0.871 |
| Visual span | 23.00 ± 3.48 | 22.70 ± 3.27 | 23.07 ± 3.13 | 0.110 | 0.896 | |
| Speech function | 22.25 ± 4.44 | 22.52 ± 4.56 | 21.81 ± 4.57 | 0.190 | 0.827 | |
| Notice | 27.75 ± 3.81 | 27.35 ± 3.69 | 28.03 ± 3.63 | 0.259 | 0.772 | |
| Delayed memory | 29.59 ± 5.97 | 29.59 ± 6.2 | 29.20 ± 5.84 | 0.045 | 0.956 | |
| Total score | 131.06 ± 9.78 | 130.35 ± 10.23 | 130.07 ± 9.73 | 0.085 | 0.919 | |
|
| ||||||
| 8 weeks later | Immediate memory | 35.34 ± 3.51 | 35.86 ± 3.48 | 31.48 ± 2.69 | 16.63 | 0.001 |
| Visual span | 33.41 ± 1.98 | 33.00 ± 1.77 | 27.19 ± 3.18 | 64.88 | 0.001 | |
| Speech function | 31.13 ± 3.45 | 30.90 ± 4.14 | 24.61 ± 4.77 | 24.48 | 0.001 | |
| Notice | 37.72 ± 3.84 | 37.69 ± 2.73 | 31.77 ± 3.93 | 28.52 | 0.001 | |
| Delayed memory | 46.63 ± 5.64 | 46.72 ± 5.64 | 35.45 ± 5.98 | 40.97 | 0.001 | |
| Total score | 183.86 ± 8.37 | 184.17 ± 9.25 | 150.52 ± 9.23 | 144.15 | 0.001 | |
Note: there were no statistically significant differences in the total scores of RBANS and factor scores among the three groups before treatment (P > 0.05); the total scores of RBANS and factors in each group after treatment were significantly higher than those before treatment (P < 0.05); there was no significant difference between high-frequency group and low-frequency group (P > 0.05); the difference between the two treatment groups and the drug group was statistically significant (P < 0.05).
Correlation analysis of depression and cognitive function in three groups after treatment.
| Project | RBANS total scores | Immediate memory | Visual span | Speech function | Notice | Delayed memory |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HAMD total scores | -0.628∗∗ | -0.362∗∗ | -0.580∗∗ | -0.452∗∗ | -0.319∗∗ | -0.549∗∗ |
| Anxiety/somatization | -0.545∗∗ | -0.435∗∗ | -0.429∗∗ | -0.347∗∗ | -0.276∗∗ | -0.485∗∗ |
| Weight | 0.128 | 0.105 | 0.084 | 0.081 | 0.196 | 0.023 |
| Cognitive impairment | -0.559∗∗ | -0.230∗ | -0.463∗∗ | -0.410∗∗ | -0418∗∗ | -0.476∗∗ |
| Day and night change | 0.029 | o.049 | -0.003 | -0.089 | 0.068 | 0.062 |
| Block | -0.394∗∗ | -0.321∗∗ | -0.374∗∗ | -0.190 | -0.239∗ | -0.338∗ |
| Sleep disorders | -0.076 | 0.137 | -0.158 | -0.151 | 0.073 | -0.108 |
| Desperation | -0.294∗∗ | -0.180 | -0.351∗∗ | -0.268∗∗ | -0.069 | -0.208∗ |
∗∗ represents a significant correlation at the level of 0.01 (bilateral). ∗ represents significant correlation at the level of 0.05 (bilateral).