Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Neurology
Published in: BMC Neurology 1/2022

Open Access 01-12-2022 | Stroke | Research

Effects of combining two techniques of non-invasive brain stimulation in subacute stroke patients: a pilot study

Authors: Sutthikit Pipatsrisawat, Jakkrit Klaphajone, Kittipong Kitisak, Somporn Sungkarat, Pakorn Wivatvongvana

Published in: BMC Neurology | Issue 1/2022

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Strokes have recently become a leading cause of disability among Thai people. Non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) seems to give promising results in stroke recovery when combined with standard rehabilitation programs.

Objective

To evaluate the combined effect of low-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) over the non-lesional primary motor cortex on upper limb motor recovery in patients with subacute stroke. No reports of a combination of these two techniques of NIBS were found in the relevant literature.

Methods

This pilot study was a double-blinded, randomized controlled trial of ten patients with subacute stroke admitted to the Rehabilitation Medicine Inpatient Unit, Maharaj Nakorn Chiang Mai Hospital, Chiang Mai University. They were randomized into two groups: five in an active and five in a sham intervention group. Fugl-Meyer’s upper extremity motor score (FMA-UE) and Wolf Motor Function Test (WMFT) were used to assess motor recovery at baseline, immediately, and 1 week after stimulation.

Results

A two-way repeated ANOVA (mixed design) showed a significant improvement in FMA-UE scores in the active intervention group both immediately and 1 week after stimulation in comparison to the baseline, [time, F (2, 16) = 27.44, p < 0.001, time x group interaction, F (2, 16) = 13.29, p < 0.001]. Despite no statistical significance, a trend toward higher WMFT scores was shown in the active intervention group.

Conclusions

A single session of low-frequency rTMS and cathodal tDCS over the non-lesional primary motor cortex may enhance upper limb motor recovery in patients with subacute stroke.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
2.
Organization WH. Noncommunicable diseases country profles 2018: World Health Organization; 2018.
3.
4.
Cerniauskaite M, Quintas R, Koutsogeorgou E, Meucci P, Sattin D, Leonardi M, et al. Quality-of-life and disability in patients with stroke. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2012;91(13):S39–47.PubMedCrossRef
5.
Haley WE, Roth DL, Hovater M, Clay OJ. Long-term impact of stroke on family caregiver well-being: a population-based case-control study. Neurology. 2015;84(13):1323–9.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
6.
Kuptniratsaikul V, Kovindha A, Massakulpan P, Permsirivanich W, Kuptniratsaikul PS-a. Inpatient rehabilitation services for patients after stroke in Thailand: a multi-centre study. J Rehabil Med. 2009;41(8):684–6.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Kuptniratsaikul V, Kovindha A, Dajpratham P, Piravej K. Main outcomes of stroke rehabilitation: a multi-centre study in Thailand. J Rehabil Med. 2009;41(1):54–8.PubMedCrossRef
8.
Kuptniratsaikul V, Kovindha A, Suethanapornkul S, Massakulpan P, Permsirivanich W, Kuptniratsaikul PS. Motor recovery of stroke patients after rehabilitation: one-year follow-up study. Int J Neurosci. 2017;127(1):37–43.PubMedCrossRef
9.
Page SJ, Cunningham DA, Plow E, Blazak B. It takes two: noninvasive brain stimulation combined with neurorehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2015;96(4):S89–93.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
10.
Edwardson M, Lucas T, Carey JR, Fetz E. New modalities of brain stimulation for stroke rehabilitation. Exp Brain Res. 2013;224(3):335–58.PubMedCrossRef
11.
Williams JA, Imamura M, Fregni F. Updates on the use of non-invasive brain stimulation in physical and rehabilitation medicine. J Rehabil Med. 2009;41(5):305–11.PubMedCrossRef
12.
13.
14.
Adeyemo BO, Simis M, Macea DD, Fregni F. Systematic review of parameters of stimulation, clinical trial design characteristics, and motor outcomes in non-invasive brain stimulation in stroke. Front Psychiatry. 2012;3:88 Frontiers Research Foundation.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
15.
Corti M, Patten C, Triggs W. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of motor cortex after stroke: a focused review. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2012;91(3):254–70 Association of Academic Physiatrists.PubMedCrossRef
16.
Liew S-L, Santarnecchi E, Buch ER, Cohen LG. Non-invasive brain stimulation in neurorehabilitation: local and distant effects for motor recovery. Front Hum Neurosci. 2014;8:378.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
17.
Lefaucheur J-P, Aleman A, Baeken C, Benninger DH, Brunelin J, Di Lazzaro V, et al. Evidence-based guidelines on the therapeutic use of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS): an update (2014–2018). Clin Neurophysiol. 2020;131(2):474–528.PubMedCrossRef
18.
Huang Y-Z, Lu M-K, Antal A, Classen J, Nitsche M, Ziemann U, et al. Plasticity induced by non-invasive transcranial brain stimulation: a position paper. Clin Neurophysiol. 2017;128(11):2318–29.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Cirillo G, Di Pino G, Capone F, Ranieri F, Florio L, Todisco V, et al. Neurobiological after-effects of non-invasive brain stimulation. Brain Stimul. 2017;10(1):1–18.PubMedCrossRef
20.
Takeuchi N, Izumi S-I. Rehabilitation with poststroke motor recovery: a review with a focus on neural plasticity. Stroke Res Treat. 2013;2013:128641.PubMedPubMedCentral
21.
Arya KN, Pandian S, Verma R, Garg RK. Movement therapy induced neural reorganization and motor recovery in stroke: a review. J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2011;15(4):528–37.PubMedCrossRef
22.
Pekna M, Pekny M, Nilsson M. Modulation of neural plasticity as a basis for stroke rehabilitation. Stroke. 2012;43(10):2819–28.PubMedCrossRef
23.
Rossi S, Hallett M, Rossini PM, Pascual-Leone A, Group SoTC. Safety, ethical considerations, and application guidelines for the use of transcranial magnetic stimulation in clinical practice and research. Clin Neurophysiol. 2009;120(12):2008–39.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
24.
Groppa S, Oliviero A, Eisen A, Quartarone A, Cohen LG, Mall V, et al. A practical guide to diagnostic transcranial magnetic stimulation: report of an IFCN committee. Clin Neurophysiol. 2012;123(5):858–82.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
25.
Sullivan KJ, Tilson JK, Cen SY, Rose DK, Hershberg J, Correa A, et al. Fugl-Meyer assessment of sensorimotor function after stroke: standardized training procedure for clinical practice and clinical trials. Stroke. 2011;42(2):427–32.PubMedCrossRef
26.
Wolf SL, Catlin PA, Ellis M, Archer AL, Morgan B, Piacentino A. Assessing Wolf motor function test as outcome measure for research in patients after stroke. Stroke. 2001;32(7):1635–9.PubMedCrossRef
27.
Yozbatiran N, Alonso-Alonso M, See J, Demirtas-Tatlidede A, Luu D, Motiwala RR, et al. Safety and behavioral effects of high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in stroke. Stroke. 2009;40(1):309–12.PubMedCrossRef
28.
Lefaucheur J-P, Antal A, Ayache SS, Benninger DH, Brunelin J, Cogiamanian F, et al. Evidence-based guidelines on the therapeutic use of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). Clin Neurophysiol. 2017;128(1):56–92.PubMedCrossRef
29.
Russo C, Souza Carneiro MI, Bolognini N, Fregni F. Safety review of transcranial direct current stimulation in stroke. Neuromodulation. 2017;20(3):215–22.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
30.
Thickbroom GW. Transcranial magnetic stimulation and synaptic plasticity: experimental framework and human models. Exp Brain Res. 2007;180(4):583–93.PubMedCrossRef
31.
Brunoni AR, Amadera J, Berbel B, Volz MS, Rizzerio BG, Fregni F. A systematic review on reporting and assessment of adverse effects associated with transcranial direct current stimulation. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol. 2011;14(8):1133–45.PubMedCrossRef
32.
Mulder T, Hochstenbach J. Adaptability and flexibility of the human motor system: implications for neurological rehabilitation. Neural Plast. 2001;8(1-2):131–40.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
33.
Stineman MG, Maislin G, Fiedler RC, Granger CV. A prediction model for functional recovery in stroke. Stroke. 1997;28(3):550–6.PubMedCrossRef
34.
Fregni F, Boggio PS, Mansur CG, Wagner T, Ferreira MJ, Lima MC, et al. Transcranial direct current stimulation of the unaffected hemisphere in stroke patients. Neuroreport. 2005;16(14):1551–5.PubMedCrossRef
35.
Lefaucheur JP. Stroke recovery can be enhanced by using repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS). Neurophysiol Clin. 2006;36(3):105–15.PubMedCrossRef
36.
Fregni F, Pascual-Leone A. Technology insight: noninvasive brain stimulation in neurology-perspectives on the therapeutic potential of rTMS and tDCS. Nat Clin Pract Neurol. 2007;3(7):383–93.PubMedCrossRef
37.
Karabanov A, Ziemann U, Hamada M, George MS, Quartarone A, Classen J, et al. Consensus paper: probing homeostatic plasticity of human cortex with non-invasive transcranial brain stimulation. Brain Stimul. 2015;8(3):442–54.PubMedCrossRef
38.
Cooper LN, Bear MF. The BCM theory of synapse modification at 30: interaction of theory with experiment. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2012;13(11):798–810.PubMedCrossRef
39.
Siebner HR, Lang N, Rizzo V, Nitsche MA, Paulus W, Lemon RN, et al. Preconditioning of low-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation with transcranial direct current stimulation: evidence for homeostatic plasticity in the human motor cortex. J Neurosci. 2004;24(13):3379–85.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
40.
Pascual-Leone A, Valls-Solé J, Wassermann EM, Hallett M. Responses to rapid-rate transcranial magnetic stimulation of the human motor cortex. Brain. 1994;117(4):847–58.PubMedCrossRef
41.
Nitsche MA, Paulus W. Excitability changes induced in the human motor cortex by weak transcranial direct current stimulation. J Physiol. 2000;527(3):633–9.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
42.
Touge T, Gerschlager W, Brown P, Rothwell JC. Are the after-effects of low-frequency rTMS on motor cortex excitability due to changes in the efficacy of cortical synapses? Clin Neurophysiol. 2001;112(11):2138–45.PubMedCrossRef
43.
Mottaghy F, Gangitano M, Horkan C, Chen Y, Pascual-Leone A, Schlaug G. Repetitive TMS temporarily alters brain diffusion. Neurology. 2003;60(9):1539–41.PubMedCrossRef
44.
Nitsche MA, Doemkes S, Karakose T, Antal A, Liebetanz D, Lang N, et al. Shaping the effects of transcranial direct current stimulation of the human motor cortex. J Neurophysiol. 2007;97(4):3109–17.PubMedCrossRef
45.
Stagg CJ. Exploring the infinite parameter space: rethinking assumptions underpinning the use of transcranial direct current stimulation to induce long-term effects. J Physiol. 2020;598(4):621–2.PubMedCrossRef
46.
Mosayebi Samani M, Agboada D, Kuo M-F, Nitsche MA. Probing the relevance of repeated cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation over the primary motor cortex for prolongation of after-effects. J Physiol. 2020;598(4):805–16.PubMedCrossRef
47.
Maeda F, Keenan JP, Tormos JM, Topka H, Pascual-Leone A. Interindividual variability of the modulatory effects of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on cortical excitability. Exp Brain Res. 2000;133(4):425–30.PubMedCrossRef
48.
Mosayebi-Samani M, Jamil A, Salvador R, Ruffini G, Haueisen J, Nitsche MA. The impact of individual electrical fields and anatomical factors on the neurophysiological outcomes of tDCS: a TMS-MEP and MRI study. Brain Stimul. 2021;14(2):316–26.PubMedCrossRef
49.
Todd G, Kimber TE, Ridding MC, Semmler JG. Reduced motor cortex plasticity following inhibitory rTMS in older adults. Clin Neurophysiol. 2010;121(3):441–7.PubMedCrossRef
50.
Ghasemian-Shirvan E, Farnad L, Mosayebi-Samani M, Verstraelen S, Meesen RLJ, Kuo M-F, et al. Age-related differences of motor cortex plasticity in adults: a transcranial direct current stimulation study. Brain Stimul. 2020;13(6):1588–99.PubMedCrossRef
51.
Mosayebi Samani M, Agboada D, Jamil A, Kuo M-F, Nitsche MA. Titrating the neuroplastic effects of cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) over the primary motor cortex. Cortex. 2019;119:350–61.PubMedCrossRef
52.
Batsikadze G, Moliadze V, Paulus W, Kuo M-F, Nitsche MA. Partially non-linear stimulation intensity-dependent effects of direct current stimulation on motor cortex excitability in humans. J Physiol. 2013;591(7):1987–2000.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Effects of combining two techniques of non-invasive brain stimulation in subacute stroke patients: a pilot study
Authors
Sutthikit Pipatsrisawat
Jakkrit Klaphajone
Kittipong Kitisak
Somporn Sungkarat
Pakorn Wivatvongvana
Publication date
01-12-2022
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Neurology / Issue 1/2022
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2377
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12883-022-02607-3

Other articles of this Issue 1/2022

BMC Neurology 1/2022 Go to the issue

Case report

Sudden unilateral hearing loss and vertigo following isolated cerebellar hypoperfusion without infarction due to vertebral artery dissection

Research

Serum short-chain fatty acids and its correlation with motor and non-motor symptoms in Parkinson’s disease patients

Case report

Neuromyelitis optica spectrum disease coexisting with subacute combined degeneration: a case report

Study protocol

Effects of individualized PEEP on postoperative delirium among older patients in prone position: study protocol for a prospective randomized controlled trial

Case report

Cerebral infarct induced by severe leptospirosis-a case report and literature review

Study protocol

A randomised placebo-controlled, double-blind phase II study to explore the safety, efficacy, and pharmacokinetics of sonlicromanol in children with genetically confirmed mitochondrial disease and motor symptoms (“KHENERGYC”)