Safety and Adverse Events following Non-invasive Electrical Brain Stimulation in Stroke: A Systematic Review

被引:4
|
作者
Turnbull, Clare [1 ]
Boomsma, Aafke [1 ]
Milte, Rachel [2 ]
Stanton, Tasha R. [1 ]
Hordacre, Brenton [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ South Australia, Innovat IMPlementat & Clin Translat IIMPACT Hlth, City East Campus,GPO Box 2471, Adelaide, SA 2471, Australia
[2] Flinders Univ S Australia, Hlth & Social Care Econ Grp, Coll Nursing & Hlth Sci, Adelaide, SA, Australia
基金
英国医学研究理事会;
关键词
Stroke; Transcranial Electrical Stimulation; Safety; Adverse Event; Noninvasive Brain Stimulation; CORTICAL STIMULATION; ISCHEMIC-STROKE; MOTOR RECOVERY; DOUBLE-BLIND; OCCUPATIONAL-THERAPY; NERVE-STIMULATION; BROCAS AREA; TDCS; APHASIA; REHABILITATION;
D O I
10.1080/10749357.2022.2058294
中图分类号
R49 [康复医学];
学科分类号
100215 ;
摘要
Background: Noninvasive electrical stimulation (ES) could have therapeutic potential in stroke recovery. However, there is no comprehensive evaluation of adverse events. This study systematically searched the literature to document frequency and prevalence of adverse events. A secondary aim was to explore associations between adverse events and ES parameters or participant characteristics. Methods: Databases were searched for studies evaluating ES in adults with stroke. All included studies were required to report on adverse events. Extracted data were: (1) study design; (2) adverse events; (3) participant characteristics; (4) ES parameters. Results: Seventy-five studies were included. Adverse events were minor in nature. The most frequently reported adverse events were tingling (37.3% of papers), burning (18.7%), headaches (14.7%) and fatigue (14.7%). Cathodal stimulation was associated with greater frequency of itching (p = .02), intensities of 1-2 mA with increased tingling (p = .04) and discomfort (p = .03), and current density <0.4mA/cm2 with greater discomfort (p = .03). Tingling was the most prevalent adverse event (18.1% of participants), with prevalence data not differing between active and control conditions (all p >= 0.37). Individual participants were more likely to report adverse events with increasing current density (r = 0.99, p = .001). Two severe adverse events were noted (a seizure and percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy placement). Conclusion: ES appears safe in people with stroke as reported adverse events were predominantly minor in nature. An adverse events questionnaire is proposed to enable a more comprehensive and nuanced analysis of the frequency and prevalence of adverse events.
引用
收藏
页码:355 / 367
页数:13
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Non-Invasive Brain Stimulation Combined with Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation for Upper Limb Rehabilitation in Stroke Survivors: A Systematic Review
    Anas R. Alashram
    [J]. Current Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Reports, 2024, 12 : 100 - 118
  • [2] Non-Invasive Brain Stimulation Combined with Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation for Upper Limb Rehabilitation in Stroke Survivors: A Systematic Review
    Alashram, Anas R.
    [J]. CURRENT PHYSICAL MEDICINE AND REHABILITATION REPORTS, 2024, 12 (01) : 100 - 118
  • [3] Non-invasive brain stimulation for functional recovery in animal models of stroke: A systematic review
    Rodriguez, Antonio
    Amaya-Pascasio, Laura
    Gutierrez-Fernandez, Maria
    Garcia-Pinteno, Jose
    Moreno, Margarita
    Martinez-Sanchez, Patricia
    [J]. NEUROSCIENCE AND BIOBEHAVIORAL REVIEWS, 2024, 156
  • [4] Transcranial non-invasive brain stimulation in swallowing rehabilitation following stroke - A review of the literature
    Doeltgen, Sebastian H.
    Bradnam, Lynley V.
    Young, Jessica A.
    Fong, Eric
    [J]. PHYSIOLOGY & BEHAVIOR, 2015, 143 : 1 - 9
  • [5] Transforming neurorehabilitation of walking following stroke: The promise of non-invasive brain stimulation - a review
    Rogers, L. M.
    Madhavan, S.
    Roth, H. R.
    Stinear, J. W.
    [J]. RESTORATIVE NEUROLOGY AND NEUROSCIENCE, 2011, 29 (06) : 507 - 516
  • [6] Non-invasive brain stimulation for treating catatonia: a systematic review
    Xiao, Hongqi
    Meng, Yajing
    Liu, Shiyu
    Cao, Yuan
    Sun, Huan
    Deng, Gaoju
    Wang, Mei
    Zheng, Yaozong
    Qiu, Changjian
    [J]. FRONTIERS IN PSYCHIATRY, 2023, 14
  • [7] Non-invasive Brain Stimulation for Gambling Disorder: A Systematic Review
    Zucchella, Chiara
    Mantovani, Elisa
    Federico, Angela
    Lugoboni, Fabio
    Tamburin, Stefano
    [J]. FRONTIERS IN NEUROSCIENCE, 2020, 14
  • [8] The Outlook for Non-invasive Electrical Brain Stimulation
    Bikson, Marom
    Edwards, Dylan
    Kappenman, Emily
    [J]. BRAIN STIMULATION, 2014, 7 (06) : 771 - 772
  • [9] Non-invasive brain stimulation in generalized anxiety disorder: A systematic review
    Sagliano, Laura
    Atripaldi, Danilo
    De Vita, Dalila
    D'Olimpio, Francesca
    Trojano, Luigi
    [J]. PROGRESS IN NEURO-PSYCHOPHARMACOLOGY & BIOLOGICAL PSYCHIATRY, 2019, 93 : 31 - 38
  • [10] Non-invasive brain stimulation for treating neurogenic dysarthria: A systematic review
    Balzan, Pasquale
    Tattersall, Catherine
    Palmer, Rebecca
    [J]. ANNALS OF PHYSICAL AND REHABILITATION MEDICINE, 2022, 65 (05)