Predicting the Response to Non-invasive Brain Stimulation in Stroke

被引:21
|
作者
Ovadia-Caro, Smadar [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Khalil, Ahmed A. [1 ,2 ,4 ]
Sehm, Bernhard [1 ]
Villringer, Arno [1 ,2 ,4 ,5 ,6 ]
Nikulin, Vadim V. [1 ,3 ,7 ,8 ]
Nazarova, Maria [8 ,9 ]
机构
[1] Max Planck Inst Human Cognit & Brain Sci, Dept Neurol, Leipzig, Germany
[2] Humboldt Univ, Berlin Sch Mind & Brain, Berlin, Germany
[3] Charite Univ Med Berlin, Dept Neurol, Neurophys Grp, Campus Benjamin Franklin, Berlin, Germany
[4] Charite Univ Med Berlin, Ctr Stroke Res Berlin, Berlin, Germany
[5] Univ Hosp Leipzig, Dept Cognit Neurol, Leipzig, Germany
[6] Univ Leipzig, Fac Med, Leipzig, Germany
[7] Bernstein Ctr Computat Neurosci, Berlin, Germany
[8] Natl Res Univ, Higher Sch Econ, Inst Cognit Neurosci, Ctr Cognit & Decis Making, Moscow, Russia
[9] Fed State Budget Inst, Minist Healthcare Russian Federat, Fed Ctr Cerebrovasc Pathol & Stroke, Moscow, Russia
来源
FRONTIERS IN NEUROLOGY | 2019年 / 10卷
关键词
NIBS; stroke; variability; functional connectivity; ongoing neuronal oscillations; long-range temporal correlations; fMRI; EEG; TRANSCRANIAL MAGNETIC STIMULATION; RANGE TEMPORAL CORRELATIONS; STATE FUNCTIONAL CONNECTIVITY; ACUTE ISCHEMIC-STROKE; THETA BURST STIMULATION; PRIMARY MOTOR CORTEX; UPPER-LIMB FUNCTION; INTERINDIVIDUAL VARIABILITY; NETWORK CONNECTIVITY; CONTROLLED TRIAL;
D O I
10.3389/fneur.2019.00302
中图分类号
R74 [神经病学与精神病学];
学科分类号
摘要
Neuromodulatory non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) techniques are experimental therapies for improving motor function after stroke. The aim of neuromodulation is to enhance adaptive or suppress maladaptive processes of post-stroke reorganization. However, results on the effectiveness of these methods, which include transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), are mixed. The results of recent large clinical trials and meta-analyses range from no improvement in motor function (1, 2) to moderate improvement (1–6) at the group level. Though evidence supporting efficacy is better for TMS (7) than for tDCS (6), individual stroke patients' response to NIBS is nevertheless extremely variable (8–11). This is reminiscent of the development of other stroke therapies, such as thrombolysis and mechanical thrombectomy, where early studies were largely mixed before patient selection was refined (12, 13). NIBS in stroke faces a similar challenge of refining patient selection and individualizing protocols to determine its therapeutic potential. The variable response to NIBS in stroke patients is a byproduct of multiple factors that influence response to NIBS in healthy controls (14, 15), as well as factors that influence the response specifically in stroke patients (8). The former include factors such as age, gender, anatomical variability, intake of stimulant substances, and baseline neurophysiological state but also technical factors such as stimulation intensity, TMS coil orientation, and stimulation duration (16–18). Specifically in stroke patients, symptom severity, size and location of lesions, stroke etiology, and time from symptom onset to intervention influence the response to NIBS as well. Importantly, these different variability-causing factors interact to affect the response to NIBS, such as the potential amplification of inter-individual differences in brain anatomy (19, 20) by stroke lesions (21, 22). Such interactions make understanding the causes of NIBS response variability in stroke challenging. Although the need for individualized stimulation protocols in stroke patients is widely accepted, it is still unclear exactly how this will be achieved. At the very least, the factors influencing variability in healthy subjects should be controlled as much as possible through appropriate and careful study design (23) and checklist-based reporting of factors during data collection (24). To address the specific factors for stroke, patient selection for NIBS should be informed by pathophysiological processes. This requires that we know which processes are relevant, that we are capable of measuring them, and that we know the optimum timing and patient-related characteristics for treatment administration. Copyright © 2019 Ovadia-Caro, Khalil, Sehm, Villringer, Nikulin and Nazarova.
引用
收藏
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Non-invasive brain stimulation is not non-invasive
    Davis, Nick J.
    van Koningsbruggen, Martijn G.
    [J]. FRONTIERS IN SYSTEMS NEUROSCIENCE, 2013, 7
  • [2] Recruitment issues with non-invasive brain stimulation in stroke patients
    Learmonth, G.
    Muir, K. W.
    Benwell, C.
    Walters, M.
    Harvey, M.
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF STROKE, 2018, 13 : 61 - 61
  • [3] Response variability to non-invasive brain stimulation protocols
    Hordacre, Brenton
    Ridding, Michael C.
    Goldsworthy, Mitchell R.
    [J]. CLINICAL NEUROPHYSIOLOGY, 2015, 126 (12) : 2249 - 2250
  • [4] Non-Invasive Brain Stimulation
    Hurlemann, R.
    Ziemann, U.
    [J]. NERVENARZT, 2015, 86 (12): : 1479 - 1480
  • [5] Towards a reliable neural biomarker for predicting response to non-invasive brain stimulation in the treatment of depression
    McNickle, Emmet
    Tadjine, Lamia
    Ruddy, Kathy
    [J]. CURRENT OPINION IN BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES, 2024, 56
  • [6] Predictive models for response to non-invasive brain stimulation in stroke: A critical review of opportunities and pitfalls
    Wessel, Maximilian J.
    Egger, Philip
    Hummel, Friedhelm C.
    [J]. BRAIN STIMULATION, 2021, 14 (06) : 1456 - 1466
  • [7] Non-Invasive Brain Stimulation to Enhance Post-Stroke Recovery
    Kubis, Nathalie
    [J]. FRONTIERS IN NEURAL CIRCUITS, 2016, 10
  • [8] Can Motor Recovery in Stroke Be Improved by Non-invasive Brain Stimulation?
    Rothwell, John C.
    [J]. PROGRESS IN MOTOR CONTROL: THEORIES AND TRANSLATIONS, 2016, 957 : 313 - 323
  • [9] Non-invasive brain stimulation to enhance cognitive rehabilitation after stroke
    Draaisma, Laurijn R.
    Wessel, Maximilian J.
    Hurnmel, Friedhelm C.
    [J]. NEUROSCIENCE LETTERS, 2020, 719
  • [10] Non-invasive brain stimulation for stroke recovery: ready for the big time?
    Ward, Nick S.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGY NEUROSURGERY AND PSYCHIATRY, 2016, 87 (04): : 343 - 344