Brain state–dependent stimulation boosts functional recovery following stroke

Objective Adjuvant protocols devised to enhance motor recovery in subacute stroke patients have failed to show benefits with respect to classic therapeutic interventions. Here, we evaluate the efficacy of a novel brain state–dependent intervention based on known mechanisms of memory and learning tha...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Annals of neurology 2019-01, Vol.85 (1), p.84-95
Hauptverfasser: Mrachacz‐Kersting, Natalie, Stevenson, Andrew J. T., Jørgensen, Helle R. M., Severinsen, Kåre Eg, Aliakbaryhosseinabadi, Susan, Jiang, Ning, Farina, Dario
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 95
container_issue 1
container_start_page 84
container_title Annals of neurology
container_volume 85
creator Mrachacz‐Kersting, Natalie
Stevenson, Andrew J. T.
Jørgensen, Helle R. M.
Severinsen, Kåre Eg
Aliakbaryhosseinabadi, Susan
Jiang, Ning
Farina, Dario
description Objective Adjuvant protocols devised to enhance motor recovery in subacute stroke patients have failed to show benefits with respect to classic therapeutic interventions. Here, we evaluate the efficacy of a novel brain state–dependent intervention based on known mechanisms of memory and learning that is integrated as part of the weekly rehabilitation program in subacute stroke patients. Methods Twenty‐four hospitalized subacute stroke patients were randomly assigned to 2 intervention groups: (1) the associative group received 30 pairings of a peripheral electrical nerve stimulus (ES) such that the generated afferent volley arrived precisely during the most active phase of the motor cortex as patients attempted to perform a movement; and (2) in the control group, the ES intensity was too low to generate a stimulation of the nerve. Functional (including the lower extremity Fugl–Meyer assessment [LE‐FM; primary outcome measure]) and neurophysiological (changes in motor evoked potentials [MEPs]) assessments were performed prior to and following the intervention period. Results The associative group significantly improved functional recovery with respect to the control group (median [interquartile range] LE‐FM improvement = 6.5 [3.5–8.25] and 3 [0.75–3], respectively; p = 0.029). Significant increases in MEP amplitude were seen following all sessions in the associative group only (p ≤ 0.006). Interpretation This is the first evidence of a clinical effect of a neuromodulatory intervention in the subacute phase of stroke. This was evident with relatively few repetitions in comparison to available techniques, making it a clinically viable approach. The results indicate the potential of the proposed neuromodulation system in daily clinical routine for stroke rehabilitation. ANN NEUROL 2019;85:84–95.
doi_str_mv 10.1002/ana.25375
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2132235121</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2132235121</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4545-22260e1e725b692601da4a809e6bc89a09130602c847bc84690a8d2ae08e79653</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kE1OwzAQhS0EoqWw4AIoEhtYpB3_xl4WxJ-EYAPryE2mKCWNi51QdccduCEnwaXAAonVm3n65knzCDmkMKQAbGQbO2SSZ3KL9KnkNNVMmG3SB65EKikXPbIXwgwAjKKwS3ocBGjGsj65P_O2apLQ2hY_3t5LXGBTYtNGp5p3tW0r1yQT50IbkmnXFOvd1onHwr2iXyVTV9duWTVP8cC7Z9wnO1NbBzz41gF5vLx4OL9Ob--vbs7Ht2khpJApY0wBUsyYnCgTZ1paYTUYVJNCGwuGclDACi2yaAhlwOqSWQSNmVGSD8jJJnfh3UuHoc3nVSiwrm2Drgs5o5wxLmnUATn-g85c5-MXa0oZqqVWPFKnG6rwLgSP03zhq7n1q5xCvm45jy3nXy1H9ug7sZvMsfwlf2qNwGgDLKsaV_8n5eO78SbyE9NEhhU</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2169185863</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Brain state–dependent stimulation boosts functional recovery following stroke</title><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Mrachacz‐Kersting, Natalie ; Stevenson, Andrew J. T. ; Jørgensen, Helle R. M. ; Severinsen, Kåre Eg ; Aliakbaryhosseinabadi, Susan ; Jiang, Ning ; Farina, Dario</creator><creatorcontrib>Mrachacz‐Kersting, Natalie ; Stevenson, Andrew J. T. ; Jørgensen, Helle R. M. ; Severinsen, Kåre Eg ; Aliakbaryhosseinabadi, Susan ; Jiang, Ning ; Farina, Dario</creatorcontrib><description>Objective Adjuvant protocols devised to enhance motor recovery in subacute stroke patients have failed to show benefits with respect to classic therapeutic interventions. Here, we evaluate the efficacy of a novel brain state–dependent intervention based on known mechanisms of memory and learning that is integrated as part of the weekly rehabilitation program in subacute stroke patients. Methods Twenty‐four hospitalized subacute stroke patients were randomly assigned to 2 intervention groups: (1) the associative group received 30 pairings of a peripheral electrical nerve stimulus (ES) such that the generated afferent volley arrived precisely during the most active phase of the motor cortex as patients attempted to perform a movement; and (2) in the control group, the ES intensity was too low to generate a stimulation of the nerve. Functional (including the lower extremity Fugl–Meyer assessment [LE‐FM; primary outcome measure]) and neurophysiological (changes in motor evoked potentials [MEPs]) assessments were performed prior to and following the intervention period. Results The associative group significantly improved functional recovery with respect to the control group (median [interquartile range] LE‐FM improvement = 6.5 [3.5–8.25] and 3 [0.75–3], respectively; p = 0.029). Significant increases in MEP amplitude were seen following all sessions in the associative group only (p ≤ 0.006). Interpretation This is the first evidence of a clinical effect of a neuromodulatory intervention in the subacute phase of stroke. This was evident with relatively few repetitions in comparison to available techniques, making it a clinically viable approach. The results indicate the potential of the proposed neuromodulation system in daily clinical routine for stroke rehabilitation. ANN NEUROL 2019;85:84–95.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0364-5134</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1531-8249</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/ana.25375</identifier><identifier>PMID: 30408227</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</publisher><subject>Brain ; Cortex (motor) ; Electrical stimuli ; Intervention ; Learning ; Memory ; Motor evoked potentials ; Motors ; Neuromodulation ; Patients ; Recovery ; Recovery of function ; Rehabilitation ; Sensory neurons ; Stimulation ; Stroke ; Therapeutic applications</subject><ispartof>Annals of neurology, 2019-01, Vol.85 (1), p.84-95</ispartof><rights>2018 American Neurological Association</rights><rights>2018 American Neurological Association.</rights><rights>2019 American Neurological Association</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4545-22260e1e725b692601da4a809e6bc89a09130602c847bc84690a8d2ae08e79653</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4545-22260e1e725b692601da4a809e6bc89a09130602c847bc84690a8d2ae08e79653</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-2814-5351</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Fana.25375$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Fana.25375$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27901,27902,45550,45551</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30408227$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Mrachacz‐Kersting, Natalie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stevenson, Andrew J. T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jørgensen, Helle R. M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Severinsen, Kåre Eg</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Aliakbaryhosseinabadi, Susan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jiang, Ning</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Farina, Dario</creatorcontrib><title>Brain state–dependent stimulation boosts functional recovery following stroke</title><title>Annals of neurology</title><addtitle>Ann Neurol</addtitle><description>Objective Adjuvant protocols devised to enhance motor recovery in subacute stroke patients have failed to show benefits with respect to classic therapeutic interventions. Here, we evaluate the efficacy of a novel brain state–dependent intervention based on known mechanisms of memory and learning that is integrated as part of the weekly rehabilitation program in subacute stroke patients. Methods Twenty‐four hospitalized subacute stroke patients were randomly assigned to 2 intervention groups: (1) the associative group received 30 pairings of a peripheral electrical nerve stimulus (ES) such that the generated afferent volley arrived precisely during the most active phase of the motor cortex as patients attempted to perform a movement; and (2) in the control group, the ES intensity was too low to generate a stimulation of the nerve. Functional (including the lower extremity Fugl–Meyer assessment [LE‐FM; primary outcome measure]) and neurophysiological (changes in motor evoked potentials [MEPs]) assessments were performed prior to and following the intervention period. Results The associative group significantly improved functional recovery with respect to the control group (median [interquartile range] LE‐FM improvement = 6.5 [3.5–8.25] and 3 [0.75–3], respectively; p = 0.029). Significant increases in MEP amplitude were seen following all sessions in the associative group only (p ≤ 0.006). Interpretation This is the first evidence of a clinical effect of a neuromodulatory intervention in the subacute phase of stroke. This was evident with relatively few repetitions in comparison to available techniques, making it a clinically viable approach. The results indicate the potential of the proposed neuromodulation system in daily clinical routine for stroke rehabilitation. ANN NEUROL 2019;85:84–95.</description><subject>Brain</subject><subject>Cortex (motor)</subject><subject>Electrical stimuli</subject><subject>Intervention</subject><subject>Learning</subject><subject>Memory</subject><subject>Motor evoked potentials</subject><subject>Motors</subject><subject>Neuromodulation</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Recovery</subject><subject>Recovery of function</subject><subject>Rehabilitation</subject><subject>Sensory neurons</subject><subject>Stimulation</subject><subject>Stroke</subject><subject>Therapeutic applications</subject><issn>0364-5134</issn><issn>1531-8249</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1kE1OwzAQhS0EoqWw4AIoEhtYpB3_xl4WxJ-EYAPryE2mKCWNi51QdccduCEnwaXAAonVm3n65knzCDmkMKQAbGQbO2SSZ3KL9KnkNNVMmG3SB65EKikXPbIXwgwAjKKwS3ocBGjGsj65P_O2apLQ2hY_3t5LXGBTYtNGp5p3tW0r1yQT50IbkmnXFOvd1onHwr2iXyVTV9duWTVP8cC7Z9wnO1NbBzz41gF5vLx4OL9Ob--vbs7Ht2khpJApY0wBUsyYnCgTZ1paYTUYVJNCGwuGclDACi2yaAhlwOqSWQSNmVGSD8jJJnfh3UuHoc3nVSiwrm2Drgs5o5wxLmnUATn-g85c5-MXa0oZqqVWPFKnG6rwLgSP03zhq7n1q5xCvm45jy3nXy1H9ug7sZvMsfwlf2qNwGgDLKsaV_8n5eO78SbyE9NEhhU</recordid><startdate>201901</startdate><enddate>201901</enddate><creator>Mrachacz‐Kersting, Natalie</creator><creator>Stevenson, Andrew J. T.</creator><creator>Jørgensen, Helle R. M.</creator><creator>Severinsen, Kåre Eg</creator><creator>Aliakbaryhosseinabadi, Susan</creator><creator>Jiang, Ning</creator><creator>Farina, Dario</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7U7</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2814-5351</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>201901</creationdate><title>Brain state–dependent stimulation boosts functional recovery following stroke</title><author>Mrachacz‐Kersting, Natalie ; Stevenson, Andrew J. T. ; Jørgensen, Helle R. M. ; Severinsen, Kåre Eg ; Aliakbaryhosseinabadi, Susan ; Jiang, Ning ; Farina, Dario</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4545-22260e1e725b692601da4a809e6bc89a09130602c847bc84690a8d2ae08e79653</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Brain</topic><topic>Cortex (motor)</topic><topic>Electrical stimuli</topic><topic>Intervention</topic><topic>Learning</topic><topic>Memory</topic><topic>Motor evoked potentials</topic><topic>Motors</topic><topic>Neuromodulation</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Recovery</topic><topic>Recovery of function</topic><topic>Rehabilitation</topic><topic>Sensory neurons</topic><topic>Stimulation</topic><topic>Stroke</topic><topic>Therapeutic applications</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Mrachacz‐Kersting, Natalie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stevenson, Andrew J. T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jørgensen, Helle R. M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Severinsen, Kåre Eg</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Aliakbaryhosseinabadi, Susan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jiang, Ning</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Farina, Dario</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Toxicology Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Annals of neurology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Mrachacz‐Kersting, Natalie</au><au>Stevenson, Andrew J. T.</au><au>Jørgensen, Helle R. M.</au><au>Severinsen, Kåre Eg</au><au>Aliakbaryhosseinabadi, Susan</au><au>Jiang, Ning</au><au>Farina, Dario</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Brain state–dependent stimulation boosts functional recovery following stroke</atitle><jtitle>Annals of neurology</jtitle><addtitle>Ann Neurol</addtitle><date>2019-01</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>85</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>84</spage><epage>95</epage><pages>84-95</pages><issn>0364-5134</issn><eissn>1531-8249</eissn><abstract>Objective Adjuvant protocols devised to enhance motor recovery in subacute stroke patients have failed to show benefits with respect to classic therapeutic interventions. Here, we evaluate the efficacy of a novel brain state–dependent intervention based on known mechanisms of memory and learning that is integrated as part of the weekly rehabilitation program in subacute stroke patients. Methods Twenty‐four hospitalized subacute stroke patients were randomly assigned to 2 intervention groups: (1) the associative group received 30 pairings of a peripheral electrical nerve stimulus (ES) such that the generated afferent volley arrived precisely during the most active phase of the motor cortex as patients attempted to perform a movement; and (2) in the control group, the ES intensity was too low to generate a stimulation of the nerve. Functional (including the lower extremity Fugl–Meyer assessment [LE‐FM; primary outcome measure]) and neurophysiological (changes in motor evoked potentials [MEPs]) assessments were performed prior to and following the intervention period. Results The associative group significantly improved functional recovery with respect to the control group (median [interquartile range] LE‐FM improvement = 6.5 [3.5–8.25] and 3 [0.75–3], respectively; p = 0.029). Significant increases in MEP amplitude were seen following all sessions in the associative group only (p ≤ 0.006). Interpretation This is the first evidence of a clinical effect of a neuromodulatory intervention in the subacute phase of stroke. This was evident with relatively few repetitions in comparison to available techniques, making it a clinically viable approach. The results indicate the potential of the proposed neuromodulation system in daily clinical routine for stroke rehabilitation. ANN NEUROL 2019;85:84–95.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</pub><pmid>30408227</pmid><doi>10.1002/ana.25375</doi><tpages>12</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2814-5351</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0364-5134
ispartof Annals of neurology, 2019-01, Vol.85 (1), p.84-95
issn 0364-5134
1531-8249
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2132235121
source Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete
subjects Brain
Cortex (motor)
Electrical stimuli
Intervention
Learning
Memory
Motor evoked potentials
Motors
Neuromodulation
Patients
Recovery
Recovery of function
Rehabilitation
Sensory neurons
Stimulation
Stroke
Therapeutic applications
title Brain state–dependent stimulation boosts functional recovery following stroke
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-09T02%3A23%3A22IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Brain%20state%E2%80%93dependent%20stimulation%20boosts%20functional%20recovery%20following%20stroke&rft.jtitle=Annals%20of%20neurology&rft.au=Mrachacz%E2%80%90Kersting,%20Natalie&rft.date=2019-01&rft.volume=85&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=84&rft.epage=95&rft.pages=84-95&rft.issn=0364-5134&rft.eissn=1531-8249&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/ana.25375&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2132235121%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2169185863&rft_id=info:pmid/30408227&rfr_iscdi=true