Therapeutic trial of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation after acute ischemic stroke

Khedr, Eman M.; Ahmed, Mohamed A.; Fathy, Nehal; Rothwell, John C.

doi:10.1212/01.wnl.0000173067.84247.36

Cited by 436 publications

(330 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

292

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…M a n u s c r i p t Sale et al,13 One common approach is to use rTMS paradigms to target clinical conditions in which relatively defined regions of cortex are either pathologically underactive [e.g., stroke (Khedr et al, 2005)] or overactive [e.g., dystonia (Borich et al, 2009)]. Repetitive TMS has also been used to modulate the activity of local brain regions implicated in a range of psychiatric and neurological disorders.…”

Section: Transcranial Magnetic Stimulationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Imaging human brain networks to improve the clinical efficacy of non-invasive brain stimulation

Sale¹,

Mattingley²,

Zalesky³

et al. 2015

Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews

126

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Transcranial Magnetic Stimulationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Imaging human brain networks to improve the clinical efficacy of non-invasive brain stimulation

Sale¹,

Mattingley²,

Zalesky³

et al. 2015

Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews

126

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Initial investigations with non-invasive brain stimulation concentrated on using methods of rTMS to improve recovery in acute and chronic stroke (Khedr et al, 2005;Kim et al, 2006). However in recent years there has been increased interest in using tDCS because of two main advantages: firstly it is far less expensive than rTMS, and secondly, stimulation can potentially be applied during rehabilitation whereas rTMS (because the equipment is bulky and the head needs to remain still), it can only be given before (or after) a training session (Brunoni et al, 2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multiple sessions of transcranial direct current stimulation and upper extremity rehabilitation in stroke: A review and meta-analysis

Triccas

Burridge

Hughes

et al. 2016

Clinical Neurophysiology

109

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

h i g h l i g h t stDCS and rehabilitation had small non-significant effect on upper extremity impairments. Varied tDCS and rehabilitation programmes were identified in selected studies. Future research needs to further analyse tDCS and therapy interventions in stroke. a b s t r a c tObjective: To systematically review the methodology in particular treatment options and outcomes and the effect of multiple sessions of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) with rehabilitation programmes for upper extremity recovery post stroke. Methods: A search was conducted for randomised controlled trials involving tDCS and rehabilitation for the upper extremity in stroke. Quality of included studies was analysed using the Modified Downs and Black form. The extent of, and effect of variation in treatment parameters such as anodal, cathodal and bi-hemispheric tDCS on upper extremity outcome measures of impairment and activity were analysed using meta-analysis. Results: Nine studies (371 participants with acute, sub-acute and chronic stroke) were included. Different methodologies of tDCS and upper extremity intervention, outcome measures and timing of assessments were identified. Real tDCS combined with rehabilitation had a small non-significant effect of +0.11 (p = 0.44) and +0.24 (p = 0.11) on upper extremity impairments and activities at post-intervention respectively. Conclusion: Various tDCS methods have been used in stroke rehabilitation. The evidence so far is not statistically significant, but is suggestive of, at best, a small beneficial effect on upper extremity impairment. Significance: Future research should focus on which patients and rehabilitation programmes are likely to respond to different tDCS regimes.

show abstract

“…104 -106 In a study using a single session of rTMS in patients with chronic stroke, Kim et al 89 showed that high-frequency rTMS (10 Hz) to the ipsilesional M1 resulted in a significantly larger increase in MEP amplitudes than sham rTMS; this increase was associated with an enhanced accuracy during performance of a finger motor sequence task. In a study performed in subacute instead of chronic stroke patients, with multiple sessions of rTMS applied to the ipsilesional M1, Khedr et al 107 used rTMS (10 trains of 3 Hz stimulation, duration 10 seconds, with 50 seconds between each train, twice daily) combined with customary rehabilitative treatment for 10 days within the first 2 weeks after stroke. They reported performance improvements with rTMS relative to sham lasting for at least 10 days after the end of the treatment period.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…They reported performance improvements with rTMS relative to sham lasting for at least 10 days after the end of the treatment period. 107 None of the studies that stimulated the ipsilesional primary motor cortex reported complications other than transient headache.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Noninvasive brain stimulation in stroke rehabilitation

Webster

Celnik

Cohen

2006

NeuroRX

144

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary:Stroke is a common disorder that produces a major burden to society, largely through long-lasting motor disability in survivors. Recent studies have broadened our understanding of the processes underlying recovery of motor function after stroke. Bilateral motor regions of the brain experience substantial reorganization after stroke, including changes in the strength of interhemispheric inhibitory interactions. Our understanding of the extent to which different forms of reorganization contribute to behavioral gains in the rehabilitative process, although still limited, has led to the formulation of novel interventional strategies to regain motor function. Transcranial magnetic (TMS) and DC (tDCS) electrical stimulation are noninvasive brain stimulation techniques that modulate cortical excitability in both healthy individuals and stroke patients. These techniques can enhance the effect of training on performance of various motor tasks, including those that mimic activities of daily living. This review looks at the effects of TMS and tDCS on motor cortical function and motor performance in healthy volunteers and in patients with stroke. Both techniques can either enhance or suppress cortical excitability, and may move to the clinical arena as strategies to enhance the beneficial effects of customarily used neurorehabilitative treatments after stroke.

show abstract

Therapeutic trial of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation after acute ischemic stroke

Cited by 436 publications

References 9 publications

Imaging human brain networks to improve the clinical efficacy of non-invasive brain stimulation

Imaging human brain networks to improve the clinical efficacy of non-invasive brain stimulation

Multiple sessions of transcranial direct current stimulation and upper extremity rehabilitation in stroke: A review and meta-analysis

Noninvasive brain stimulation in stroke rehabilitation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About