Dual-mode noninvasive brain stimulation over the bilateral primary motor cortices in stroke patients

Use of noninvasive brain stimulation and neurorehabilitation devices to enhance poststroke recovery: review of the current evidence and pitfalls

Neurorehabilitation devices and technologies are crucial for enhancing stroke recovery. These include noninvasive brain stimulation devices that provide repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation or transcranial direct current stimulation, which can remodulate an injured brain. Technologies such as robotics, virtual reality, and telerehabilitation are suitable add-ons or complements to physical therapy. However, the appropriate application of these devices and technologies, which target specific deficits and stages, for stroke therapy must be clarified. Accordingly, a literature review was conducted to evaluate the theoretical and practical evidence on the use of neurorehabilitation devices and technologies for stroke therapy. This narrative review provides a practical guide for the use of neurorehabilitation devices and describes the implications of use and potential integration of these devices into healthcare.

Applications of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation to Improve Upper Limb Motor Performance After Stroke: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) is a promising technique for improving upper limb motor performance post-stroke. Its application has been guided by the interhemispheric competition model and typically involves suppression of contralesional motor cortex. However, the bimodal balance recovery model prompts a more tailored application of NIBS based on ipsilesional corticomotor function.

OBJECTIVE

To review and assess the application of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) protocols that aimed to improve upper limb motor performance after stroke.

METHODS

A PubMed search was conducted for studies published between 1st January 2005 and 1st November 2022 using rTMS to improve upper limb motor performance of human adults after stroke. Studies were grouped according to whether facilitatory or suppressive rTMS was applied to the contralesional hemisphere.

RESULTS

Of the 492 studies identified, 70 were included in this review. Only 2 studies did not conform to the interhemispheric competition model, and facilitated the contralesional hemisphere. Only 21 out of 70 (30%) studies reported motor evoked potential (MEP) status as a biomarker of ipsilesional corticomotor function. Around half of the studies (37/70, 53%) checked whether rTMS had the expected effect by measuring corticomotor excitability (CME) after application.

CONCLUSION

The interhemispheric competition model dominates the application of rTMS post-stroke. The majority of recent and current studies do not consider bimodal balance recovery model for the application of rTMS. Evaluating CME after the application rTMS could confirm that the intervention had the intended neurophysiological effect. Future studies could select patients and apply rTMS protocols based on ipsilesional MEP status.

Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation of Primary Motor Cortex for stroke upper limb motor sequelae rehabilitation: A systematic review

BACKGROUND: Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS) over the primary motor cortex (M1) has been used to treat stroke motor sequelae regulating cortical excitability. Early interventions are widely recommended, but there is also evidence showing interventions in subacute or chronic phases are still useful. OBJECTIVE: To synthetize the evidence of rTMS protocols to improve upper limb motor function in people with subacute and/or chronic stroke. METHODS: Four databases were searched in July 2022. Clinical trials investigating the effectiveness of different rTMS protocols on upper limb motor function in subacute or chronic phases post-stroke were included. PRISMA guidelines and PEDro scale were used. RESULTS: Thirty-two studies representing 1137 participants were included. Positive effects of all types of rTMS protocols on upper limb motor function were found. These effects were heterogeneous and not always clinically relevant or related to neurophysiological changes but produced evident changes if evaluated with functional tests. CONCLUSION: rTMS interventions over M1 are effective for improving upper limb motor function in people with subacute and chronic stroke. When rTMS protocols were priming physical rehabilitation better effects were achieved. Studies considering minimal clinical differences and different dosing will help to generalize the use of these protocols in clinical practice.

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for improving activities of daily living, and physical and cognitive functioning, in people after stroke

BACKGROUND

Stroke is one of the leading causes of disability worldwide. Functional impairment, resulting in poor performance in activities of daily living (ADL) among stroke survivors is common. Current rehabilitation approaches have limited effectiveness in improving ADL performance, function, muscle strength, and cognitive abilities (including spatial neglect) after stroke, with improving cognition being the number one research priority in this field. A possible adjunct to stroke rehabilitation might be non-invasive brain stimulation by transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) to modulate cortical excitability, and hence to improve these outcomes in people after stroke.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of tDCS on ADL, arm and leg function, muscle strength and cognitive abilities (including spatial neglect), dropouts and adverse events in people after stroke.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and seven other databases in January 2019. In an effort to identify further published, unpublished, and ongoing trials, we also searched trials registers and reference lists, handsearched conference proceedings, and contacted authors and equipment manufacturers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

This is the update of an existing review. In the previous version of this review, we focused on the effects of tDCS on ADL and function. In this update, we broadened our inclusion criteria to compare any kind of active tDCS for improving ADL, function, muscle strength and cognitive abilities (including spatial neglect) versus any kind of placebo or control intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and risk of bias, extracted data, and applied GRADE criteria. If necessary, we contacted study authors to ask for additional information. We collected information on dropouts and adverse events from the trial reports.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 67 studies involving a total of 1729 patients after stroke. We also identified 116 ongoing studies. The risk of bias did not differ substantially for different comparisons and outcomes. The majority of participants had ischaemic stroke, with mean age between 43 and 75 years, in the acute, postacute, and chronic phase after stroke, and level of impairment ranged from severe to less severe. Included studies differed in terms of type, location and duration of stimulation, amount of current delivered, electrode size and positioning, as well as type and location of stroke. We found 23 studies with 781 participants examining the effects of tDCS versus sham tDCS (or any other passive intervention) on our primary outcome measure, ADL after stroke. Nineteen studies with 686 participants reported absolute values and showed evidence of effect regarding ADL performance at the end of the intervention period (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.13 to 0.44; random-effects model; moderate-quality evidence). Four studies with 95 participants reported change scores, and showed an effect (SMD 0.48, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.95; moderate-quality evidence). Six studies with 269 participants assessed the effects of tDCS on ADL at the end of follow-up and provided absolute values, and found improved ADL (SMD 0.31, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.62; moderate-quality evidence). One study with 16 participants provided change scores and found no effect (SMD -0.64, 95% CI -1.66 to 0.37; low-quality evidence). However, the results did not persist in a sensitivity analysis that included only trials with proper allocation concealment. Thirty-four trials with a total of 985 participants measured upper extremity function at the end of the intervention period. Twenty-four studies with 792 participants that presented absolute values found no effect in favour of tDCS (SMD 0.17, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.38; moderate-quality evidence). Ten studies with 193 participants that presented change values also found no effect (SMD 0.33, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.79; low-quality evidence). Regarding the effects of tDCS on upper extremity function at the end of follow-up, we identified five studies with a total of 211 participants (absolute values) without an effect (SMD -0.00, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.39; moderate-quality evidence). Three studies with 72 participants presenting change scores found an effect (SMD 1.07; 95% CI 0.04 to 2.11; low-quality evidence). Twelve studies with 258 participants reported outcome data for lower extremity function and 18 studies with 553 participants reported outcome data on muscle strength at the end of the intervention period, but there was no effect (high-quality evidence). Three studies with 156 participants reported outcome data on muscle strength at follow-up, but there was no evidence of an effect (moderate-quality evidence). Two studies with 56 participants found no evidence of effect of tDCS on cognitive abilities (low-quality evidence), but one study with 30 participants found evidence of effect of tDCS for improving spatial neglect (very low-quality evidence). In 47 studies with 1330 participants, the proportions of dropouts and adverse events were comparable between groups (risk ratio (RR) 1.25, 95% CI 0.74 to 2.13; random-effects model; moderate-quality evidence).  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence of very low to moderate quality on the effectiveness of tDCS versus control (sham intervention or any other intervention) for improving ADL outcomes after stroke. However, the results did not persist in a sensitivity analyses including only trials with proper allocation concealment. Evidence of low to high quality suggests that there is no effect of tDCS on arm function and leg function, muscle strength, and cognitive abilities in people after stroke. Evidence of very low quality suggests that there is an effect on hemispatial neglect. There was moderate-quality evidence that adverse events and numbers of people discontinuing the treatment are not increased. Future studies should particularly engage with patients who may benefit the most from tDCS after stroke, but also should investigate the effects in routine application. Therefore, further large-scale randomised controlled trials with a parallel-group design and sample size estimation for tDCS are needed.

Pragmatic Solutions for Stroke Recovery and Improved Quality of Life in Low- and Middle-Income Countries-A Systematic Review

Background: Given the limited healthcare resources in low and middle income countries (LMICs), effective rehabilitation strategies that can be realistically adopted in such settings are required. Objective: A systematic review of literature was conducted to identify pragmatic solutions and outcomes capable of enhancing stroke recovery and quality of life of stroke survivors for low- and middle- income countries. Methods: PubMed, HINARI, and Directory of Open Access Journals databases were searched for published Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) till November 2018. Only completed trials published in English with non-pharmacological interventions on adult stroke survivors were included in the review while published protocols, pilot studies and feasibility analysis of trials were excluded. Obtained data were synthesized thematically and descriptively analyzed. Results: One thousand nine hundred and ninety six studies were identified while 347 (65.22% high quality) RCTs were found to be eligible for the review. The most commonly assessed variables (and outcome measure utility) were activities of daily living [75.79% of the studies, with Barthel Index (37.02%)], motor function [66.57%; with Fugl Meyer scale (71.88%)], and gait [31.12%; with 6 min walk test (38.67%)]. Majority of the innovatively high technology interventions such as robot therapy (95.24%), virtual reality (94.44%), transcranial direct current stimulation (78.95%), transcranial magnetic stimulation (88.0%) and functional electrical stimulation (85.00%) were conducted in high income countries. Several traditional and low-cost interventions such as constraint-induced movement therapy (CIMT), resistant and aerobic exercises (R&AE), task oriented therapy (TOT), body weight supported treadmill training (BWSTT) were reported to significantly contribute to the recovery of motor function, activity, participation, and improvement of quality of life after stroke. Conclusion: Several pragmatic, in terms of affordability, accessibility and utility, stroke rehabilitation solutions, and outcome measures that can be used in resource-limited settings were found to be effective in facilitating and enhancing post-stroke recovery and quality of life.

Neurotechnology-aided interventions for upper limb motor rehabilitation in severe chronic stroke

Upper limb motor deficits in severe stroke survivors often remain unresolved over extended time periods. Novel neurotechnologies have the potential to significantly support upper limb motor restoration in severely impaired stroke individuals. Here, we review recent controlled clinical studies and reviews focusing on the mechanisms of action and effectiveness of single and combined technology-aided interventions for upper limb motor rehabilitation after stroke, including robotics, muscular electrical stimulation, brain stimulation and brain computer/machine interfaces. We aim at identifying possible guidance for the optimal use of these new technologies to enhance upper limb motor recovery especially in severe chronic stroke patients. We found that the current literature does not provide enough evidence to support strict guidelines, because of the variability of the procedures for each intervention and of the heterogeneity of the stroke population. The present results confirm that neurotechnology-aided upper limb rehabilitation is promising for severe chronic stroke patients, but the combination of interventions often lacks understanding of single intervention mechanisms of action, which may not reflect the summation of single intervention’s effectiveness. Stroke rehabilitation is a long and complex process, and one single intervention administrated in a short time interval cannot have a large impact for motor recovery, especially in severely impaired patients. To design personalized interventions combining or proposing different interventions in sequence, it is necessary to have an excellent understanding of the mechanisms determining the effectiveness of a single treatment in this heterogeneous population of stroke patients. We encourage the identification of objective biomarkers for stroke recovery for patients’ stratification and to tailor treatments. Furthermore, the advantage of longitudinal personalized trial designs compared to classical double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trials as the basis for precise personalized stroke rehabilitation medicine is discussed. Finally, we also promote the necessary conceptual change from ‘one-suits-all’ treatments within in-patient clinical rehabilitation set-ups towards personalized home-based treatment strategies, by adopting novel technologies merging rehabilitation and motor assistance, including implantable ones.

Different Brain Connectivity between Responders and Nonresponders to Dual-Mode Noninvasive Brain Stimulation over Bilateral Primary Motor Cortices in Stroke Patients

Noninvasive brain stimulation (NBS), such as repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) or transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), has been used in stroke patients with motor impairment. NBS can help recovery from brain damage by modulating cortical excitability. However, the efficacy of NBS varies among individuals. To obtain insights of responsiveness to the efficacy of NBS, we investigated characteristic changes of the motor network in responders and nonresponders of NBS over the primary motor cortex (M1). A total of 21 patients with subacute stroke (13 males, mean age 59.6 ± 11.5 years) received NBS in the same manner: 1 Hz rTMS on the contralesional M1 and anodal tDCS on the ipsilesional M1. Participants were classified into responders and nonresponders based on the functional improvement of the affected upper extremity after applying NBS. Twelve age-matched healthy controls (8 males, mean age 56.1 ± 14.3 years) were also recruited. Motor networks were constructed using resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging. M1 intrahemispheric connectivity, interhemispheric connectivity, and network efficiency were measured to investigate differences in network characteristics between groups. The motor network characteristics were found to differ between both groups. Specifically, M1 intrahemispheric connectivity in responders showed a noticeable imbalance between affected and unaffected hemispheres, which was markedly restored after NBS. The responders also showed greater interhemispheric connectivity and higher efficiency of the motor network than the nonresponders. These results may provide insight on patient-specific NBS treatment based on the brain network characteristics in neurorehabilitation of patients with stroke. This trial is registered with trial registration number NCT03390192.

Modulating Brain Connectivity by Simultaneous Dual-Mode Stimulation over Bilateral Primary Motor Cortices in Subacute Stroke Patients

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) or transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has been used for the modulation of stroke patients' motor function. Recently, more challenging approaches have been studied. In this study, simultaneous stimulation using both rTMS and tDCS (dual-mode stimulation) over bilateral primary motor cortices (M1s) was investigated to compare its modulatory effects with single rTMS stimulation over the ipsilesional M1 in subacute stroke patients. Twenty-four patients participated; 12 participants were assigned to the dual-mode stimulation group while the other 12 participants were assigned to the rTMS-only group. We assessed each patient's motor function using the Fugl-Meyer assessment score and acquired their resting-state fMRI data at two times: prior to stimulation and 2 months after stimulation. Twelve healthy subjects were also recruited as the control group. The interhemispheric connectivity of the contralesional M1, interhemispheric connectivity between bilateral hemispheres, and global efficiency of the motor network noticeably increased in the dual-mode stimulation group compared to the rTMS-only group. Contrary to the dual-mode stimulation group, there was no significant change in the rTMS-only group. These data suggested that simultaneous dual-mode stimulation contributed to the recovery of interhemispheric interaction than rTMS only in subacute stroke patients. This trial is registered with NCT03279640.