Constraint-Induced Movement Therapy Combined with Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation over Premotor Cortex Improves Motor Function in Severe Stroke: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

Transcranial direct current stimulation over the motor and premotor cortex with mirror therapy improves motor control, muscle function, and brain activity in chronic stroke: a double-blind randomized sham-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a popular approach to augment the effects of neurorehabilitation. Most studies stimulated the ipsilesional primary motor cortex (iM1); nonetheless, the success of iM1 stimulation was variable, suggesting that it may not be optimal for improving recovery. Ipsilesional premotor cortex (iPMC) may be an alternative candidate based on its likelihood of survival post-stroke and its contribution to functions. This study aimed to determine the effects of tDCS on the iPMC and iM1 with mirror therapy (MT) on motor control, muscle function, and brain activity in chronic stroke.

METHODS

Thirty-six participants were randomly distributed into (1) iPMC-tDCS with MT (PMC) (2), iM1-tDCS with MT (M1), and (3) sham tDCS with MT (sham). Motor control was assessed using kinematics. Muscle function was assessed using the modified Ashworth and the Medical Research Council Scales. The M1 and PMC activity was recorded using electroencephalography (EEG), and the event-related desynchronization and the laterality index (LI) were examined.

RESULTS

Significant within-group differences were identified in the kinematic outcomes. After interventions, the PMC group showed reduced paretic upper limb muscle spasticity and improved paretic limb control with greater movement smoothness and peak velocity. The M1 group showed reduced trunk compensation with fewer trunk displacement and flexion. However, the sham group relied more on trunk compensation, demonstrating increased trunk peak velocity and smoothness. Significant between-group differences were also found in paretic limb control and trunk displacement. Post-hoc analysis revealed that the PMC group improved paretic limb control, and the M1 group showed reduced trunk displacement more than the sham group. Significant within-and between-group differences were identified in EEG outcomes. The iM1 and contralesional PMC (cPMC) activity increased from pre-to-post intervention in the M1 group. In contrast, the iM1 activity decreased, and the LI declined from pre- to post-intervention in the sham group. Significant group differences were found in the iM1 activity, with the PMC and M1 having greater iM1 activation than the sham group.

CONCLUSIONS

Differential treatment benefits were identified between iPMC- and iM1-tDCS with MT. iPMC-tDCS with MT uniquely improved paretic upper limb control with reduced muscle spasticity while iM1-tDCS with MT mitigated trunk compensation during reaching. These findings suggest that both iPMC- and iM1-tDCS could augment the effects of stroke neurorehabilitation and may be considered in clinical applications.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04655209. Registered on 15th November 2020. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04655209 .

Effects of transcranial direct current stimulation combined with motor relearning program on strength and balance in stroke patients

Background

A stroke is characterized by neurological deficits that result in compromised muscle strength and balance, impacting the overall wellbeing of the patient, including decreased quality of life, socialization and participation in daily activities. The aim of the study is to determine the effects of transcranial direct current stimulation combined with a motor relearning program on strength and balance in sub-acute stroke patients.

Methods

The randomized controlled trial involved 44 subacute stroke patients, randomly assigned to either the experimental group (n = 22) or control group (n = 22). The intervention included anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for the experimental group and sham stimulation with a motor relearning program for the control groups. Assessments were conducted using manual muscle testing for muscle strength and the Berg Balance Scale for balance at baseline, the fourth week, and the eighth week.

Results

There were no statistically significant effects in the experimental group for either strength or balance (p-value > 0.05) but there were time effects for both variables especially during the intervention period in both the experimental and control groups.

Conclusion

There does not appear to be any short term or long-term additional effects of anodal transcranial direct current stimulation on strength and balance in subacute stroke patients.

The effectiveness of early interventions for post-stroke spasticity: a systematic review

PURPOSE

To synthesize evidence on the effect of early post-stroke spasticity interventions.

METHODS

Systematic literature search (PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science) encompassing studies on spasticity reducing interventions within 3 months post stroke on outcome defined within the International Classification of Functioning (ICF).

RESULTS

In total, 27 studies were identified with n = 1.658 cases. Botulinum toxin (2-12 weeks; 10 studies, n = 794) showed consistent and significant reduced spasticity by Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS) or electromyography (EMG). Electrical muscle stimulation (1-8 weeks; 6 studies, n = 335) showed lower MAS/Composite Spasticity Scale scores in 4 studies. Transcranial stimulation (3 studies; n = 131), oral spasmolytics (1 study; n = 38), shockwave (1 study; n = 40), orthotics (3 studies; n = 197 and robot-assisted therapy (3 studies; n = 123) showed inconclusive results. Effects on ICF activity domain could not be established due to limited data and large outcome measures heterogeneity. One out of two studies showed significant benefit for early compared to late BoNT intervention (< 90 vs> 90 days).

CONCLUSION

This study provides evidence for early applied (<3 months) BoNT to effectively reduce spasticity and probable effectiveness of electrical stimulation. Establishing effects of interventions in the acute/hospitalization phase (<7 days) needs further work, specifically on the ICF activity domain. Standardization of outcome measures is required.

Theory-Driven EEG Indexes for Tracking Motor Recovery and Predicting the Effects of Hybridizing tDCS With Mirror Therapy in Stroke Patients

Stroke remains a leading cause of adult disability, underscoring why research continues to focus on advancing new treatment methods and neurophysiological indexes. While these studies may be effective, many lack a clear theoretical framework. The current study first determined the optimal combination effects of mirror therapy (MT) with transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on the premotor or primary motor cortex on its short-term and sustained clinical outcomes. We then introduced electroencephalogram (EEG) indexes derived from the gating-by-inhibition model to explore the underlying therapeutic mechanisms. The EEG indexes used in this study focused on the functional involvement for motor generation: alpha power at temporal regions (inhibiting non-motor activity) and central-frontal regions (releasing motor regions from inhibition). Results showed that post-training benefits, measured by Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA), were similar across 3 tDCS interventions (premotor, primary motor, sham). EEG seemed more sensitive to the training, with notable responses in the premotor tDCS group. Three months after training, only the premotor tDCS group maintained the gains in FMA, with these improvements correlated with the EEG indexes. Again, this pattern was specific to premotor tDCS. Since the gating-by-inhibition model suggests that EEG index reflects an individual's psychomotor efficiency, we also found that the baseline EEG index could predict FMA retention. Our findings demonstrate the superiority of combined premotor tDCS with MT and identify functionally oscillatory alpha-band activity in the temporal and central-frontal regions as potentially underlying the therapeutic mechanism. An individual's spatial pattern of EEG may be effective in predicting upper extremity retention effect.

Therapeutic effect of adjuvant therapy added to constraint-induced movement therapy in patients with subacute to chronic stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

This review investigated the effectiveness of adjuvant therapy combined with constraint-induced movement therapy (CIMT) in improving the paretic upper limb functionality in adults with stroke sequelae during the subacute to chronic rehabilitation phase.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT), electronic databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, and MEDLINE, were searched. We included RCTs that investigated the outcomes of adjuvant therapy (i.e. other therapies) added to CIMT compared with CIMT alone. Key trial findings were qualitatively synthesized and analyzed. This meta-analysis examined variables, such as mean scores and standard deviations, using the following outcome measures: Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA) upper limb items, Action Research Arm Test (ARAT), Amount of Use (AOU) of Motor Activity Log (MAL), and Quality of Movement (QOM) of MAL.

RESULTS

Eighteen eligible RCTs were included in the analysis. Adding CIMT to adjunctive therapy significantly improved FMA compared with CIMT alone (mean difference [MD] 4.02, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.60-5.44; I2 = 85%; 15 studies; 330 participants). Similarly, the ARAT and MAL-AOU scores improved significantly.

CONCLUSIONS

CIMT combined with several adjunctive therapies effectively improved upper limb function.

Effects of high-definition transcranial direct current stimulation combined with inspiratory muscle training for treating respiratory sequelae of long COVID: A case series

INTRODUCTION

Long COVID occurs when numerous symptoms begin 3 weeks after acute infection and last for 12 months or more. High-definition transcranial direct current stimulation (HD-tDCS) has been tested in patients with COVID-19; however, previous studies did not investigate the HD-tDCS use combined with inspiratory muscle training (IMT) for respiratory sequelae of long COVID.

CASE PRESENTATION

Six individuals (four women and two men) aged between 29 and 71 years and presenting with respiratory sequelae of long COVID were included. They were submitted to an intervention that comprised HD-tDCS combined with IMT twice a week for 5 weeks. Lung function and respiratory muscle assessments were performed at baseline and after 5 weeks of intervention.

IMPLICATIONS ON PHYSIOTHERAPY PRACTICE

HD-tDCS may enhance the IMT effects by increasing respiratory muscle strength, efficiency, and lung function of individuals with long COVID.

Progress in the clinical application of constraint-induced therapy following stroke since 2014

Stroke is a group of cerebrovascular diseases with high prevalence and mortality rate. Stroke can induce many impairments, including motor and cognitive dysfunction, aphasia/dysarthria, dysphagia, and mood disorders, which may reduce the quality of life among the patients. Constraint-induced therapy has been proven to be an effective treatment method for stroke rehabilitation. It has been widely used in the recovery of limb motor dysfunction, aphasia, and other impairment like unilateral neglect after stroke. In recent years, constraint-induced therapy can also combine with telehealth and home rehabilitation. In addition, constraint-induced therapy produces significant neuroplastic changes in the central nervous system. Functional magnetic resonance imaging, diffusion tensor imaging, and other imaging/electrophysiology methods have been used to clarify the mechanism and neuroplasticity. However, constraint-induced therapy has some limitations. It can only be used under certain conditions, and the treatment time and effectiveness are controversial. Further research is needed to clarify the mechanism and effectiveness of CI therapy.

Anti-spastic effect of contralesional dorsal premotor cortex stimulation in stroke patients with moderate-to-severe spastic paresis: a randomized, controlled pilot trial

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed at investigating the effect of a single-session repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) of the contralesional dorsal premotor cortex on poststroke upper-limb spasticity.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The study consisted of the following three independent parallel arms: inhibitory rTMS (n = 12), excitatory rTMS (n = 12), and sham stimulation (n = 13). The primary and secondary outcome measures were the Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS) and F/M amplitude ratio, respectively. A clinically meaningful difference was defined as a reduction in at least one MAS score.

RESULTS

There was a statistically significant change in MAS score within only the excitatory rTMS group over time [median (interquartile range) of - 1.0 (- 1.0 to - 0.5), p = 0.004]. However, groups were comparable in terms of median changes in MAS scores (p > 0.05). The proportions of patients achieving at least one MAS score reduction (9/12 in the excitatory rTMS group, 5/12 in the inhibitory rTMS group, and 5/13 in the control group) were also comparable (p = 0.135). For the F/M amplitude ratio, main time effect, main intervention effect, and time-intervention interaction effect were not statistically significant (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Modulation of the contralesional dorsal premotor cortex with a single-session of excitatory or inhibitory rTMS does not appear to have an immediate anti-spastic effect beyond sham/placebo. The implication of this small study remains unclear and further studies into excitatory rTMS for the treatment of moderate-to-severe spastic paresis in poststroke patients should be undertaken.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NO

NCT04063995 (clinicaltrials.gov).

Combination of noninvasive brain stimulation and constraint-induced movement therapy in patients with stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Constraint-induced movement therapy (CIMT) and noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) are used to counteract learned nonuse phenomenon and imbalance in interhemispheric inhibition following stroke. The aim of this study is to summarize the available evidence on the effects of combining NIBS with CIMT in patients with stroke.

METHOD

PubMed, Embase, Web of Science (WoS), PEDro, OTSeeker, and CENTRAL were searched for randomized controlled trials comparing the use of NIBS+CIMT with sham NIBS+CIMT. Data on variables such as time since stroke and mean scores and standard deviations on outcomes assessed such as motor function were extracted. Cochrane risks of bias assessment tool and PEDro scale were used to assess the risk of bias and methodological quality of the included studies.

RESULTS

The results showed that both NIBS+CIMT and sham NIBS+CIMT improved all outcomes post-intervention and at follow-up. However, NIBS+CIMT is superior to sham NIBS+CIMT at improving level of motor impairment (SMD = 1.75, 95% CI = 0.49 to 3.01, P = 0.007) post-intervention and hand function (SMD = 1.21, 95% CI = 0.07 to 2.35, P = 0.04) at follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of NIBS to CIMT seems to provide additional benefits to the recovery of function following stroke.

Addressing the inconsistent electric fields of tDCS by using patient-tailored configurations in chronic stroke: Implications for treatment

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a promising tool to improve and speed up motor rehabilitation after stroke, but inconsistent clinical effects refrain tDCS from clinical implementation. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the need for individualized tDCS configurations in stroke, considering interindividual variability in brain anatomy and motor function representation. We simulated tDCS in individualized MRI-based finite element head models of 21 chronic stroke subjects and 10 healthy age-matched controls. An anatomy-based stimulation target, i.e. the motor hand knob, was identified with MRI, whereas a motor function-based stimulation target was identified with EEG. For each subject, we simulated conventional anodal tDCS electrode configurations and optimized electrode configurations to maximize stimulation strength within the anatomical and functional target. The normal component of the electric field was extracted and compared between subjects with stroke and healthy, age-matched controls, for both targets, during conventional and optimized tDCS. Electrical field strength was significantly lower, more variable and more frequently in opposite polarity for subjects with stroke compared to healthy age-matched subjects, both for the anatomical and functional target with conventional, i.e. non-individualized, electrode configurations. Optimized, i.e. individualized, electrode configurations increased the electrical field strength in the anatomical and functional target for subjects with stroke but did not reach the same levels as in healthy subjects. Considering individual brain structure and motor function is crucial for applying tDCS in subjects with stroke. Lack of individualized tDCS configurations in subjects with stroke results in lower electric fields in stimulation targets, which may partially explain the inconsistent clinical effects of tDCS in stroke trials.

Effects of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on Memory of Elderly People with Mild Cognitive Impairment or Alzheimer's Disease: A Systematic Review

Background

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is one of the most studied non-invasive neuromodulation techniques, presenting itself as a promising technique for several pathologies, such as cognitive decline.

Objectives

The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review of the effects of tDCS on the memory of elderly people with mild cognitive impairment or Alzheimer's disease, in order to describe the main protocols used, and to investigate the therapeutic effectiveness of this technique.

Data Sources and Methods

869 studies reporting controlled clinical trials were found in the databases PubMed, Web of Science, Lilacs, PsycArticles and Scielo, from which 13 met the expected requirements and were included in the final analysis.

Results

There was a great variability in the stimulation protocols used in the studies; and methodological weaknesses were observed, such as absence of sample size calculation, and of information on effect sizes. Positive effects of tDCS were observed only in five studies, and the combination of stimulation and cognitive training did not seem to potentiate the effects of tDCS.

Conclusion

Although tDCS can be considered a technique with important therapeutic potential, more studies are needed to understand the acute effects of tDCS on memory of elderly people and the durability of these effects over time.

Registration

PROSPERO (CRD-42020200573).

Effects of Non-Invasive Brain Stimulation on Post-Stroke Spasticity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

In recent years, the potential of non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) for the therapeutic effect of post-stroke spasticity has been explored. There are various NIBS methods depending on the stimulation modality, site and parameters. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of NIBS on spasticity in patients after stroke. This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. PUBMED (MEDLINE), Web of Science, Cochrane Library and Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE) were searched for all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published before December 2021. Two independent researchers screened relevant articles and extracted data. This meta-analysis included 14 articles, and all included articles included 18 RCT datasets. The results showed that repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) (MD = −0.40, [95% CI]: −0.56 to −0.25, p < 0.01) had a significant effect on improving spasticity, in which low-frequency rTMS (LF-rTMS) (MD = −0.51, [95% CI]: −0.78 to −0.24, p < 0.01) and stimulation of the unaffected hemisphere (MD = −0.58, [95% CI]: −0.80 to −0.36, p < 0.01) were beneficial on Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS) in patients with post-stroke spasticity. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) (MD = −0.65, [95% CI]: −1.07 to −0.22, p < 0.01) also had a significant impact on post-stroke rehabilitation, with anodal stimulation (MD = −0.74, [95% CI]: −1.35 to −0.13, p < 0.05) being more effective in improving spasticity in patients. This meta-analysis revealed moderate evidence that NIBS reduces spasticity after stroke and may promote recovery in stroke survivors. Future studies investigating the mechanisms of NIBS in addressing spasticity are warranted to further support the clinical application of NIBS in post-stroke spasticity.

Non-invasive Brain Stimulation for Central Neuropathic Pain

The research and clinical application of the noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) technique in the treatment of neuropathic pain (NP) are increasing. In this review article, we outline the effectiveness and limitations of the NIBS approach in treating common central neuropathic pain (CNP). This article summarizes the research progress of NIBS in the treatment of different CNPs and describes the effects and mechanisms of these methods on different CNPs. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) analgesic research has been relatively mature and applied to a variety of CNP treatments. But the optimal stimulation targets, stimulation intensity, and stimulation time of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for each type of CNP are still difficult to identify. The analgesic mechanism of rTMS is similar to that of tDCS, both of which change cortical excitability and synaptic plasticity, regulate the release of related neurotransmitters and affect the structural and functional connections of brain regions associated with pain processing and regulation. Some deficiencies are found in current NIBS relevant studies, such as small sample size, difficulty to avoid placebo effect, and insufficient research on analgesia mechanism. Future research should gradually carry out large-scale, multicenter studies to test the stability and reliability of the analgesic effects of NIBS.

Influence of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Dosage and Associated Therapy on Motor Recovery Post-stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Purpose

(1) To determine the impact of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) applied alone or combined with other therapies on the recovery of motor function after stroke and (2) To determine tDCS dosage effect.

Methods

Randomized controlled trials comparing the effects of tDCS with sham, using the Barthel Index (BI), the upper and lower extremity Fugl–Meyer Assessment (FMA), and the Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS), were retrieved from PubMed, Medline (EBSCO), and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) from their inception to June 2021. Calculations for each assessment were done for the overall effect and associated therapy accounting for the influence of stroke severity or stimulation parameters.

Results

A total of 31 studies involving metrics of the BI, the upper extremity FMA, the lower extremity FMA, and the MAS were included. tDCS combined with other therapies was beneficial when assessed by the BI (mean difference: 6.8; P < 0.01) and these studies typically had participants in the acute stage. tDCS effects on the upper and lower extremity FMA are unclear and differences between the sham and tDCS groups as well as differences in the associated therapy type combined with tDCS potentially influenced the FMA results. tDCS was not effective compared to sham for the MAS. Stimulation types (e.g., anodal vs. cathodal) did not influence these results and dosage parameters were not associated with the obtained effect sizes. Conventional therapy associated with tDCS typically produced greater effect size than assisted therapy. The influence of stroke severity is unclear.

Conclusion

Potential benefits of tDCS can vary depending on assessment tool used, duration of stroke, and associated therapy. Mechanistic studies are needed to understand the potential role of stimulation type and dosage effect after stroke. Future studies should carefully conduct group randomization, control for duration of stroke, and report different motor recovery assessments types.

Systematic Review Registration

[https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/], identifier [CRD42021290670].

Neuroprotection by Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in Rodent Models of Focal Ischemic Stroke: A Meta-Analysis

Infarct size is associated with stroke severity in clinical studies, so reducing it has become an important target and research hotspot in the treatment of ischemic stroke. Some preclinical studies have shown transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) reduced infarct size and improved neurological deficit, but others have not found beneficial effects. Besides, the optimal pattern of tDCS for ischemic stroke remains largely unknown. To shed light on the current circumstance and future research directions, the systematic review evaluated the effect of different tDCS paradigms in reducing infarct size and improving neurological deficit in rodent models of ischemic stroke and assessed the methodological quality of current literature. We searched the MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE, Web of Science, and Scopus from their inception to August 18, 2021, to identify studies evaluating the effects of tDCS in rodent models of ischemic stroke. Eight studies were included, of which seven studies were included in the meta-analysis. The results showed cathodal tDCS, rather than anodal tDCS, reduced infarct size mainly measured by tetrazolium chloride and magnetic resonance imaging (standardized mean difference: -1.13; 95% CI: -1.72, -0.53; p = 0.0002) and improved neurological deficit assessed by a modified neurological severity score (standardized mean difference: -2.10; 95% CI: -3.78, -0.42; p = 0.01) in an early stage of focal ischemic stroke in rodent models. Subgroup analyses showed effects of cathodal tDCS on infarct size were not varied by ischemia duration (ischemia for 1, 1.5, and 2 h or permanent ischemia) and anesthesia (involving isoflurane and ketamine). The overall quality of studies included was low, thus the results must be interpreted cautiously. Published studies suggest that cathodal tDCS may be a promising avenue to explore for augmenting rehabilitation from focal ischemic stroke. Considering the methodological limitations, it is unreliable to blindly extrapolate the animal data to the clinical practice. Future research is needed to investigate the mechanism of tDCS in a randomized and blinded fashion in clinically relevant stroke models, such as elderly animals, female animals, and animals with comorbidities, to find an optimal treatment protocol.

Motor stroke recovery after tDCS: a systematic review

The purpose of the present study was to investigate the effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on motor recovery in adult patients with stroke, taking into account the parameters that could influence the motor recovery responses. The second aim was to identify the best tDCS parameters and recommendations available based on the enhanced motor recovery demonstrated by the analyzed studies. Our systematic review was performed by searching full-text articles published before February 18, 2019 in the PubMed database. Different methods of applying tDCS in association with several complementary therapies were identified. Studies investigating the motor recovery effects of tDCS in adult patients with stroke were considered. Studies investigating different neurologic conditions and psychiatric disorders or those not meeting our methodologic criteria were excluded. The main parameters and outcomes of tDCS treatments are reported. There is not a robust concordance among the study outcomes with regard to the enhancement of motor recovery associated with the clinical application of tDCS. This is mainly due to the heterogeneity of clinical data, tDCS approaches, combined interventions, and outcome measurements. tDCS could be an effective approach to promote adaptive plasticity in the stroke population with significant positive premotor and postmotor rehabilitation effects. Future studies with larger sample sizes and high-quality studies with a better standardization of stimulation protocols are needed to improve the study quality, further corroborate our results, and identify the optimal tDCS protocols.

Contralesional Cathodal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Does Not Enhance Upper Limb Function in Subacute Stroke: A Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has the potential to improve upper limb motor outcomes after stroke. According to the assumption of interhemispheric inhibition, excessive inhibition from the motor cortex of the unaffected hemisphere to the motor cortex of the affected hemisphere may worsen upper limb motor recovery after stroke. We evaluated the effects of active cathodal tDCS of the primary motor cortex of the unaffected hemisphere (ctDCSM1_UH) compared to sham, in subjects within 72 hours to 6 weeks post ischemic stroke. Cathodal tDCS was intended to inhibit the motor cortex of the unaffected hemisphere and hence decrease the inhibition from the unaffected to the affected hemisphere and enhance motor recovery. We hypothesized that motor recovery would be greater in the active than in the sham group. In addition, greater motor recovery in the active group might be associated with bigger improvements in measures in activity and participation in the active than in the sham group. We also explored, for the first time, changes in cognition and sleep after ctDCSM1_UH. Thirty subjects were randomized to six sessions of either active or sham ctDCSM1_UH as add-on interventions to rehabilitation. The NIH Stroke Scale (NIHSS), Fugl-Meyer Assessment of Motor Recovery after Stroke (FMA), Barthel Index (BI), Stroke Impact Scale (SIS), and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) were assessed before, after treatment, and three months later. In the intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis, there were significant GROUP∗TIME interactions reflecting stronger gains in the sham group for scores in NIHSS, FMA, BI, MoCA, and four SIS domains. At three months post intervention, the sham group improved significantly compared to posttreatment in FMA, NIHSS, BI, and three SIS domains while no significant changes occurred in the active group. Also at three months, NIHSS improved significantly in the sham group and worsened significantly in the active group. FMA scores at baseline were higher in the active than in the sham group. After adjustment of analysis according to baseline scores, the between-group differences in FMA changes were no longer statistically significant. Finally, none of the between-group differences in changes in outcomes after treatment were considered clinically relevant. In conclusion, active CtDCSM1_UH did not have beneficial effects, compared to sham. These results were consistent with other studies that applied comparable tDCS intensities/current densities or treated subjects with severe upper limb motor impairments during the first weeks post stroke. Dose-finding studies early after stroke are necessary before planning larger clinical trials.

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.

Evaluating the effects of tDCS in stroke patients using functional outcomes: a systematic review

Background and purpose: Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has been extensively studied over the past 20 years to promote functional motor recovery after stroke. However, tDCS clinical relevance still needs to be determined. The present systematic review aims to determine whether tDCS applied to the primary motor cortex (M1) in stroke patients can have a positive effect on functional motor outcomes.Materials and methods: Two databases (Medline & Scopus) were searched for randomized, double-blinded, sham-controlled trials pertaining to the use of M1 tDCS on cerebral stroke patients, and its effects on validated functional motor outcomes. When data were provided, effect sizes were calculated. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018108157Results: 46 studies (n = 1291 patients) met inclusion criteria. Overall study quality was good (7.69/10 on the PEDro scale). Over half (56.5%) the studies were on chronic stroke patients. There seemed to be a certain pattern of recurring parameters, but tDCS protocols still remain heterogeneous. Overall results were positive (71.7% of studies found that tDCS has positive results on functional motor outcomes). Effect-sizes ranged from 0 to 1.33. No severe adverse events were reported.Conclusion: Despite heterogeneous stimulation parameters, outcomes and patient demographics, tDCS seems to be complementary to classical and novel rehabilitation approaches. With minimal adverse effects (if screening parameters are respected), none of which were serious, and a high potential to improve recovery when using optimal parameters (i.e.: 20 min of stimulation, at 2 mA with 25 or 35cm² electrodes that are regularly humidified), tDCS could potentially be ready for clinical applications.Implications for RehabilitationtDCS could potentially be ready for clinical application.Evidence of very low to very high quality is available on the effectiveness of tDCS to improve motor control following stroke.This should with caution be focused on the primary motor cortex.

Premotor dorsal white matter integrity for the prediction of upper limb motor impairment after stroke

Corticospinal tract integrity after stroke has been widely investigated through the evaluation of fibres descending from the primary motor cortex. However, about half of the corticospinal tract is composed by sub-pathways descending from premotor and parietal areas, to which damage may play a more specific role in motor impairment and recovery, particularly post-stroke. Therefore, the main aim of this study was to investigate lesion load within corticospinal tract sub-pathways as predictors of upper limb motor impairment after stroke. Motor impairment (Fugl-Meyer Upper Extremity score) was evaluated in 27 participants at one week and six months after stroke, together with other clinical and demographic data. Neuroimaging data were obtained within the first week after stroke. Univariate regression analysis indicated that among all neural correlates, lesion load within premotor fibres explained the most variance in motor impairment at six months (R² = 0.44, p < 0.001). Multivariable regression analysis resulted in three independent, significant variables explaining motor impairment at six months; Fugl-Meyer Upper Extremity score at one week, premotor dorsal fibre lesion load at one week, and age below or above 70 years (total R² = 0.81; p < 0.001). Early examination of premotor dorsal fibre integrity may be a promising biomarker of upper limb motor impairment after stroke.

Influence of Motor Deficiency and Spatial Neglect on the Contralesional Posterior Parietal Cortex Functional and Structural Connectivity in Stroke Patients

The posterior parietal cortex (PPC) is a key structure for visual attention and upper limb function, two features that could be impaired after stroke, and could be implied in their recovery. If it is well established that stroke is responsible for intra- and interhemispheric connectivity troubles, little is known about those existing for the contralesional PPC. In this study, we aimed at mapping the functional (using resting state fMRI) and structural (using diffusion tensor imagery) networks from 3 subparts of the PPC of the contralesional hemisphere (the anterior intraparietal sulcus), the posterior intraparietal sulcus and the superior parieto-occipital cortex to bilateral frontal areas and ipsilesional homologous PPC parts in 11 chronic stroke patients compared to 13 healthy controls. We also aimed at assessing the relationship between connectivity and the severity of visuospatial and motor deficiencies. We showed that interhemispheric functional and structural connectivity between PPCs was altered in stroke patients compared to controls, without any specificity among seeds. Alterations of parieto-frontal intra- and interhemispheric connectivity were less observed. Neglect severity was associated with several alterations in intra- and interhemispheric connectivity, whereas we did not find any behavioral/connectivity correlations for motor deficiency. The results of this exploratory study shed a new light on the influence of the contralesional PPC in post-stroke patients, they have to be confirmed and refined in further larger studies.

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation for Poststroke Motor Recovery: Challenges and Opportunities

There has been a renewed research interest in transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) as an adjunctive tool for poststroke motor recovery as it has a neuro-modulatory effect on the human cortex. However, there are barriers towards its successful application in motor recovery as several scientific issues remain unresolved, including device-related issues (ie, dose-response relationship, safety and tolerability concerns, interhemispheric imbalance model, and choice of montage) and clinical trial-related issues (ie, patient selection, timing of study, and choice of outcomes). This narrative review examines and discusses the existing challenges in using tDCS as a brain modulation tool in facilitating recovery after stroke. Potential solutions pertinent to using tDCS with the goal of harnessing the brains plasticity are proposed.

The Effect of Unihemispheric Concurrent Dual-Site Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation of Primary Motor and Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortices on Motor Function in Patients With Sub-Acute Stroke

It is believed that unihemispheric concurrent dual-site transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS_UHCDS) of the primary motor cortex (M1) and the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) causes an increase in motor cortex excitability. However, the clinical effect of this type of stimulation on patients with neurological conditions is not yet known. The aim of the present study was to assess the effect of anodal-tDCS_UHCDS (a-tDCS_UHCDS) on upper limb motor function in subacute stroke patients. Fifteen patients participated in this sham-controlled crossover study. The main outcome measures were the reaction time (RT) to visual stimuli, completion time of a nine-pin pegboard (9-PPB), and the scores from the Fugl–Meyer assessment (FMA) for the upper limb of the involved side before and after three brain stimulation conditions. For a-tDCS_UHCDS, the anodal electrodes were placed on the M1 and the DLPFC, while for a-tDCS, the anodal electrode was placed on the M1. For the sham stimulation, the tDCS was turned off after 30 s. For brain stimulation, the selected current was 1 mA for 20 min. After a-tDCS_UHCDS, there was a significant reduction in the RT and completion time of the 9-PPB compared with the times after a-tDCS and the sham stimulation: p = 0.013 and p = 0.022, respectively). However, there was no significant difference in the FMA scores after the three types of stimulations (p = 0.085). Compared with a-tDCS, a-tDCS_UHCDS temporarily improved the RT and dexterity of the involved hand in subacute stroke patients.

Clinical Trial Registration: Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials (IRCT), identifier IRCT2015012520787N1.