Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Migraine prevention with percutaneous mastoid electrical stimulator: A randomized double-blind controlled trial.
Juan, Yang; Shu, Ou; Jinhe, Lou; Na, Yang; Yushuang, Deng; Weiwei, Dong; Lanying, He; Jian, Wang.
Afiliação
  • Juan Y; 1 Department of Neurology, The Second People's Hospital of Chengdu, Chengdu, China.
  • Shu O; 2 Department of Neurology, The Second Affiliated Hospital, Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.
  • Jinhe L; 3 Department of Neurology, The First Affiliated Hospital, Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.
  • Na Y; 4 Department of Neurology, Chongqing Emergency Medical Center, Chongqing, China.
  • Yushuang D; 1 Department of Neurology, The Second People's Hospital of Chengdu, Chengdu, China.
  • Weiwei D; 3 Department of Neurology, The First Affiliated Hospital, Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.
  • Lanying H; 1 Department of Neurology, The Second People's Hospital of Chengdu, Chengdu, China.
  • Jian W; 1 Department of Neurology, The Second People's Hospital of Chengdu, Chengdu, China.
Cephalalgia ; 37(13): 1248-1256, 2017 Nov.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27821639
ABSTRACT
Objective To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of episodic migraine prevention with the percutaneous mastoid electrical stimulator (PMES). Methods This was a randomized, double-blind, and sham-controlled trial that involved four medical centers. Episodic patients with at least two migraine attacks every month were randomly 11 to PMES or sham stimulation treatment. The treatments were performed daily for 45 minutes over 3 months. The primary outcomes were change in migraine days per month and the 50% response rate. Results The PMES group had a significantly greater reduction of migraine days in the third month than the sham group (-71.3% vs. -14.4%, p < 0.001). The 50% response rate of migraine days in the PMES group (≥50% reduction of migraine days compared with the baseline) was significantly higher than that in the sham group (82.5% vs. 17.5%, p < 0.001). In the PMES group, 60% of the patients had a ≥75% reduction of migraine days in the third month, and 35% of the patients had no migraine attack in the third month. No patients in the sham group had a ≥75% reduction of migraine days. There were no adverse events in either group. Conclusion Treatment of migraine using non-invasive PMES was safe and effective.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Terapia por Estimulação Elétrica / Transtornos de Enxaqueca Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials Limite: Adult / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged Idioma: En Revista: Cephalalgia Ano de publicação: 2017 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: China

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Terapia por Estimulação Elétrica / Transtornos de Enxaqueca Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials Limite: Adult / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged Idioma: En Revista: Cephalalgia Ano de publicação: 2017 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: China