Central poststroke pain: somatosensory abnormalities and the presence of associated myofascial pain syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Central post-stroke pain (CPSP) is a neuropathic pain syndrome associated with somatosensory abnormalities due to central nervous system lesion following a cerebrovascular insult. Post-stroke pain (PSP) refers to a broader range of clinical conditions leading to pain after stroke, but not restricted to CPSP, including other types of pain such as myofascial pain syndrome (MPS), painful shoulder, lumbar and dorsal pain, complex regional pain syndrome, and spasticity-related pain. Despite its recognition as part of the general PSP diagnostic possibilities, the prevalence of MPS has never been characterized in patients with CPSP patients. We performed a cross-sectional standardized clinical and radiological evaluation of patients with definite CPSP in order to assess the presence of other non-neuropathic pain syndromes, and in particular, the role of myofascial pain syndrome in these patients. METHODS: CPSP patients underwent a standardized sensory and motor neurological evaluation, and were classified according to stroke mechanism, neurological deficits, presence and profile of MPS. The Visual Analogic Scale (VAS), McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ), and Beck Depression Scale (BDS) were filled out by all participants. RESULTS: Forty CPSP patients were included. Thirty-six (90.0%) had one single ischemic stroke. Pain presented during the first three months after stroke in 75.0%. Median pain intensity was 10 (5 to 10). There was no difference in pain intensity among the different lesion site groups. Neuropathic pain was continuous-ongoing in 34 (85.0%) patients and intermittent in the remainder. Burning was the most common descriptor (70%). Main aggravating factors were contact to cold (62.5%). Thermo-sensory abnormalities were universal. MPS was diagnosed in 27 (67.5%) patients and was more common in the supratentorial extra-thalamic group (P <0.001). No significant differences were observed among the different stroke location groups and pain questionnaires and scales scores. Importantly, CPSP patients with and without MPS did not differ in pain intensity (VAS), MPQ or BDS scores. CONCLUSIONS: The presence of MPS is not an exception after stroke and may present in association with CPSP as a common comorbid condition. Further studies are necessary to clarify the role of MPS in CPSP.

Dissecting central post-stroke pain: a controlled symptom-psychophysical characterization.

Central post-stroke pain affects up to 12% of stroke survivors and is notoriously refractory to treatment. However, stroke patients often suffer from other types of pain of non-neuropathic nature (musculoskeletal, inflammatory, complex regional) and no head-to-head comparison of their respective clinical and somatosensory profiles has been performed so far. We compared 39 patients with definite central neuropathic post-stroke pain with two matched control groups: 32 patients with exclusively non-neuropathic pain developed after stroke and 31 stroke patients not complaining of pain. Patients underwent deep phenotyping via a comprehensive assessment including clinical exam, questionnaires and quantitative sensory testing to dissect central post-stroke pain from chronic pain in general and stroke. While central post-stroke pain was mostly located in the face and limbs, non-neuropathic pain was predominantly axial and located in neck, shoulders and knees (P < 0.05). Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory clusters burning (82.1%, n = 32, P < 0.001), tingling (66.7%, n = 26, P < 0.001) and evoked by cold (64.1%, n = 25, P < 0.001) occurred more frequently in central post-stroke pain. Hyperpathia, thermal and mechanical allodynia also occurred more commonly in this group (P < 0.001), which also presented higher levels of deafferentation (P < 0.012) with more asymmetric cold and warm detection thresholds compared with controls. In particular, cold hypoesthesia (considered when the threshold of the affected side was <41% of the contralateral threshold) odds ratio (OR) was 12 (95% CI: 3.8-41.6) for neuropathic pain. Additionally, cold detection threshold/warm detection threshold ratio correlated with the presence of neuropathic pain (ρ = -0.4, P < 0.001). Correlations were found between specific neuropathic pain symptom clusters and quantitative sensory testing: paroxysmal pain with cold (ρ = -0.4; P = 0.008) and heat pain thresholds (ρ = 0.5; P = 0.003), burning pain with mechanical detection (ρ = -0.4; P = 0.015) and mechanical pain thresholds (ρ = -0.4, P < 0.013), evoked pain with mechanical pain threshold (ρ = -0.3; P = 0.047). Logistic regression showed that the combination of cold hypoesthesia on quantitative sensory testing, the Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory, and the allodynia intensity on bedside examination explained 77% of the occurrence of neuropathic pain. These findings provide insights into the clinical-psychophysics relationships in central post-stroke pain and may assist more precise distinction of neuropathic from non-neuropathic post-stroke pain in clinical practice and in future trials.

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of the left premotor/dorsolateral prefrontal cortex does not have analgesic effect on central poststroke pain.

UNLABELLED: Central poststroke pain (CPSP) is caused by an encephalic vascular lesion of the somatosensory pathways and is commonly refractory to current pharmacologic treatments. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) of the premotor cortex/dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (PMC/DLPFC) can change thermal pain threshold toward analgesia in healthy subjects and has analgesic effects in acute postoperative pain as well as in fibromyalgia patients. However, its effect on neuropathic pain and in CPSP, in particular, has not been assessed. The aim of this prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was to evaluate the analgesic effect of PMC/DLPFC rTMS in CPSP patients. Patients were randomized into 2 groups, active (a-) rTMS and sham (s-) rTMS, and were treated with 10 daily sessions of rTMS over the left PMC/DLPFC (10 Hz, 1,250 pulses/d). Outcomes were assessed at baseline, during the stimulation phase, and at 1, 2, and 4 weeks after the last stimulation. The main outcome was pain intensity changes measured by the visual analog scale on the last stimulation day compared to baseline. Interim analysis was scheduled when the first half of the patients completed the study. The study was terminated because of a significant lack of efficacy of the active arm after 21 patients completed the whole treatment and follow-up phases. rTMS of the left PMC/DLPFC did not improve pain in CPSP. PERSPECTIVE: The aim of this double-blind, placebo-controlled study was to evaluate the analgesic effects of rTMS to the PMC/DLPFC in CPSP patients. An interim analysis showed a consistent lack of analgesic effect, and the study was terminated. rTMS of the PMC/DLPFC is not effective in relieving CPSP.