Neuroprotection of Low-Frequency Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation after Ischemic Stroke in Rats.

OBJECTIVE: Stroke is a leading cause of human death and disability. Effective early treatments with reasonable therapeutic windows remain critically important to improve the outcomes of stroke. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is an established noninvasive technique that has been applied clinically and in animal research for multiple brain disorders, but few studies have examined acute neuroprotection against ischemic stroke. The present investigation tested the novel approach of low-frequency repetitive TMS (rTMS) as an acute treatment after ischemic stroke. METHODS: Adult male rats received focal ischemic surgery through occlusion of the right middle cerebral artery for 60 minutes. The rats received either rTMS or sham treatment with 1.5-, 3-, 4-, or 7-hour delay after the onset of stroke. Low-frequency and low-intensity rTMS was applied to the rat brain for two 30-minute episodes separated by a 1-hour interval. RESULTS: Three days after stroke, compared to stroke controls, rats receiving rTMS treatment with a 1.5-hour delay showed a 35% reduction of infarct volume. Protective effects were also seen with 3- or 4-hour-delayed treatments by rTMS, shown as reduced infarct volume and cell death. rTMS treatment upregulated the antiapoptotic factor Bcl-2 and downregulated the proapoptotic caspase-3 cleavage, expressions of Bax and matrix metallopeptidase-9. In sensorimotor functional assessments 3 to 21 days after stroke, rats receiving rTMS treatment with a 1.5- or 3-hour delay showed significantly better performance compared to stroke controls. INTERPRETATION: These results support the inference that low-frequency rTMS may be feasible as a neuroprotective acute treatment after ischemic stroke. ANN NEUROL 2023;93:336-347.

Recommendations for Deep Brain Stimulation Device Management During a Pandemic.

Most medical centers are postponing elective procedures and deferring non-urgent clinic visits to conserve hospital resources and prevent spread of COVID-19. The pandemic crisis presents some unique challenges for patients currently being treated with deep brain stimulation (DBS). Movement disorder (Parkinson's disease, essential tremor, dystonia), neuropsychiatric disorder (obsessive compulsive disorder, Tourette syndrome, depression), and epilepsy patients can develop varying degrees of symptom worsening from interruption of therapy due to neurostimulator battery reaching end of life, device malfunction or infection. Urgent intervention to maintain or restore stimulation may be required for patients with Parkinson's disease who can develop a rare but potentially life-threatening complication known as DBS-withdrawal syndrome. Similarly, patients with generalized dystonia can develop status dystonicus, patients with obsessive compulsive disorder can become suicidal, and epilepsy patients can experience potentially life-threatening worsening of seizures as a result of therapy cessation. DBS system infection can require urgent, and rarely emergent surgery. Elective interventions including new implantations and initial programming should be postponed. For patients with existing DBS systems, the battery status and electrical integrity interrogation can now be performed using patient programmers, and employed through telemedicine visits or by phone consultations. The decision for replacement of the implantable pulse generator to prevent interruption of DBS therapy should be made on a case-by-case basis taking into consideration battery status and a patient's tolerance to potential therapy disruption. Scheduling of the procedures, however, depends heavily on the hospital system regulations and on triage procedures with respect to safety and resource utilization during the health crisis.

Clinical outcomes of globus pallidus deep brain stimulation for Parkinson disease: a comparison of intraoperative MRI- and MER-guided lead placement.

OBJECTIVE: Deep brain stimulation (DBS) lead placement is increasingly performed with the patient under general anesthesia by surgeons using intraoperative MRI (iMRI) guidance without microelectrode recording (MER) or macrostimulation. The authors assessed the accuracy of lead placement, safety, and motor outcomes in patients with Parkinson disease (PD) undergoing DBS lead placement into the globus pallidus internus (GPi) using iMRI or MER guidance. METHODS: The authors identified all patients with PD who underwent either MER- or iMRI-guided GPi-DBS lead placement at Emory University between July 2007 and August 2016. Lead placement accuracy and adverse events were determined for all patients. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) part III motor scores for patients completing 12 months of follow-up. The authors also assessed the levodopa-equivalent daily dose (LEDD) and stimulation parameters. RESULTS: Seventy-seven patients were identified (MER, n = 28; iMRI, n = 49), in whom 131 leads were placed. The stereotactic accuracy of the surgical procedure with respect to the planned lead location was 1.94 ± 0.21 mm (mean ± SEM) (95% CI 1.54-2.34) with frame-based MER and 0.84 ± 0.007 mm (95% CI 0.69-0.98) with iMRI. The rate of serious complications was similar, at 6.9% for MER-guided DBS lead placement and 9.4% for iMRI-guided DBS lead placement (RR 0.71 [95% CI 0.13%-3.9%]; p = 0.695). Fifty-seven patients were included in clinical outcome analyses (MER, n = 16; iMRI, n = 41). Both groups had similar characteristics at baseline, although patients undergoing MER-guided DBS had a lower response on their baseline levodopa challenge (44.8% ± 5.4% [95% CI 33.2%-56.4%] vs 61.6% ± 2.1% [95% CI 57.4%-65.8%]; t = 3.558, p = 0.001). Greater improvement was seen following iMRI-guided lead placement (43.2% ± 3.5% [95% CI 36.2%-50.3%]) versus MER-guided lead placement (25.5% ± 6.7% [95% CI 11.1%-39.8%]; F = 5.835, p = 0.019). When UPDRS III motor scores were assessed only in the contralateral hemibody (per-lead analyses), the improvements remained significantly different (37.1% ± 7.2% [95% CI 22.2%-51.9%] and 50.0% ± 3.5% [95% CI 43.1%-56.9%] for MER- and iMRI-guided DBS lead placement, respectively). Both groups exhibited similar reductions in LEDDs (21.2% and 20.9%, respectively; F = 0.221, p = 0.640). The locations of all active contacts and the 2D radial distance from these to consensus coordinates for GPi-DBS lead placement (x, ±20; y, +2; and z, -4) did not differ statistically by type of surgery. CONCLUSIONS: iMRI-guided GPi-DBS lead placement in PD patients was associated with significant improvement in clinical outcomes, comparable to those observed following MER-guided DBS lead placement. Furthermore, iMRI-guided DBS implantation produced a similar safety profile to that of the MER-guided procedure. As such, iMRI guidance is an alternative to MER guidance for patients undergoing GPi-DBS implantation for PD.