Electric Field Navigated 1-Hz rTMS for Poststroke Motor Recovery: The E-FIT Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: To determine if low-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation targeting the primary motor cortex contralateral (M1CL) to the affected corticospinal tract in patients with hemiparetic stroke augments intensive training-related clinical improvement; an extension of the NICHE trial (Navigated Inhibitory rTMS to Contralesional Hemisphere Trial) using an alternative sham coil. METHODS: The present E-FIT trial (Electric Field Navigated 1Hz rTMS for Post-stroke Motor Recovery Trial) included 5 of 12 NICHE trial outpatient US rehabilitation centers. The stimulation protocol remained identical (1 Hz repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, M1CL, preceding 60-minute therapy, 18 sessions/6 wks; parallel arm randomized clinical trial). The sham coil appearance mimicked the active coil but without the weak electric field in the NICHE trial sham coil. Outcomes measured 1 week, and 1, 3, and 6 months after the end of treatment included the following: upper extremity Fugl-Meyer (primary, 6 months after end of treatment), Action Research Arm Test, National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale, quality of life (EQ-5D), and safety. RESULTS: Of 60 participants randomized, 58 completed treatment and were included for analysis. Bayesian analysis of combined data from the E-FIT and the NICHE trials indicated that active treatment was not superior to sham at the primary end point (posterior mean odds ratio of 1.94 [96% credible interval of 0.61-4.80]). For the E-FIT intent-to-treat population, upper extremity Fugl-Meyer improvement ≥5 pts occurred in 60% (18/30) active group and 50% (14/28) sham group. Participants enrolled 3 to 6 months following stroke had a 67% (31%-91% CI) response rate in the active group at the 6-month end point versus 50% in the sham group (21.5%-78.5% CI). There were significant improvements from baseline to 6 months for both active and sham groups in upper extremity Fugl-Meyer, Action Research Arm Test, and EQ-5D (P<0.05). Improvement in National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale was observed only in the active group (P=0.004). Ten serious unrelated adverse events occurred (4 active group, 6 sham group, P=0.72). CONCLUSIONS: Intensive motor rehabilitation 3 to 12 months after stroke improved clinical impairment, function, and quality of life; however, 1 Hz-repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation was not an effective treatment adjuvant in the present sample population with mixed lesion location and extent. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT03010462.

The sensory side of post-stroke motor rehabilitation.

Contemporary strategies to promote motor recovery following stroke focus on repetitive voluntary movements. Although successful movement relies on efficient sensorimotor integration, functional outcomes often bias motor therapy toward motor-related impairments such as weakness, spasticity and synergies; sensory therapy and reintegration is implied, but seldom targeted. However, the planning and execution of voluntary movement requires that the brain extracts sensory information regarding body position and predicts future positions, by integrating a variety of sensory inputs with ongoing and planned motor activity. Neurological patients who have lost one or more of their senses may show profoundly affected motor functions, even if muscle strength remains unaffected. Following stroke, motor recovery can be dictated by the degree of sensory disruption. Consequently, a thorough account of sensory function might be both prognostic and prescriptive in neurorehabilitation. This review outlines the key sensory components of human voluntary movement, describes how sensory disruption can influence prognosis and expected outcomes in stroke patients, reports on current sensory-based approaches in post-stroke motor rehabilitation, and makes recommendations for optimizing rehabilitation programs based on sensory stimulation.

Transcranial DC stimulation coupled with TENS for the treatment of chronic pain: a preliminary study.

OBJECTIVE: Based on evidence showing that electrical stimulation of the nervous system is an effective method to decrease chronic neurogenic pain, we aimed to investigate whether the combination of 2 methods of electrical stimulation-a method of peripheral stimulation [transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS)] and a method of noninvasive brain stimulation [transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS)]-induces greater pain reduction as compared with tDCS alone and sham stimulation. METHODS: We performed a preliminary, randomized, sham-controlled, crossover, clinical study in which 8 patients were randomized to receive active tDCS/active TENS ("tDCS/TENS" group), active tDCS/sham TENS ("tDCS" group), and sham tDCS/sham TENS ("sham" group) stimulation. Assessments were performed immediately before and after each condition by a blinded rater. RESULTS: The results showed that there was a significant difference in pain reduction across the conditions of stimulation (P=0.006). Post hoc tests showed significant pain reduction as compared with baseline after the tDCS/TENS condition [reduction by 36.5% (+/-10.7), P=0.004] and the tDCS condition [reduction by 15.5% (+/-4.9), P=0.014], but not after sham stimulation (P=0.35). In addition, tDCS/TENS induced greater pain reduction than tDCS (P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this pilot study suggest that the combination of TENS with tDCS has a superior effect compared with tDCS alone.