Optimal peripheral nerve stimulation intensity for paired associative stimulation with high-frequency peripheral component in healthy subjects.

Paired associative stimulation (PAS) with high-frequency peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS), called "high-PAS", induces motor-evoked potential (MEP) potentiation in healthy subjects and improves muscle activity and independence in incomplete spinal cord injury patients. Data on optimal PNS intensity in PAS are scarce. In a high-PAS protocol, PNS intensity is defined as "minimal intensity required to produce F-responses". We sought to further refine this definition and to investigate how PNS intensity affects PAS outcome. Two experiments were performed on 10 healthy subjects where MEP amplitude change was measured 0, 30, and 60 min after PAS. In the first experiment, the intensity required to achieve 7/10 persistence of F-responses was used to define PNS intensity level. In the second experiment, we used the intensity required to achieve 1/10 persistence ("baseline"). In addition, we applied this intensity at + 25%, - 25%, and - 50% levels. In the first experiment, PAS did not produce significant MEP potentiation. In the second experiment, PAS produced statistically significant MEP potentiation, with PNS intensity of "baseline" and "baseline - 25%" levels but not at + 25% or - 50% levels. In conclusion, for PAS utilizing high-frequency PNS, the intensity required to achieve 1/10 F-response persistence or the intensity 25% lower produces significant MEP potentiation in healthy subjects.

Omitting TMS component from paired associative stimulation with high-frequency PNS: A case series of tetraplegic patients.

OBJECTIVES: Earlier studies have shown how chronic spinal cord injury (SCI) patients have benefitted from paired associative stimulation (PAS), consisting of high-frequency peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) and high-intensity transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). Since high-frequency PNS is poorly characterized, its therapeutic effect without TMS should be evaluated. We tested the effect of PNS combined with motor imagery in chronic SCI patients using the same parameters of PNS as in earlier PAS-based studies that also used TMS. METHODS: Five patients with chronic incomplete SCI and tetraplegia received a 6-week treatment of PNS combined with motor imagery to the weaker upper limb. Patients were evaluated with Manual Muscle Testing (MMT), hand function tests (Box and block, grip and pinch strength dynamometry), and spasticity. RESULTS: There was no significant change in hand function tests or spasticity. MMT values improved significantly immediately after the PNS period (0.59 ±â€¯0.17, p = 0.043) and in the 1-month follow-up visit (0.87 ±â€¯0.18, p = 0.043). However, improvement of MMT values was weaker than in chronic tetraplegic patients in a corresponding PAS study that used identical PNS stimulation but also included the TMS component omitted here (Tolmacheva et al., 2019a, Clin Neurophysiol Pract). CONCLUSIONS: The lack of effect on functional hand tests with the protocol presented here suggests that the synergistic effect of PNS and TMS components is essential for the full therapeutic effect previously observed with PAS intervention. The moderate improvement of the MMT score suggests the possible usefulness of PNS and motor imagery for some of those tetraplegic SCI patients who have contraindications to TMS. SIGNIFICANCE: These results add to the understanding of the PAS therapeutic mechanism by highlighting the importance of dual stimulation for achieving the full therapeutic effect of long-term PAS with a high-frequency PNS component.