Transcranial direct current stimulation treatment reduces, while repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation treatment increases electroencephalography spike rates with refractory occipital lobe epilepsy: A case study.

IF 2.8 3区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Epilepsia Open Pub Date : 2025-03-28 DOI:10.1002/epi4.70024
Tine Tronrud, Marco Hirnstein, Tom Eichele, Eivind Kolstad, Lynn Marquardt
{"title":"Transcranial direct current stimulation treatment reduces, while repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation treatment increases electroencephalography spike rates with refractory occipital lobe epilepsy: A case study.","authors":"Tine Tronrud, Marco Hirnstein, Tom Eichele, Eivind Kolstad, Lynn Marquardt","doi":"10.1002/epi4.70024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Non-invasive brain stimulation has been suggested as an alternative/supplementary treatment for focal, refractory epilepsy. However, there are only a few studies and even fewer that directly compared transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) to repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We report the case of a 20-year-old female patient with persistent epileptiform discharges in the left occipital region consistent with focal status epilepticus. The patient received 20 min sessions of tDCS (2 mA) for five consecutive days, with the cathode over the left occipital region and the anode over the contralateral prefrontal lobe. After initial improvement, the patient's condition worsened again, and thus it was decided to treat her with rTMS (1 Hz, 1800 pulses), also for five consecutive days. Before and after each treatment, spike frequency was recorded with electroencephalography (EEG).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was a significant decrease in spike frequency from pre- to post-tDCS treatment. Depending on the type of data analysis, there was either a near significant (p = 0.058, d = 0.51) or a significant (p < 0.001, d = 1.13) increase from pre- to post-rTMS treatment, and the patient reported a worsening of symptoms.</p><p><strong>Significance: </strong>The study adds to a growing body of evidence on non-invasive brain stimulation treatments in focal refractory epilepsy. On the one hand, we corroborate its usefulness. On the other hand, we highlight that non-invasive brain stimulation might inadvertently worsen symptoms. Future research needs to determine which method, with which parameters, for which patient is beneficial (and detrimental).</p><p><strong>Plain language summary: </strong>The study details the case of a patient suffering from epilepsy, located in the occipital region of the brain, who did not respond to several antiseizure medications. We treated with both transcranial direct current stimulation and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation. The transcranial direct current stimulation treatment resulted in a significant decrease in EEG spikes, yet the patient's condition worsened again after 2 weeks. We therefore used repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation treatment, which, in fact, resulted in an increase in spike frequency. The results demonstrate both the potential benefits and risks of non-invasive brain stimulation as treatment in drug-resistant epilepsy.</p>","PeriodicalId":12038,"journal":{"name":"Epilepsia Open","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Epilepsia Open","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/epi4.70024","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Non-invasive brain stimulation has been suggested as an alternative/supplementary treatment for focal, refractory epilepsy. However, there are only a few studies and even fewer that directly compared transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) to repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS).

Methods: We report the case of a 20-year-old female patient with persistent epileptiform discharges in the left occipital region consistent with focal status epilepticus. The patient received 20 min sessions of tDCS (2 mA) for five consecutive days, with the cathode over the left occipital region and the anode over the contralateral prefrontal lobe. After initial improvement, the patient's condition worsened again, and thus it was decided to treat her with rTMS (1 Hz, 1800 pulses), also for five consecutive days. Before and after each treatment, spike frequency was recorded with electroencephalography (EEG).

Results: There was a significant decrease in spike frequency from pre- to post-tDCS treatment. Depending on the type of data analysis, there was either a near significant (p = 0.058, d = 0.51) or a significant (p < 0.001, d = 1.13) increase from pre- to post-rTMS treatment, and the patient reported a worsening of symptoms.

Significance: The study adds to a growing body of evidence on non-invasive brain stimulation treatments in focal refractory epilepsy. On the one hand, we corroborate its usefulness. On the other hand, we highlight that non-invasive brain stimulation might inadvertently worsen symptoms. Future research needs to determine which method, with which parameters, for which patient is beneficial (and detrimental).

Plain language summary: The study details the case of a patient suffering from epilepsy, located in the occipital region of the brain, who did not respond to several antiseizure medications. We treated with both transcranial direct current stimulation and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation. The transcranial direct current stimulation treatment resulted in a significant decrease in EEG spikes, yet the patient's condition worsened again after 2 weeks. We therefore used repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation treatment, which, in fact, resulted in an increase in spike frequency. The results demonstrate both the potential benefits and risks of non-invasive brain stimulation as treatment in drug-resistant epilepsy.

经颅直流电刺激治疗减少,而反复经颅磁刺激治疗增加难治性枕叶癫痫的脑电图尖峰率:一个案例研究。
目的:无创脑刺激已被建议作为局灶性难治性癫痫的替代/补充治疗。然而,直接比较经颅直流电刺激(tDCS)与重复经颅磁刺激(rTMS)的研究很少,甚至更少。方法:我们报告一例20岁的女性患者持续癫痫样放电在左枕区一致局灶性癫痫持续状态。患者连续5天接受20分钟的tDCS (2 mA),阴极在左枕区,阳极在对侧前额叶。在最初的改善后,患者的病情再次恶化,因此决定对她进行rTMS (1hz, 1800脉冲)治疗,也是连续5天。每次治疗前后用脑电图记录脑电波频率。结果:与tdcs治疗前后相比,tdcs治疗前后的尖峰频率明显降低。根据数据分析的类型,有接近显著(p = 0.058, d = 0.51)或显著(p)意义:该研究为局灶性难治性癫痫的非侵入性脑刺激治疗增加了越来越多的证据。一方面,我们证实了它的有用性。另一方面,我们强调非侵入性脑刺激可能会无意中加重症状。未来的研究需要确定哪种方法、哪种参数、对哪种病人是有益的(或有害的)。简单的语言总结:该研究详细描述了一个癫痫患者的病例,该患者位于大脑枕区,对几种抗癫痫药物没有反应。我们采用经颅直流电刺激和重复经颅磁刺激治疗。经颅直流电刺激治疗后脑电图峰值明显下降,但2周后患者病情再次恶化。因此,我们使用重复经颅磁刺激治疗,这实际上导致了尖峰频率的增加。结果表明,非侵入性脑刺激作为治疗耐药癫痫的潜在益处和风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Epilepsia Open
Epilepsia Open Medicine-Neurology (clinical)
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
6.70%
发文量
104
审稿时长
8 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信