Feasibility of Cerebellar Stimulation for the Treatment of Post-Stroke Dysphagia.

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q3 NEUROSCIENCES
Gwenllian Wilkinson, Ayodele Sasegbon, Craig J Smith, Philip M Bath, Shaheen Hamdy
{"title":"Feasibility of Cerebellar Stimulation for the Treatment of Post-Stroke Dysphagia.","authors":"Gwenllian Wilkinson, Ayodele Sasegbon, Craig J Smith, Philip M Bath, Shaheen Hamdy","doi":"10.1007/s12311-025-01823-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Post-stroke dysphagia (PSD) is common and associated with poor outcomes. We aimed to explore the feasibility, safety, and proof of concept of cerebellar rTMS in patients with sub-acute PSD. We intended to recruit 48 participants with PSD. Randomised to: (i) sham treatment twice-daily for five days, (ii) cerebellar rTMS daily for three days, and (iii) cerebellar rTMS twice-daily for five days (1:1:1). Participants were blinded to treatment group. Primary outcomes were feasibility, safety, and functional outcome intake scale (FOIS), dysphagia severity rating scale (DSRS), and feeding status scale (FSS) at two weeks. However, due to lower-than-expected enrolment, the active rTMS groups were combined. We recruited 14 participants in total, (mean 68 years, 57% female). Due to the time-limited funding period, recruitment was adversely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. DSRS and FSS trended lower in the combined active rTMS groups at two weeks, i.e. less swallowing impairment. However, at death/discharge FOIS was higher/better (mean, (standard deviation)), 4.0 (2.1) vs. 1.8 (1.0) (p = 0.032) with active TMS, with trends to lower/better DSRS and FSS. There was no difference in the acceptability of treatment between groups. High-intensity (n = 5) vs. low-intensity (n = 5) cerebellar rTMS was associated with lower DSRS 3.0 (1.4) vs. 9.4 (2.7) and FSS 0.6 (0.5) vs. 1.6 (0.5) at 2 weeks, and DSRS 3.0 (1.4) vs. 9.0 (3.7) at hospital discharge or death. Cerebellar rTMS is a feasible ward-based treatment for reducing swallowing impairment. Although enrolment was lower than desired, there was evidence for proof of concept, particularly for high-intensity cerebellar rTMS. Larger studies are warranted.</p>","PeriodicalId":50706,"journal":{"name":"Cerebellum","volume":"24 3","pages":"74"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11946963/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cerebellum","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12311-025-01823-0","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Post-stroke dysphagia (PSD) is common and associated with poor outcomes. We aimed to explore the feasibility, safety, and proof of concept of cerebellar rTMS in patients with sub-acute PSD. We intended to recruit 48 participants with PSD. Randomised to: (i) sham treatment twice-daily for five days, (ii) cerebellar rTMS daily for three days, and (iii) cerebellar rTMS twice-daily for five days (1:1:1). Participants were blinded to treatment group. Primary outcomes were feasibility, safety, and functional outcome intake scale (FOIS), dysphagia severity rating scale (DSRS), and feeding status scale (FSS) at two weeks. However, due to lower-than-expected enrolment, the active rTMS groups were combined. We recruited 14 participants in total, (mean 68 years, 57% female). Due to the time-limited funding period, recruitment was adversely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. DSRS and FSS trended lower in the combined active rTMS groups at two weeks, i.e. less swallowing impairment. However, at death/discharge FOIS was higher/better (mean, (standard deviation)), 4.0 (2.1) vs. 1.8 (1.0) (p = 0.032) with active TMS, with trends to lower/better DSRS and FSS. There was no difference in the acceptability of treatment between groups. High-intensity (n = 5) vs. low-intensity (n = 5) cerebellar rTMS was associated with lower DSRS 3.0 (1.4) vs. 9.4 (2.7) and FSS 0.6 (0.5) vs. 1.6 (0.5) at 2 weeks, and DSRS 3.0 (1.4) vs. 9.0 (3.7) at hospital discharge or death. Cerebellar rTMS is a feasible ward-based treatment for reducing swallowing impairment. Although enrolment was lower than desired, there was evidence for proof of concept, particularly for high-intensity cerebellar rTMS. Larger studies are warranted.

小脑刺激治疗中风后吞咽困难的可行性。
卒中后吞咽困难(PSD)是常见的,并与不良预后相关。我们的目的是探讨亚急性PSD患者小脑rTMS的可行性、安全性和概念证明。我们打算招募48名患有PSD的参与者。随机分为:(i)每天两次假治疗,连续5天;(ii)每天两次小脑rTMS,连续3天;(iii)每天两次小脑rTMS,连续5天(1:1:1)。试验组与对照组采用盲法。主要结局是可行性、安全性和功能结局,两周时摄入量表(FOIS)、吞咽困难严重程度评定量表(DSRS)和进食状态量表(FSS)。然而,由于报名人数低于预期,活跃的rTMS组被合并。我们共招募了14名参与者(平均68岁,57%为女性)。由于供资期限有限,招聘工作受到COVID-19大流行的不利影响。两周时,联合活性rTMS组DSRS和FSS下降,即吞咽障碍减少。然而,在死亡/出院时,主动TMS的FOIS更高/更好(平均值,(标准差)),4.0 (2.1)vs 1.8 (1.0) (p = 0.032),并有降低/更好的DSRS和FSS的趋势。两组患者对治疗的可接受性无差异。2周时,高强度(n = 5) vs低强度(n = 5)小脑rTMS与较低的DSRS 3.0 (1.4) vs. 9.4 (2.7), FSS 0.6 (0.5) vs. 1.6(0.5),出院或死亡时DSRS 3.0 (1.4) vs. 9.0(3.7)相关。小脑rTMS是减轻吞咽障碍的一种可行的病房治疗方法。虽然报名人数低于预期,但有证据证明概念,特别是高强度小脑rTMS。更大规模的研究是必要的。
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
Cerebellum
Cerebellum 医学-神经科学
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
14.30%
发文量
150
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Official publication of the Society for Research on the Cerebellum devoted to genetics of cerebellar ataxias, role of cerebellum in motor control and cognitive function, and amid an ageing population, diseases associated with cerebellar dysfunction. The Cerebellum is a central source for the latest developments in fundamental neurosciences including molecular and cellular biology; behavioural neurosciences and neurochemistry; genetics; fundamental and clinical neurophysiology; neurology and neuropathology; cognition and neuroimaging. The Cerebellum benefits neuroscientists in molecular and cellular biology; neurophysiologists; researchers in neurotransmission; neurologists; radiologists; paediatricians; neuropsychologists; students of neurology and psychiatry and others.
×
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