Silja Räty, Carolin Borrmann, Giuseppe Granata, Lizbeth Cárdenas-Morales, Ariel Schoenfeld, Michael Sailer, Katri Silvennoinen, Juha Holopainen, Francesca De Rossi, Andrea Antal, Paolo M Rossini, Turgut Tatlisumak, Bernhard A Sabel
{"title":"脑卒中后无创脑电刺激恢复视力:一项探索性随机试验(REVIS)。","authors":"Silja Räty, Carolin Borrmann, Giuseppe Granata, Lizbeth Cárdenas-Morales, Ariel Schoenfeld, Michael Sailer, Katri Silvennoinen, Juha Holopainen, Francesca De Rossi, Andrea Antal, Paolo M Rossini, Turgut Tatlisumak, Bernhard A Sabel","doi":"10.3233/RNN-211198","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Occipital strokes often cause permanent homonymous hemianopia leading to significant disability. In previous studies, non-invasive electrical brain stimulation (NIBS) has improved vision after optic nerve damage and in combination with training after stroke.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>We explored different NIBS modalities for rehabilitation of hemianopia after chronic stroke.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In a randomized, double-blinded, sham-controlled, three-armed trial, altogether 56 patients with homonymous hemianopia were recruited. The three experiments were: i) repetitive transorbital alternating current stimulation (rtACS, n = 8) vs. rtACS with prior cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation over the intact visual cortex (tDCS/rtACS, n = 8) vs. sham (n = 8); ii) rtACS (n = 9) vs. sham (n = 9); and iii) tDCS of the visual cortex (n = 7) vs. sham (n = 7). Visual functions were evaluated before and after the intervention, and after eight weeks follow-up. The primary outcome was change in visual field assessed by high-resolution and standard perimetries. The individual modalities were compared within each experimental arm.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Primary outcomes in Experiments 1 and 2 were negative. Only significant between-group change was observed in Experiment 3, where tDCS increased visual field of the contralesional eye compared to sham. tDCS/rtACS improved dynamic vision, reading, and visual field of the contralesional eye, but was not superior to other groups. rtACS alone increased foveal sensitivity, but was otherwise ineffective. All trial-related procedures were tolerated well.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This exploratory trial showed safety but no main effect of NIBS on vision restoration after stroke. However, tDCS and combined tDCS/rtACS induced improvements in visually guided performance that need to be confirmed in larger-sample trials.NCT01418820 (clinicaltrials.gov).</p>","PeriodicalId":21130,"journal":{"name":"Restorative neurology and neuroscience","volume":"39 3","pages":"221-235"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.3233/RNN-211198","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Non-invasive electrical brain stimulation for vision restoration after stroke: An exploratory randomized trial (REVIS).\",\"authors\":\"Silja Räty, Carolin Borrmann, Giuseppe Granata, Lizbeth Cárdenas-Morales, Ariel Schoenfeld, Michael Sailer, Katri Silvennoinen, Juha Holopainen, Francesca De Rossi, Andrea Antal, Paolo M Rossini, Turgut Tatlisumak, Bernhard A Sabel\",\"doi\":\"10.3233/RNN-211198\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Occipital strokes often cause permanent homonymous hemianopia leading to significant disability. In previous studies, non-invasive electrical brain stimulation (NIBS) has improved vision after optic nerve damage and in combination with training after stroke.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>We explored different NIBS modalities for rehabilitation of hemianopia after chronic stroke.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In a randomized, double-blinded, sham-controlled, three-armed trial, altogether 56 patients with homonymous hemianopia were recruited. The three experiments were: i) repetitive transorbital alternating current stimulation (rtACS, n = 8) vs. rtACS with prior cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation over the intact visual cortex (tDCS/rtACS, n = 8) vs. sham (n = 8); ii) rtACS (n = 9) vs. sham (n = 9); and iii) tDCS of the visual cortex (n = 7) vs. sham (n = 7). Visual functions were evaluated before and after the intervention, and after eight weeks follow-up. The primary outcome was change in visual field assessed by high-resolution and standard perimetries. The individual modalities were compared within each experimental arm.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Primary outcomes in Experiments 1 and 2 were negative. Only significant between-group change was observed in Experiment 3, where tDCS increased visual field of the contralesional eye compared to sham. tDCS/rtACS improved dynamic vision, reading, and visual field of the contralesional eye, but was not superior to other groups. rtACS alone increased foveal sensitivity, but was otherwise ineffective. All trial-related procedures were tolerated well.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This exploratory trial showed safety but no main effect of NIBS on vision restoration after stroke. However, tDCS and combined tDCS/rtACS induced improvements in visually guided performance that need to be confirmed in larger-sample trials.NCT01418820 (clinicaltrials.gov).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21130,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Restorative neurology and neuroscience\",\"volume\":\"39 3\",\"pages\":\"221-235\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.3233/RNN-211198\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Restorative neurology and neuroscience\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3233/RNN-211198\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"NEUROSCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Restorative neurology and neuroscience","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3233/RNN-211198","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5
摘要
背景:枕部中风常引起永久性同名性偏视,导致严重的残疾。在之前的研究中,非侵入性脑电刺激(NIBS)可以改善视神经损伤后的视力,并与中风后的训练相结合。目的:探讨不同NIBS治疗慢性脑卒中后偏盲的方法。方法:在随机、双盲、假对照、三臂试验中,共招募56例同名性偏盲患者。这三个实验分别是:i)重复经眶交流电刺激(rtACS, n = 8) vs.经颅直流电刺激(tDCS/rtACS, n = 8) vs.假手术(n = 8);ii) rtACS (n = 9) vs sham (n = 9);iii)视觉皮质tDCS (n = 7) vs.假手术(n = 7)。在干预前后和随访8周后评估视觉功能。主要结果是通过高分辨率和标准周长评估的视野变化。在每个实验组中比较个体模式。结果:实验1和2的主要结果均为阴性。在实验3中只观察到显著的组间变化,与假手术相比,tDCS增加了对侧眼的视野。tDCS/rtACS可改善对侧眼的动态视觉、阅读和视野,但不优于其他组。rtACS单独增加中央凹敏感性,但其他方面无效。所有与试验相关的程序均耐受良好。结论:本探索性试验显示NIBS对脑卒中后视力恢复的安全性,但无主要作用。然而,tDCS和联合tDCS/rtACS诱导视觉引导表现的改善需要在更大样本的试验中得到证实。NCT01418820 (clinicaltrials.gov)。
Non-invasive electrical brain stimulation for vision restoration after stroke: An exploratory randomized trial (REVIS).
Background: Occipital strokes often cause permanent homonymous hemianopia leading to significant disability. In previous studies, non-invasive electrical brain stimulation (NIBS) has improved vision after optic nerve damage and in combination with training after stroke.
Objective: We explored different NIBS modalities for rehabilitation of hemianopia after chronic stroke.
Methods: In a randomized, double-blinded, sham-controlled, three-armed trial, altogether 56 patients with homonymous hemianopia were recruited. The three experiments were: i) repetitive transorbital alternating current stimulation (rtACS, n = 8) vs. rtACS with prior cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation over the intact visual cortex (tDCS/rtACS, n = 8) vs. sham (n = 8); ii) rtACS (n = 9) vs. sham (n = 9); and iii) tDCS of the visual cortex (n = 7) vs. sham (n = 7). Visual functions were evaluated before and after the intervention, and after eight weeks follow-up. The primary outcome was change in visual field assessed by high-resolution and standard perimetries. The individual modalities were compared within each experimental arm.
Results: Primary outcomes in Experiments 1 and 2 were negative. Only significant between-group change was observed in Experiment 3, where tDCS increased visual field of the contralesional eye compared to sham. tDCS/rtACS improved dynamic vision, reading, and visual field of the contralesional eye, but was not superior to other groups. rtACS alone increased foveal sensitivity, but was otherwise ineffective. All trial-related procedures were tolerated well.
Conclusions: This exploratory trial showed safety but no main effect of NIBS on vision restoration after stroke. However, tDCS and combined tDCS/rtACS induced improvements in visually guided performance that need to be confirmed in larger-sample trials.NCT01418820 (clinicaltrials.gov).
期刊介绍:
This interdisciplinary journal publishes papers relating to the plasticity and response of the nervous system to accidental or experimental injuries and their interventions, transplantation, neurodegenerative disorders and experimental strategies to improve regeneration or functional recovery and rehabilitation. Experimental and clinical research papers adopting fresh conceptual approaches are encouraged. The overriding criteria for publication are novelty, significant experimental or clinical relevance and interest to a multidisciplinary audience. Experiments on un-anesthetized animals should conform with the standards for the use of laboratory animals as established by the Institute of Laboratory Animal Resources, US National Academy of Sciences. Experiments in which paralytic agents are used must be justified. Patient identity should be concealed. All manuscripts are sent out for blind peer review to editorial board members or outside reviewers. Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience is a member of Neuroscience Peer Review Consortium.