Cargando…

Alternating Current Stimulation for Vision Restoration after Optic Nerve Damage: A Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND: Vision loss after optic neuropathy is considered irreversible. Here, repetitive transorbital alternating current stimulation (rtACS) was applied in partially blind patients with the goal of activating their residual vision. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, prospective, randomized, do...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gall, Carolin, Schmidt, Sein, Schittkowski, Michael P., Antal, Andrea, Ambrus, Géza Gergely, Paulus, Walter, Dannhauer, Moritz, Michalik, Romualda, Mante, Alf, Bola, Michal, Lux, Anke, Kropf, Siegfried, Brandt, Stephan A., Sabel, Bernhard A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4927182/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27355577
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0156134
_version_ 1782440234562093056
author Gall, Carolin
Schmidt, Sein
Schittkowski, Michael P.
Antal, Andrea
Ambrus, Géza Gergely
Paulus, Walter
Dannhauer, Moritz
Michalik, Romualda
Mante, Alf
Bola, Michal
Lux, Anke
Kropf, Siegfried
Brandt, Stephan A.
Sabel, Bernhard A.
author_facet Gall, Carolin
Schmidt, Sein
Schittkowski, Michael P.
Antal, Andrea
Ambrus, Géza Gergely
Paulus, Walter
Dannhauer, Moritz
Michalik, Romualda
Mante, Alf
Bola, Michal
Lux, Anke
Kropf, Siegfried
Brandt, Stephan A.
Sabel, Bernhard A.
author_sort Gall, Carolin
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Vision loss after optic neuropathy is considered irreversible. Here, repetitive transorbital alternating current stimulation (rtACS) was applied in partially blind patients with the goal of activating their residual vision. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, prospective, randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled trial in an ambulatory setting with daily application of rtACS (n = 45) or sham-stimulation (n = 37) for 50 min for a duration of 10 week days. A volunteer sample of patients with optic nerve damage (mean age 59.1 yrs) was recruited. The primary outcome measure for efficacy was super-threshold visual fields with 48 hrs after the last treatment day and at 2-months follow-up. Secondary outcome measures were near-threshold visual fields, reaction time, visual acuity, and resting-state EEGs to assess changes in brain physiology. RESULTS: The rtACS-treated group had a mean improvement in visual field of 24.0% which was significantly greater than after sham-stimulation (2.5%). This improvement persisted for at least 2 months in terms of both within- and between-group comparisons. Secondary analyses revealed improvements of near-threshold visual fields in the central 5° and increased thresholds in static perimetry after rtACS and improved reaction times, but visual acuity did not change compared to shams. Visual field improvement induced by rtACS was associated with EEG power-spectra and coherence alterations in visual cortical networks which are interpreted as signs of neuromodulation. Current flow simulation indicates current in the frontal cortex, eye, and optic nerve and in the subcortical but not in the cortical regions. CONCLUSION: rtACS treatment is a safe and effective means to partially restore vision after optic nerve damage probably by modulating brain plasticity. This class 1 evidence suggests that visual fields can be improved in a clinically meaningful way. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01280877
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4927182
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-49271822016-07-18 Alternating Current Stimulation for Vision Restoration after Optic Nerve Damage: A Randomized Clinical Trial Gall, Carolin Schmidt, Sein Schittkowski, Michael P. Antal, Andrea Ambrus, Géza Gergely Paulus, Walter Dannhauer, Moritz Michalik, Romualda Mante, Alf Bola, Michal Lux, Anke Kropf, Siegfried Brandt, Stephan A. Sabel, Bernhard A. PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: Vision loss after optic neuropathy is considered irreversible. Here, repetitive transorbital alternating current stimulation (rtACS) was applied in partially blind patients with the goal of activating their residual vision. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, prospective, randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled trial in an ambulatory setting with daily application of rtACS (n = 45) or sham-stimulation (n = 37) for 50 min for a duration of 10 week days. A volunteer sample of patients with optic nerve damage (mean age 59.1 yrs) was recruited. The primary outcome measure for efficacy was super-threshold visual fields with 48 hrs after the last treatment day and at 2-months follow-up. Secondary outcome measures were near-threshold visual fields, reaction time, visual acuity, and resting-state EEGs to assess changes in brain physiology. RESULTS: The rtACS-treated group had a mean improvement in visual field of 24.0% which was significantly greater than after sham-stimulation (2.5%). This improvement persisted for at least 2 months in terms of both within- and between-group comparisons. Secondary analyses revealed improvements of near-threshold visual fields in the central 5° and increased thresholds in static perimetry after rtACS and improved reaction times, but visual acuity did not change compared to shams. Visual field improvement induced by rtACS was associated with EEG power-spectra and coherence alterations in visual cortical networks which are interpreted as signs of neuromodulation. Current flow simulation indicates current in the frontal cortex, eye, and optic nerve and in the subcortical but not in the cortical regions. CONCLUSION: rtACS treatment is a safe and effective means to partially restore vision after optic nerve damage probably by modulating brain plasticity. This class 1 evidence suggests that visual fields can be improved in a clinically meaningful way. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01280877 Public Library of Science 2016-06-29 /pmc/articles/PMC4927182/ /pubmed/27355577 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0156134 Text en © 2016 Gall et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Gall, Carolin
Schmidt, Sein
Schittkowski, Michael P.
Antal, Andrea
Ambrus, Géza Gergely
Paulus, Walter
Dannhauer, Moritz
Michalik, Romualda
Mante, Alf
Bola, Michal
Lux, Anke
Kropf, Siegfried
Brandt, Stephan A.
Sabel, Bernhard A.
Alternating Current Stimulation for Vision Restoration after Optic Nerve Damage: A Randomized Clinical Trial
title Alternating Current Stimulation for Vision Restoration after Optic Nerve Damage: A Randomized Clinical Trial
title_full Alternating Current Stimulation for Vision Restoration after Optic Nerve Damage: A Randomized Clinical Trial
title_fullStr Alternating Current Stimulation for Vision Restoration after Optic Nerve Damage: A Randomized Clinical Trial
title_full_unstemmed Alternating Current Stimulation for Vision Restoration after Optic Nerve Damage: A Randomized Clinical Trial
title_short Alternating Current Stimulation for Vision Restoration after Optic Nerve Damage: A Randomized Clinical Trial
title_sort alternating current stimulation for vision restoration after optic nerve damage: a randomized clinical trial
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4927182/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27355577
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0156134
work_keys_str_mv AT gallcarolin alternatingcurrentstimulationforvisionrestorationafteropticnervedamagearandomizedclinicaltrial
AT schmidtsein alternatingcurrentstimulationforvisionrestorationafteropticnervedamagearandomizedclinicaltrial
AT schittkowskimichaelp alternatingcurrentstimulationforvisionrestorationafteropticnervedamagearandomizedclinicaltrial
AT antalandrea alternatingcurrentstimulationforvisionrestorationafteropticnervedamagearandomizedclinicaltrial
AT ambrusgezagergely alternatingcurrentstimulationforvisionrestorationafteropticnervedamagearandomizedclinicaltrial
AT pauluswalter alternatingcurrentstimulationforvisionrestorationafteropticnervedamagearandomizedclinicaltrial
AT dannhauermoritz alternatingcurrentstimulationforvisionrestorationafteropticnervedamagearandomizedclinicaltrial
AT michalikromualda alternatingcurrentstimulationforvisionrestorationafteropticnervedamagearandomizedclinicaltrial
AT mantealf alternatingcurrentstimulationforvisionrestorationafteropticnervedamagearandomizedclinicaltrial
AT bolamichal alternatingcurrentstimulationforvisionrestorationafteropticnervedamagearandomizedclinicaltrial
AT luxanke alternatingcurrentstimulationforvisionrestorationafteropticnervedamagearandomizedclinicaltrial
AT kropfsiegfried alternatingcurrentstimulationforvisionrestorationafteropticnervedamagearandomizedclinicaltrial
AT brandtstephana alternatingcurrentstimulationforvisionrestorationafteropticnervedamagearandomizedclinicaltrial
AT sabelbernharda alternatingcurrentstimulationforvisionrestorationafteropticnervedamagearandomizedclinicaltrial