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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |