Cargando…

Motor Cortex Neurostimulation Technologies for Chronic Post-stroke Pain: Implications of Tissue Damage on Stimulation Currents

Background: Central post stroke pain (CPSP) is a highly refractory syndrome that can occur after stroke. Primary motor cortex (M1) brain stimulation using epidural brain stimulation (EBS), transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) have been explored...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: O’Brien, Anthony T., Amorim, Rivadavio, Rushmore, R. Jarrett, Eden, Uri, Afifi, Linda, Dipietro, Laura, Wagner, Timothy, Valero-Cabré, Antoni
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5101829/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27881958
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2016.00545
_version_ 1782466359794335744
author O’Brien, Anthony T.
Amorim, Rivadavio
Rushmore, R. Jarrett
Eden, Uri
Afifi, Linda
Dipietro, Laura
Wagner, Timothy
Valero-Cabré, Antoni
author_facet O’Brien, Anthony T.
Amorim, Rivadavio
Rushmore, R. Jarrett
Eden, Uri
Afifi, Linda
Dipietro, Laura
Wagner, Timothy
Valero-Cabré, Antoni
author_sort O’Brien, Anthony T.
collection PubMed
description Background: Central post stroke pain (CPSP) is a highly refractory syndrome that can occur after stroke. Primary motor cortex (M1) brain stimulation using epidural brain stimulation (EBS), transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) have been explored as potential therapies for CPSP. These techniques have demonstrated variable clinical efficacy. It is hypothesized that changes in the stimulating currents that are caused by stroke-induced changes in brain tissue conductivity limit the efficacy of these techniques. Methods: We generated MRI-guided finite element models of the current density distributions in the human head and brain with and without chronic focal cortical infarctions during EBS, TMS, and tDCS. We studied the change in the stimulating current density distributions’ magnitude, orientation, and maxima locations between the different models. Results: Changes in electrical properties at stroke boundaries altered the distribution of stimulation currents in magnitude, location, and orientation. Current density magnitude alterations were larger for the non-invasive techniques (i.e., tDCS and TMS) than for EBS. Nonetheless, the lesion also altered currents during EBS. The spatial shift of peak current density, relative to the size of the stimulation source, was largest for EBS. Conclusion: In order to maximize therapeutic efficiency, neurostimulation trials need to account for the impact of anatomically disrupted neural tissues on the location, orientation, and magnitude of exogenously applied currents. The relative current-neuronal structure should be considered when planning stimulation treatment, especially across techniques (e.g., using TMS to predict EBS response). We postulate that the effects of altered tissue properties in stroke regions may impact stimulation induced analgesic effects and/or lead to highly variable outcomes during brain stimulation treatments in CPSP.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5101829
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-51018292016-11-23 Motor Cortex Neurostimulation Technologies for Chronic Post-stroke Pain: Implications of Tissue Damage on Stimulation Currents O’Brien, Anthony T. Amorim, Rivadavio Rushmore, R. Jarrett Eden, Uri Afifi, Linda Dipietro, Laura Wagner, Timothy Valero-Cabré, Antoni Front Hum Neurosci Neuroscience Background: Central post stroke pain (CPSP) is a highly refractory syndrome that can occur after stroke. Primary motor cortex (M1) brain stimulation using epidural brain stimulation (EBS), transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) have been explored as potential therapies for CPSP. These techniques have demonstrated variable clinical efficacy. It is hypothesized that changes in the stimulating currents that are caused by stroke-induced changes in brain tissue conductivity limit the efficacy of these techniques. Methods: We generated MRI-guided finite element models of the current density distributions in the human head and brain with and without chronic focal cortical infarctions during EBS, TMS, and tDCS. We studied the change in the stimulating current density distributions’ magnitude, orientation, and maxima locations between the different models. Results: Changes in electrical properties at stroke boundaries altered the distribution of stimulation currents in magnitude, location, and orientation. Current density magnitude alterations were larger for the non-invasive techniques (i.e., tDCS and TMS) than for EBS. Nonetheless, the lesion also altered currents during EBS. The spatial shift of peak current density, relative to the size of the stimulation source, was largest for EBS. Conclusion: In order to maximize therapeutic efficiency, neurostimulation trials need to account for the impact of anatomically disrupted neural tissues on the location, orientation, and magnitude of exogenously applied currents. The relative current-neuronal structure should be considered when planning stimulation treatment, especially across techniques (e.g., using TMS to predict EBS response). We postulate that the effects of altered tissue properties in stroke regions may impact stimulation induced analgesic effects and/or lead to highly variable outcomes during brain stimulation treatments in CPSP. Frontiers Media S.A. 2016-11-09 /pmc/articles/PMC5101829/ /pubmed/27881958 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2016.00545 Text en Copyright © 2016 O’Brien, Amorim, Rushmore, Eden, Afifi, Dipietro, Wagner and Valero-Cabré. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Neuroscience
O’Brien, Anthony T.
Amorim, Rivadavio
Rushmore, R. Jarrett
Eden, Uri
Afifi, Linda
Dipietro, Laura
Wagner, Timothy
Valero-Cabré, Antoni
Motor Cortex Neurostimulation Technologies for Chronic Post-stroke Pain: Implications of Tissue Damage on Stimulation Currents
title Motor Cortex Neurostimulation Technologies for Chronic Post-stroke Pain: Implications of Tissue Damage on Stimulation Currents
title_full Motor Cortex Neurostimulation Technologies for Chronic Post-stroke Pain: Implications of Tissue Damage on Stimulation Currents
title_fullStr Motor Cortex Neurostimulation Technologies for Chronic Post-stroke Pain: Implications of Tissue Damage on Stimulation Currents
title_full_unstemmed Motor Cortex Neurostimulation Technologies for Chronic Post-stroke Pain: Implications of Tissue Damage on Stimulation Currents
title_short Motor Cortex Neurostimulation Technologies for Chronic Post-stroke Pain: Implications of Tissue Damage on Stimulation Currents
title_sort motor cortex neurostimulation technologies for chronic post-stroke pain: implications of tissue damage on stimulation currents
topic Neuroscience
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5101829/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27881958
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2016.00545
work_keys_str_mv AT obrienanthonyt motorcortexneurostimulationtechnologiesforchronicpoststrokepainimplicationsoftissuedamageonstimulationcurrents
AT amorimrivadavio motorcortexneurostimulationtechnologiesforchronicpoststrokepainimplicationsoftissuedamageonstimulationcurrents
AT rushmorerjarrett motorcortexneurostimulationtechnologiesforchronicpoststrokepainimplicationsoftissuedamageonstimulationcurrents
AT edenuri motorcortexneurostimulationtechnologiesforchronicpoststrokepainimplicationsoftissuedamageonstimulationcurrents
AT afifilinda motorcortexneurostimulationtechnologiesforchronicpoststrokepainimplicationsoftissuedamageonstimulationcurrents
AT dipietrolaura motorcortexneurostimulationtechnologiesforchronicpoststrokepainimplicationsoftissuedamageonstimulationcurrents
AT wagnertimothy motorcortexneurostimulationtechnologiesforchronicpoststrokepainimplicationsoftissuedamageonstimulationcurrents
AT valerocabreantoni motorcortexneurostimulationtechnologiesforchronicpoststrokepainimplicationsoftissuedamageonstimulationcurrents