Deans' stroke musings: Effect of Anodal Versus Cathodal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on Stroke Rehabilitation

Changing stroke rehab and research worldwide now.Time is Brain! trillions and trillions of neurons that DIE each day because there are NO effective hyperacute therapies besides tPA(only 12% effective). I have 523 posts on hyperacute therapy, enough for researchers to spend decades proving them out. These are my personal ideas and blog on stroke rehabilitation and stroke research. Do not attempt any of these without checking with your medical provider. Unless you join me in agitating, when you need these therapies they won't be there.

What this blog is for:

My blog is not to help survivors recover, it is to have the 10 million yearly stroke survivors light fires underneath their doctors, stroke hospitals and stroke researchers to get stroke solved. 100% recovery. The stroke medical world is completely failing at that goal, they don't even have it as a goal. Shortly after getting out of the hospital and getting NO information on the process or protocols of stroke rehabilitation and recovery I started searching on the internet and found that no other survivor received useful information. This is an attempt to cover all stroke rehabilitation information that should be readily available to survivors so they can talk with informed knowledge to their medical staff. It lays out what needs to be done to get stroke survivors closer to 100% recovery. It's quite disgusting that this information is not available from every stroke association and doctors group.

Friday, July 26, 2013

Effect of Anodal Versus Cathodal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on Stroke Rehabilitation

Your doctor will know the difference between anodal and cathodal. Neither definition explained a damn thing. For you Dave, you'll have to ask for the real study.

Effect of Anodal Versus Cathodal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on Stroke Rehabilitation

Abstract

Objective.

We compared the long-term effect of anodal versus cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on motor recovery in patients after subacute stroke.

Methods.

Forty patients with ischemic stroke undergoing rehabilitation were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 groups: Anodal, Cathodal (over-affected and unaffected hemisphere, respectively), and Sham. Each group received tDCS at an intensity of 2 mA for 25 minutes daily for 6 consecutive days over of the motor cortex hand area. Patients were assessed with the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS), Orgogozo’s MCA scale (OMCASS), the Barthel index (BI), and the Medical Research Council (MRC) muscle strength scale at baseline, after the sixth tDCS session and then 1, 2, and 3 months later. Motor cortical excitability was measured with transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) at baseline and after the sixth session.

Results.

By the 3-month follow-up, all groups had improved on all scales with P values ranging from .01 to .0001. Improvement was equal in the Anodal and Cathodal groups. When these treated groups were combined and compared with Sham, significant interactions were seen for the OMCASS and BI scales of functional ability (P = .002 for each). There was increased cortical excitability of the affected hemisphere in all groups with the changes being greater in the real versus sham groups. There were borderline significant improvements in muscle strength.

Conclusion.

A brief course of 2 types of tDCS stimulation is superior to sham stimulation in enhancing the effect of rehabilitation training to improve motor recovery after stroke.