Intermittent Theta-Burst Stimulation for Stroke: Primary Motor Cortex Versus Cerebellar Stimulation: A Randomized Sham-Controlled Trial

Didn't your competent? doctor start using this years ago? Or don't you have a functioning stroke doctor? Does your hospital even have such a machine?

• intermittent theta burst stimulation (3 posts to April 2016)

• excitatory intermittent theta burst stimulation (1 post to June 2017)

• magnetic theta burst stimulation (1 post to January 2022)

• theta burst stimulation (14 posts to February 2013)

Intermittent Theta-Burst Stimulation for Stroke: Primary Motor Cortex Versus Cerebellar Stimulation: A Randomized Sham-Controlled Trial

Ling-Yi Liao,

Yang Zhu,

Qiu-Yi Peng,

Qiang Gao,

Lu Liu,

Qing-Hua Wang,

Shi-Hao Gao,

Yong Tao,

Hao Huang,

Pei-Dong Xu and

Chang-Yue Gao

Originally published30 Nov 2023https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.123.044892Stroke. 2024;55:156–165

• Other version(s) of this article

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Stroke survivors with impaired balance and motor function tend to have relatively poor functional outcomes. The cerebellum and primary motor cortex (M1) have been suggested as targets for neuromodulation of balance and motor recovery after stroke. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of intermittent theta-burst stimulation (iTBS) to the cerebellum or M1 on balance and motor recovery in patients with stroke.

METHODS:

In this randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled clinical trial, patients with subacute stroke were randomly divided into 3 groups: M1-, cerebellar-, and sham-iTBS (n=12 per group; 15 sessions, 3 weeks). All outcomes were evaluated before intervention (T0), after 1 week of intervention (T1), after 3 weeks of intervention (T2), and at follow-up (T3). The primary outcome was the Berg balance scale score at T2. Secondary outcomes include the Fugl-Meyer assessment scale for lower extremities, the trunk impairment scale, the Barthel index, the modified Rankin Scale, the functional ambulation categories, and cortical excitability.

RESULTS:

A total of 167 inpatients were screened, 36 patients (age, 57.50±2.41 years; 10 women, 12 ischemic) were enrolled between December 2020 and January 2023. At T2, M1- or cerebellar-iTBS significantly improved Berg balance scale scores by 10.7 points ([95% CI, 2.7–18.6], P=0.009) and 14.2 points ([95% CI, 1.2–27.2], P=0.032) compared with the sham-iTBS group. Moreover, the cerebellar-iTBS group showed a significantly greater improvement in Fugl-Meyer assessment scale for lower extremities scores by 5.6 points than the M1-iTBS ([95% CI, 0.3–10.9], P=0.037) and by 7.8 points than the sham-iTBS ([95% CI, 1.1–14.5], P=0.021) groups at T2. The motor-evoked potential amplitudes of the M1- and cerebellar-iTBS groups were higher than those of the sham-iTBS group (P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS:

Both M1- and cerebellar-iTBS could improve(NOT GOOD ENOUGH! We need specific improvement per protocol used! That is what science is supposed to deliver!) balance function. Moreover, cerebellar-iTBS, but not M1-iTBS, induced significant effects(Same comment as above!) on motor recovery. Thus, cerebellar-iTBS may be a valuable new therapeutic option in stroke rehabilitation programs.

REGISTRATION:

URL: https://www.chictr.org.cn/; Unique identifier: ChiCTR2100047002.

• Download figure
• Download PowerPoint