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.

Showing posts with label Epidural electrical stimulation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Epidural electrical stimulation. Show all posts

Tuesday, February 21, 2023

Spinal Stimulation Opens Door to Treating Stroke Survivors With Partial Paralysis

Is your doctor and hospital following this and preparing for its' use? NO? Then you don't have a functioning stroke doctor or hospital!  Fire them and find someone better that actually knows how to get you 100% recovered. 

Spinal Stimulation Opens Door to Treating Stroke Survivors With Partial Paralysis

Recovery of strength, functional movements seen in pilot study

A computer rendering of a transparent body with the cervical spinal cord highlighted.

With epidural electrical stimulation (EES) of the cervical spine, researchers successfully improved arm and hand mobility in two stroke patients who otherwise had no treatment available for their chronic hemiparesis.

Continuous spinal cord stimulation (SCS), provided through two surgically implanted leads, improved strength, speed, and functional movements in the first two patients of this ongoing study, reported Marco Capogrosso, PhD, a biomedical engineer at the University of Pittsburgh, and colleagues.

The two stroke patients attempted movements from day 1 without training. Within 30 days, they were able to fully open and close their fist, lift their arm above their head, and use a fork and knife to cut food for the first time in years, Capogrosso and team noted in Nature Medicineopens in a new tab or window.

"We discovered that electrical stimulation of specific spinal cord regions enables patients to move their arm in ways that they are not able to do without the stimulation. Perhaps even more interesting, we found that after a few weeks of use, some of these improvements endure when the stimulation is switched off, indicating exciting avenues for the future of stroke therapies," said Capogrosso in a press release.

The group's goal is for a permanent implant to be continuously switched on except for battery replacement every couple of years or so, according to co-author Elvira Pirondini, PhD, also a bioengineer at the University of Pittsburgh, during a media briefing.

Capogrosso said that a new culture is needed in which it is accepted that stroke patients have a stimulation system permanently with them. This will take convincing national stakeholders that chronic stroke patients should get long-term rehabilitation for their motor deficits.

It is well established that stroke is a leading cause of long-term disability,opens in a new tab or window with the majority of patients having lasting deficits in arm and hand mobility. There are currently no treatments for chronic upper-limb paresis in stroke survivors.

To address this unmet need, Capogrosso's group tested an EES protocol adapting existing FDA-approved clinical technologies. Similar to an existing technique for analgesia, a minimally invasive device with an electric array is placed percutaneously through the person's back to enter the spinal canal and rests on top of the spinal cord. There, stimulation of sensory nerves from the arm and hand amplifies the activity of muscles that have been weakened by stroke.

Engineers are currently working on fine-tuning the intensity and location of EES to produce more fluid movements of the arm and hand, noted Douglas Weber, PhD, a biomedical engineer at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, at the press conference.

"Clinical adoption of SCS for stroke will require the application of simple and standardized parameter optimization protocols," the investigators wrote. "Additionally, in this study we focused on the immediate assistive effects of SCS with temporary implants; future studies should focus on demonstrating the long-term safety and efficacy of a fully implanted SCS system combined with protocol-based upper-limb rehabilitation in larger randomized controlled studies."

Nevertheless, the promise of EES continues to grow, as it has previously been shown to be successful in patients with spinal cord injuryopens in a new tab or window and complete sensorimotor paralysisopens in a new tab or window. Capogrosso suggested that there are many diseases involving paralysis that may be targeted with this therapy.

The current study detailed the progress of the first two participants of an ongoing studyopens in a new tab or window aiming for 15 stroke patients.

The first, a 31-year-old woman, had suffered a right thalamic hemorrhagic stroke secondary to a cavernous malformation 9 years before participation in the study. The second, a 47-year-old woman, had had a right ischemic middle cerebral artery (MCA) stroke secondary to a right carotid dissection resulting in a large MCA territory infarct 3 years before enrollment.

Both underwent surgery to implant a device for EES of the cervical spinal cord and had the implant removed within 30 days.

"Despite large differences between the two participants in terms of severity, age and time since the stroke, during SCS, both participants showed a significant improvement in strength, arm kinematics and functional task performance compared to their baselines without SCS," Capogrosso and colleagues wrote.

Chief among the limitations of the study were the very small sample and short duration of the intervention.

No serious adverse events were observed with EES, though the researchers acknowledged that their preliminary report prevents them from drawing conclusions about the safety and efficacy of EES in stroke.

  • author['full_name']

    Nicole Lou is a reporter for MedPage Today, where she covers cardiology news and other developments in medicine. Follow

Disclosures

The project was supported by the NIH BRAIN Initiative and institutional funds.

Capogrosso, Gerszten, and Pirondini have financial interests in Reach Neuro, the startup founded to put this therapy to clinical use.

Primary Source

Nature Medicine

Source Reference: opens in a new tab or windowPowell MP, et al "Epidural stimulation of the cervical spinal cord for post-stroke upper-limb paresis" Nat Med 2023; DOI: 10.1038/s41591-022-02202-6.

Monday, May 16, 2022

Cervical afferents are necessary for closed-loop epidural stimulation-induced respiratory neuroplasticity

 FYI. Ask your doctor if this is even possible at their hospital.

Cervical afferents are necessary for closed-loop epidural stimulation-induced respiratory neuroplasticity

Craig H Neilsen Foundation; National Institutes of Health SPARC OT2 OD023854; National Institutes of Health R01HL153102; UF MBI Brain and Spinal Cord Injury Research Trust; UF McKnight Brain Institute Career Accelerator Award

Abstract

Epidural electrical stimulation restores vital functions in neurological disorders such as stroke and spinal cord injury. After spinal injury, epidural stimulation improves locomotion, cardiovascular and bladder function, and trunk stability via neuromodulation of spinal neural networks. We have shown in rats that four days of epidural stimulation given via a closed-loop paradigm (CLES) elicits spinal respiratory plasticity (Malone et al., FASEB J 2020;2021). Precise mechanisms of these effects in other sensorimotor systems are unclear, but modeling (Capogrosso et al., 2013) and rodent (Lavrov et a., 2008) studies suggest that inputs from segmental sensory afferent neurons are essential. We hypothesized that intact sensory afferents from the diaphragm (e.g. C3-C5) are necessary for CLES-induced respiratory plasticity. To test this, adult, female, Sprague-Dawley rats were implanted with CLES electrodes at C4 and bilateral diaphragm recording electrodes (n=14). A subset of rats received C3-C5 cervical dorsal rhizotomy (CDR) at the time of electrode implantation (n=6). After 1 week of recovery, rats received CLES (sub-motor threshold epidural stimulation triggered by diaphragm EMG) ~20hr per day for 14 days. Inspiratory-triggered spinal motor evoked potentials were recorded every 2 days. CLES for 2 weeks facilitated left diaphragm peak to peak amplitude of the stimulus-triggered average in sham rats on all days measured (vs. day 0; all p< 0.05). Right diaphragm in sham animals only showed facilitation on day 12 vs day 0 (0.005 vs 0.003; p<0.05). In contrast, CDR rats exhibited blunted peak to peak magnitudes vs sham on all days except day 6 in the left diaphragm where there was also facilitation (vs day 0; p<0.05). Days 2, 4, 12 and 14 of peak to peak magnitude in the right diaphragm of CDR rats was significantly lower than sham (all p<0.05) and vs day 0 (all p<0.05). In addition, motor threshold (e.g. the lowest current that can elicit an evoked potential) was significantly higher in CDR vs sham rats on days 4 (14.27% ± 15.02%; p=0.005), 6 (19.23% ± 21.89% vs -29.43% ± 3.77%; p=0.003), and 8 (18.10% ± 16.05% vs -20.25% ± 10.34%; p=0.004). These results suggest that CDR may attenuate the magnitude of the evoked potential and capacity to facilitate over the course of 14 days. However, it appears some compensatory plasticity may be occurring after CDR since 1) the increase in motor thresholds return to what is seen in sham animals after day 10 of CLES and 2) facilitation of the stimulus triggered average was seen on day 6 in the left diaphragm. It is also interesting to note the differential effects of CLES on right vs. left diaphragm, highlighting the differences in innervation or possible laterality in the capacity for spinal plasticity in this setting. Ongoing immunohistochemical analyses of C3-C5 spinal cord and diaphragm may lend more insight into the mechanistic underpinnings of these results. This work represents the first report that long-term (i.e. 2 weeks) CLES can elicit spinal respiratory neuroplasticity in healthy, awake, freely-behaving rats and that intact sensory afferents may be necessary for this to occur. Future studies will be essential to elucidate the therapeutic potential of neuromodulation for improvement of respiratory deficits in individuals with neurological disorders.

This is the full abstract presented at the Experimental Biology meeting and is only available in HTML format. There are no additional versions or additional content available for this abstract.
 

Epidural Electrical Stimulation for Stroke Rehabilitation: Results of the Prospective, Multicenter, Randomized, Single-Blinded Everest Trial

 7 years! Has your stroke hospital done one damn thing with this?  Any further research they initiated?

Do you prefer your  doctor and hospital incompetence NOT KNOWING? OR NOT DOING?

Epidural Electrical Stimulation for Stroke Rehabilitation: Results of the Prospective, Multicenter, Randomized, Single-Blinded Everest Trial

First Published March 6, 2015 Research Article Find in PubMed 

Background

This prospective, single-blinded, multicenter study assessed the safety and efficacy of electrical epidural motor cortex stimulation (EECS) in improving upper limb motor function of ischemic stroke patients with moderate to moderately severe hemiparesis.  

Methods

Patients ≥4 months poststroke were randomized 2:1 to an investigational (n = 104) or control (n = 60) group, respectively. Investigational patients were implanted (n = 94) with an epidural 6-contact lead perpendicular to the primary motor cortex and a pulse generator. Both groups underwent 6 weeks of rehabilitation, but EECS was delivered to investigational patients during rehabilitation. The primary efficacy endpoint (PE) was defined as attaining a minimum improvement of 4.5 points in the upper extremity Fugl-Meyer (UEFM) scale as well as 0.21 points in the Arm Motor Ability Test (AMAT) 4 weeks postrehabilitation. Follow-up assessments were performed 1, 4, 12, and 24 weeks postrehabilitation. Safety was evaluated by monitoring adverse events (AEs) that occurred between enrollment and the end of rehabilitation.  

Results

Primary intent-to-treat analysis showed no group differences at 4 weeks, with PE being met by 32% and 29% of investigational and control patients, respectively (P = .36). Repeated-measures secondary analyses revealed no significant treatment group differences in mean UEFM or AMAT scores. However, post hoc comparisons showed that a greater proportion of investigational (39%) than control (15%) patients maintained or achieved PE (P = .003) at 24 weeks postrehabilitation. Investigational group mean AMAT scores also improved significantly (P < .05) when compared to the control group at 24 weeks postrehabilitation. Post hoc analyses also showed that 69% (n = 9/13) of the investigational patients who elicited movement thresholds during stimulation testing met PE at 4 weeks, and mean UEFM and AMAT scores was also significantly higher (P < .05) in this subgroup at the 4-, 12-, and 24-week assessments when compared to the control group. Headache (19%), pain (13%), swelling (7%), and infection (7%) were the most commonly observed implant procedure-related AEs. Overall, there were 11 serious AEs in 9 investigational group patients (7 procedure related, 4 anesthesia related).  

Conclusions

The primary analysis pertaining to efficacy of EECS during upper limb motor rehabilitation in chronic stroke patients was negative at 4 weeks postrehabilitation. A better treatment response was observed in a subset of patients eliciting stimulation induced upper limb movements during motor threshold assessments performed prior to each rehabilitation session. Post hoc comparisons indicated treatment effect differences at 24 weeks, with the control group showing significant decline in the combined primary outcome measure relative to the investigational group. These results have the potential to inform future chronic stroke rehabilitation trial design.