Do Higher Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Doses Lead to Greater Gains in Upper Limb Motor Function in Post-Stroke Patients?

Publisher: MDPI Country of Publication: Switzerland NLM ID: 101238455 Publication Model: Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1660-4601 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 16604601 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Int J Environ Res Public Health Subsets: MEDLINE

Original Publication: Basel : MDPI, c2004-

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation*/methods ; Stroke Rehabilitation*/methods ; Stroke*/therapy; Humans ; Recovery of Function/physiology ; Upper Extremity ; Treatment Outcome

Objective: To investigate whether a higher number of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) sessions results in a greater improvement in upper limb function in chronic post-stroke patients. Materials and methods: A randomized, sham-controlled, double-blind clinical trial was conducted in 57 chronic post-stroke patients (≥ 3 months after their injuries). The patients were allocated to receive sessions of tDCS combined with physiotherapy and divided into three groups (anodal, cathodal, and sham). The Fugl-Meyer Assessment of Upper Extremity (FMA-UE) was used to assess the sensorimotor impairment of the patients’ upper limbs before (baseline) and after five and ten sessions. The percentage of patients who achieved a clinically significant improvement (> five points on the FMA-UE) was also analyzed. Results: The FMA-UE score increased after five and ten sessions in both the anodal and cathodal tDCS groups, respectively, compared to the baseline. However, in the sham group, the FMA-UE score increased only after ten sessions. When compared to the sham group, the mean difference from the baseline after five sessions was higher in the anodal tDCS group. The percentage of individuals who achieved greater clinical improvement was higher in the stimulation groups than in the sham group and after ten sessions when compared to five sessions. Conclusions: Our results suggest that five tDCS sessions are sufficient to augment the effect of standard physiotherapy on upper limb function recovery in chronic post-stroke patients, and ten sessions resulted in greater gains.

Restor Neurol Neurosci. 2019;37(2):167-180. (PMID: 30932903)
Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2014 Nov;57(8):530-542. (PMID: 25193774)
Int J Neuropsychopharmacol. 2011 Sep;14(8):1133-45. (PMID: 21320389)
PM R. 2018 Nov;10(11):1261-1270. (PMID: 30503233)
Eur J Neurol. 2018 Aug;25(8):1017-1026. (PMID: 29744999)
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2011 Jan;25(1):71-80. (PMID: 20829411)
Nat Clin Pract Neurol. 2007 Jul;3(7):383-93. (PMID: 17611487)
Phys Ther. 2012 Jun;92(6):791-8. (PMID: 22282773)
Stroke. 2001 May;32(5):1134-9. (PMID: 11340222)
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2011 Nov-Dec;25(9):838-46. (PMID: 21825004)
Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:547290. (PMID: 24895588)
Stroke. 2001 Jun;32(6):1279-84. (PMID: 11387487)
Clin Neurophysiol. 2021 Aug;132(8):1897-1918. (PMID: 34157634)
NeuroRehabilitation. 2015;37(2):181-91. (PMID: 26484510)
Restor Neurol Neurosci. 2004;22(3-5):245-60. (PMID: 15502269)
J Neurol Sci. 2019 Jun 15;401:75-78. (PMID: 31029885)
Brain. 2008 May;131(Pt 5):1381-90. (PMID: 18356189)
Restor Neurol Neurosci. 2019;37(4):333-346. (PMID: 31227673)
Neurology. 2010 Dec 14;75(24):2176-84. (PMID: 21068427)
Disabil Rehabil. 2016;38(7):653-60. (PMID: 26061222)
J Neurol Sci. 2019 Oct 15;405:116436. (PMID: 31493725)
Lancet Neurol. 2010 Dec;9(12):1228-1232. (PMID: 21035399)
Brain Stimul. 2016 Sep-Oct;9(5):641-661. (PMID: 27372845)
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2015 Mar;96(3 Suppl):S79-87. (PMID: 25721551)
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2012 Nov-Dec;26(9):1072-9. (PMID: 22588639)
Clin Neurophysiol. 2016 Jan;127(1):946-955. (PMID: 25998205)
Neuropsychologia. 2011 Apr;49(5):800-804. (PMID: 21335013)
Eur J Neurol. 2013 Jan;20(1):202-4. (PMID: 22448901)
Clin Neurophysiol. 2003 Jul;114(7):1217-25. (PMID: 12842718)
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2020 Jun 15;17(1):73. (PMID: 32539812)
Brain Stimul. 2016 Jan-Feb;9(1):16-26. (PMID: 26433609)
Rev Neurosci. 2020 Jan 28;31(2):201-218. (PMID: 31472070)
J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2008 Feb;51(1):S225-39. (PMID: 18230848)
Brain Stimul. 2014 May-Jun;7(3):372-80. (PMID: 24630849)
Stroke. 2021 Nov;52(11):3706-3717. (PMID: 34601901)
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002 Aug;83(8):1035-42. (PMID: 12161823)
Med Sci Monit. 2019 Dec 14;25:9555-9562. (PMID: 31837648)
Neuroimage. 2003 Aug;19(4):1650-4. (PMID: 12948719)
Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2010 Nov;89(11):879-86. (PMID: 20962598)
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2014 Feb;95(2):222-9. (PMID: 24239881)
Neuroepidemiology. 2015;45(3):190-202. (PMID: 26505983)
J Neurol Phys Ther. 2015 Jan;39(1):33-42. (PMID: 25415551)
Neural Plast. 2019 Nov 16;2019:1372138. (PMID: 31827495)
Nat Rev Neurol. 2014 Oct;10(10):597-608. (PMID: 25201238)
NeuroRehabilitation. 2014;34(3):437-46. (PMID: 24473248)
Eur J Neurol. 2020 Dec;27(12):2473-2482. (PMID: 32697879)
Clin Rehabil. 2017 Sep;31(9):1137-1153. (PMID: 28786336)
J Hand Ther. 2013 Apr-Jun;26(2):162-70; quiz 171. (PMID: 22964028)
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2016 Apr;87(4):345-55. (PMID: 26319437)
Brain. 2012 Aug;135(Pt 8):2527-35. (PMID: 22689909)
J Cogn Neurosci. 2003 May 15;15(4):619-26. (PMID: 12803972)
Clin Neurophysiol. 2006 Apr;117(4):845-50. (PMID: 16427357)
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2021 Jul 1;18(1):108. (PMID: 34210347)
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Nov 11;11:CD009645. (PMID: 33175411)
Curr Opin Neurol. 2006 Feb;19(1):84-90. (PMID: 16415682)

Keywords: dose–response; stimulation parameters; stroke; transcranial direct current stimulation; upper limb

Date Created: 20230121 Date Completed: 20230124 Latest Revision: 20231118

20250114

PMC9859554

10.3390/ijerph20021279

36674035