Motor Activated Auricular Vagus Nerve Stimulation as a Potential Neuromodulation Approach for Post-Stroke Motor Rehabilitation: A Pilot Study

Bashar W Badran, Xiaolong Peng, Brenna Baker-Vogel, Scott Hutchison, Patricia Finetto, Kelly Rishe, Andrew Fortune, Ellen Kitchens, Georgia H O'Leary, Abigail Short, Christian Finetto, Michelle L Woodbury, Steve Kautz, Bashar W Badran, Xiaolong Peng, Brenna Baker-Vogel, Scott Hutchison, Patricia Finetto, Kelly Rishe, Andrew Fortune, Ellen Kitchens, Georgia H O'Leary, Abigail Short, Christian Finetto, Michelle L Woodbury, Steve Kautz

Abstract

Background: Implanted vagus nerve stimulation (VNS), when synchronized with post-stroke motor rehabilitation improves conventional motor rehabilitation training. A non-invasive VNS method known as transcutaneous auricular vagus nerves stimulation (taVNS) has emerged, which may mimic the effects of implanted VNS.

Objective: To determine whether taVNS paired with motor rehabilitation improves post-stroke motor function, and whether synchronization with movement and amount of stimulation is critical to outcomes.

Methods: We developed a closed-loop taVNS system for motor rehabilitation called motor activated auricular vagus nerve stimulation (MAAVNS) and conducted a randomized, double-blind, pilot trial investigating the use of MAAVNS to improve upper limb function in 20 stroke survivors. Participants attended 12 rehabilitation sessions over 4-weeks, and were assigned to a group that received either MAAVNS or active unpaired taVNS concurrently with task-specific training. Motor assessments were conducted at baseline, and weekly during rehabilitation training. Stimulation pulses were counted for both groups.

Results: A total of 16 individuals completed the trial, and both MAAVNS (n = 9) and unpaired taVNS (n = 7) demonstrated improved Fugl-Meyer Assessment upper extremity scores (Mean ± SEM, MAAVNS: 5.00 ± 1.02, unpaired taVNS: 3.14 ± 0.63). MAAVNS demonstrated greater effect size (Cohen's d = 0.63) compared to unpaired taVNS (Cohen's d = 0.30). Furthermore, MAAVNS participants received significantly fewer stimulation pulses (Mean ± SEM, MAAVNS: 36 070 ± 3205) than the fixed 45 000 pulses unpaired taVNS participants received (P < .05).

Conclusion: This trial suggests stimulation timing likely matters, and that pairing taVNS with movements may be superior to an unpaired approach. Additionally, MAAVNS effect size is comparable to that of the implanted VNS approach.

Keywords: MAAVNS; motor activated auricular vagus nerve stimulation; motor rehabilitation; stroke; tVNS; taVNS; transcutaneous auricular vagus nerve stimulation.

Conflict of interest statement

Declaration of Conflicting Interest

All other authors have no conflicts to report.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Overview of MAAVNS setup and triggering schematic. The closed-loop MAAVNS system uses (A) EMG sensors placed on the anterior deltoid to detect movement. When movement occurs, (B) stimulation is delivered to both left and right ears using adhesive hydrogel electrodes. (C) Therapists can conduct motor rehabilitation training with participants without interacting with the closed-loop automated system. (D) MAAVNS utilizes custom circuitry that detects real-time EMG signals and converts them to stimulation at specific thresholds of amplitude.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Consort flow diagram.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Overall, MAAVNS may produce more robust effects with less pulses delivered. (A) Primary (Fugl-Meyer Assessment-Upper Extremity, FMA-UE) and secondary (Wolf Motor Function Task, WMFT) motor outcomes of the MAAVNS and Unpaired taVNS are demonstrated. Overall significant effects of time were demonstrated in both MAAVNS and unpaired taVNS groups FMA-UE (2-way ANOVA: F1,60 = 10.49, P = .002) and the WMFT (F1,60 = 5.10, P = .028). (B) From baseline to post-session 12, MAAVNS group demonstrates greater improvement in the mean FMA-UE change scores (Mean ± SEM, MAAVNS: 5.00 ± 1.02, unpaired taVNS: 3.14 ±0.63). Similar trends appear in the WMFT scores (Mean ± SEM, MAAVNS: 5.11 ± 1.14, unpaired taVNS: 3.86 ± 2.10). (C) The MAAVNS group received significantly less total electrical stimulation pulses (Mean ± SEM, 36 070 ±3205) than the unpaired taVNS condition which received a fixed 45 000 pulses during each session (P = .03).

References

    1. Tsao CW, Aday AW, Almarzooq ZI, et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics-2022 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2022;145(8):e153–e639.
    1. Dobkin BH. Strategies for stroke rehabilitation. Lancet Neurol. 2004;3(9):528–536.
    1. Roger VL, Go AS, Lloyd-Jones DM, et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics—2012 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2012;125(1):e2–e220.
    1. Lang CE, Macdonald JR, Reisman DS, et al. Observation of amounts of movement practice provided during stroke rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2009;90(10):1692–1698.
    1. Lang CE, Strube MJ, Bland MD, et al. Dose response of task-specific upper limb training in people at least 6 months post-stroke: a phase II, single-blind, randomized, controlled trial. Ann Neurol. 2016;80(3):342–354.
    1. Hubbard IJ, Parsons MW, Neilson C, Carey LM. Task-specific training: evidence for and translation to clinical practice. Occup Ther Int. 2009;16(3–4):175–189.
    1. Webster BR, Celnik PA, Cohen LG. Noninvasive brain stimulation in stroke rehabilitation. NeuroRx. 2006;3(4):474–481.
    1. Nowak DA, Grefkes C, Ameli M, Fink GR. Interhemispheric competition after stroke: brain stimulation to enhance recovery of function of the affected hand. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2009;23(7):641–656.
    1. Hays SA, Rennaker RL, Kilgard MP. Targeting plasticity with vagus nerve stimulation to treat neurological disease. Prog Brain Res. 2013;207:275–299.
    1. Khodaparast N, Hays SA, Sloan AM, et al. Vagus nerve stimulation during rehabilitative training improves forelimb strength following ischemic stroke. Neurobiol Dis. 2013;60:80–88.
    1. Kimberley TJ, Pierce D, Prudente CN, et al. Vagus nerve stimulation paired with upper limb rehabilitation after chronic stroke. Stroke. 2018;49(11):2789–2792.
    1. Austelle CW, O’Leary GH, Thompson S, et al. A comprehensive review of vagus nerve stimulation for depression. Neuromodulation. 2021;25:309–315.
    1. Thompson SL, O’Leary GH, Austelle CW, et al. A review of parameter settings for invasive and non-invasive Vagus Nerve Stimulation (VNS) applied in neurological and psychiatric disorders. Front Neurosci. 2021;15:709436.
    1. Dawson J, Pierce D, Dixit A, et al. Safety, feasibility, and efficacy of vagus nerve stimulation paired with upper-limb rehabilitation after ischemic stroke. Stroke. 2016;47(1):143–150.
    1. Dawson J, Liu CY, Francisco GE, et al. Vagus nerve stimulation paired with rehabilitation for upper limb motor function after ischaemic stroke (VNS-REHAB): a randomised, blinded, pivotal, device trial. Lancet. 2021;397(10284):1545–1553.
    1. Badran BW, Alfred BY, Adair D, et al. Laboratory administration of transcutaneous auricular vagus nerve stimulation (taVNS): technique, targeting, and considerations. J Vis Exp. 2019(143):e58984.
    1. Ventureyra EC. Transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation for partial onset seizure therapy. Child’s Nerv Syst. 2000;16(2):101–102.
    1. Badran BW, Dowdle LT, Mithoefer OJ, et al. Neurophysiologic effects of transcutaneous auricular vagus nerve stimulation (taVNS) via electrical stimulation of the tragus: a concurrent taVNS/fMRI study and review. Brain Stimul. 2018;11(3):492–500.
    1. Kraus T, Hösl K, Kiess O, Schanze A, Kornhuber J, Forster C. BOLD fMRI deactivation of limbic and temporal brain structures and mood enhancing effect by transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation. J Neural Transm. 2007;114(11):1485–1493.
    1. Dietrich S, Smith J, Scherzinger C, et al. A novel transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation leads to brainstem and cerebral activations measured by functional MRI/Funktionelle Magnetresonanztomographie zeigt Aktivierungen des Hirnstamms und weiterer zerebraler Strukturen unter transkutaner Vagusnervstimulation. Biomed Eng. 2008;53(3):104–111.
    1. Yakunina N, Kim SS, Nam EC. Optimization of transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation using functional MRI. Neuromodulation. 2017;20:290–300.
    1. Frangos E, Ellrich J, Komisaruk BR. Non-invasive access to the vagus nerve central projections via electrical stimulation of the external ear: fMRI evidence in humans. Brain Stimul. 2015;8(3):624–636.
    1. Lomarev M, Denslow S, Nahas Z, Chae J-H, George MS, Bohning DE. Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) synchronized BOLD fMRI suggests that VNS in depressed adults has frequency/dose dependent effects. J Psychiatr Res. 2002;36(4):219–227.
    1. Nahas Z, Teneback C, Chae JH, et al. Serial vagus nerve stimulation functional MRI in treatment-resistant depression. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2007;32(8):1649–1660.
    1. Bucksot JE, Morales Castelan K, Skipton SK, Hays SA. Parametric characterization of the rat Hering-Breuer reflex evoked with implanted and non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation. Exp Neurol. 2020;327:113220.
    1. Badran BW, Brown JC, Dowdle LT, et al. Tragus or cymba conchae? Investigating the anatomical foundation of transcutaneous auricular vagus nerve stimulation (taVNS). Brain Stimul. 2018;11(4):947–948.
    1. Cook DN, Thompson S, Stomberg-Firestein S, et al. Design and validation of a closed-loop, motor-activated auricular vagus nerve stimulation (MAAVNS) system for neurorehabilitation. Brain Stimul. 2020;13(3):800–803.
    1. Taub E, Miller NE, Novack TA, et al. Technique to improve chronic motor deficit after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1993;74(4):347–354.
    1. Camona C, Wilkins KB, Drogos J, Sullivan JE, Dewald JPA, Yao J. Improving hand function of severely impaired chronic hemiparetic stroke individuals using task-specific training with the ReIn-Hand System: a case series. Front Neurol. 2018;9:923.
    1. Waddell KJ, Birkenmeier RL, Moore JL, Hornby TG, Lang CE. Feasibility of high-repetition, task-specific training for individuals with upper-extremity paresis. Am J Occup Ther. 2014;68(4):444–453.
    1. Schaefer SY, Patterson CB, Lang CE. Transfer of training between distinct motor tasks after stroke: implications for task-specific approaches to upper-extremity neurorehabilitation. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2013;27(7):602–612.
    1. Birkenmeier RL, Prager EM, Lang CE. Translating animal doses of task-specific training to people with chronic stroke in 1-hour therapy sessions: a proof-of-concept study. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2010;24(7):620–635.
    1. Woodbury ML, Anderson K, Finetto C, et al. Matching task difficulty to patient ability during task practice improves upper extremity motor skill after stroke: a proof-of-concept study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2016;97(11):1863–1871.
    1. Fugl-Meyer AR, Jaasko L, Leyman I, Olsson S, Steglind S. The post-stroke hemiplegic patient. 1. A method for evaluation of physical performance. Scand J Rehabil Med. 1975;7(1):13–31.
    1. Woodbury ML, Velozo CA, Richards LG, Duncan PW, Studenski S, Lai SM. Dimensionality and construct validity of the Fugl-Meyer Assessment of the upper extremity. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2007;88(6):715–723.
    1. Wolf SL, Lecraw DE, Barton LA, Jann BB. Forced use of hemiplegic upper extremities to reverse the effect of learned nonuse among chronic stroke and head-injured patients. Exp Neurol. 1989;104(2):125–132.
    1. Redgrave JN, Moore L, Oyekunle T, et al. Transcutaneous auricular vagus nerve stimulation with concurrent upper limb repetitive task practice for poststroke motor recovery: a pilot study. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2018;27(7):1998–2005.
    1. Wu D, Ma J, Zhang L, Wang S, Tan B, Jia G. Effect and safety of transcutaneous auricular vagus nerve stimulation on recovery of upper limb motor function in subacute ischemic stroke patients: a randomized pilot study. Neural Plast. 2020;2020:8841752.
    1. Farmer AD, Strzelczyk A, Finisguerra A, et al. International consensus based review and recommendations for minimum reporting standards in research on transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation (Version 2020). Front Hum Neurosci. 2020;14:568051.
    1. Meintzschel F, Ziemann U. Modification of practice-dependent plasticity in human motor cortex by neuromodulators. Cereb Cortex. 2006;16(8):1106–1115.
    1. Sawaki L, Werhahn KJ, Barco R, Kopylev L, Cohen LG. Effect of an alpha(1)-adrenergic blocker on plasticity elicited by motor training. Exp Brain Res. 2003;148(4):504–508.
    1. Krahl SE, Clark KB, Smith DC, Browning RA. Locus coeruleus lesions suppress the seizure-attenuating effects of vagus nerve stimulation. Epilepsia. 1998;39(7):709–714.
    1. Khodaparast N, Hays SA, Sloan AM, et al. Vagus nerve stimulation delivered during motor rehabilitation improves recovery in a rat model of stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2014;28(7):698–706.
    1. Porter BA, Khodaparast N, Fayyaz T, et al. Repeatedly pairing vagus nerve stimulation with a movement reorganizes primary motor cortex. Cerebral Cortex. 2012;22(10):2365–2374.
    1. Shetake JA, Engineer ND, Vrana WA, Wolf JT, Kilgard MP. Pairing tone trains with vagus nerve stimulation induces temporal plasticity in auditory cortex. Exp Neurol. 2012;233(1):342–349.
    1. Hays SA, Khodaparast N, Ruiz A, et al. The timing and amount of vagus nerve stimulation during rehabilitative training affect poststroke recovery of forelimb strength. Neuroreport. 2014;25(9):676–682.

Source: PubMed

Sponsor e collaboratori

Condizioni mediche

Interventi farmacologici

3
Sottoscrivi