The impact of large structural brain changes in chronic stroke patients on the electric field caused by transcranial brain stimulation
Sena Minjoli, Guilherme B Saturnino, Jakob Udby Blicher, Charlotte J Stagg, Hartwig R Siebner, André Antunes, Axel Thielscher, Sena Minjoli, Guilherme B Saturnino, Jakob Udby Blicher, Charlotte J Stagg, Hartwig R Siebner, André Antunes, Axel Thielscher
Abstract
Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (TDCS) are two types of non-invasive transcranial brain stimulation (TBS). They are useful tools for stroke research and may be potential adjunct therapies for functional recovery. However, stroke often causes large cerebral lesions, which are commonly accompanied by a secondary enlargement of the ventricles and atrophy. These structural alterations substantially change the conductivity distribution inside the head, which may have potentially important consequences for both brain stimulation methods. We therefore aimed to characterize the impact of these changes on the spatial distribution of the electric field generated by both TBS methods. In addition to confirming the safety of TBS in the presence of large stroke-related structural changes, our aim was to clarify whether targeted stimulation is still possible. Realistic head models containing large cortical and subcortical stroke lesions in the right parietal cortex were created using MR images of two patients. For TMS, the electric field of a double coil was simulated using the finite-element method. Systematic variations of the coil position relative to the lesion were tested. For TDCS, the finite-element method was used to simulate a standard approach with two electrode pads, and the position of one electrode was systematically varied. For both TMS and TDCS, the lesion caused electric field "hot spots" in the cortex. However, these maxima were not substantially stronger than those seen in a healthy control. The electric field pattern induced by TMS was not substantially changed by the lesions. However, the average field strength generated by TDCS was substantially decreased. This effect occurred for both head models and even when both electrodes were distant to the lesion, caused by increased current shunting through the lesion and enlarged ventricles. Judging from the similar peak field strengths compared to the healthy control, both TBS methods are safe in patients with large brain lesions (in practice, however, additional factors such as potentially lowered thresholds for seizure-induction have to be considered). Focused stimulation by TMS seems to be possible, but standard tDCS protocols appear to be less efficient than they are in healthy subjects, strongly suggesting that tDCS studies in this population might benefit from individualized treatment planning based on realistic field calculations.
Keywords: Brain lesions; Chronic stroke; Field simulations; Finite element method; Transcranial direct current stimulation; Transcranial magnetic stimulation.
Figures
References
- Akhtari M., Salamon N., Duncan R., Fried I., Mathern G.W. Electrical conductivities of the freshly excised cerebral cortex in epilepsy surgery patients; correlation with pathology, seizure duration, and diffusion tensor imaging. Brain Topogr. 2006;18:281–290.
- Allman C., Amadi U., Winkler A.M., Wilkins L., Filippini N., Kischka U., Stagg C.J., Johansen-Berg H. Ipsilesional anodal tDCS enhances the functional benefits of rehabilitation in patients after stroke. Sci. Transl. Med. 2016;8
- Aoi M.C., Hu K., Lo M.-T., Selim M., Olufsen M.S., Novak V. Impaired cerebral autoregulation is associated with brain atrophy and worse functional status in chronic ischemic stroke. PLoS One. 2012;7
- Baker J.M., Rorden C., Fridriksson J. Using transcranial direct-current stimulation to treat stroke patients with aphasia. Stroke. 2010;41:1229–1236.
- Bindman L.J., Lippold O.C.J., Redfearn J.W. Long-lasting changes in level of electrical activity of cerebral cortex produced by polarizing currents. Nature. 1962;196:584–585.
- Bindman L.J., Lippold O.C.J., Redfearn J.W. Action of brief polarizing currents on cerebral cortex of rat .1. During current flow + .2. In production of long-lecting after-effects. J. Physiol. Lond. 1964;172:369–382.
- Blicher J.U., Jakobsen J., Andersen G., Nielsen J.F. Cortical excitability in chronic stroke and modulation by training: a TMS study. Neurorehabil. Neural Repair. 2009;23:486–493.
- Blicher J.U., Near J., Naess-Schmidt E., Stagg C.J., Johansen-Berg H., Nielsen J.F., Ostergaard L., Ho Y.C.L. GABA levels are decreased after stroke and GABA changes during rehabilitation correlate with motor improvement. Neurorehabil. Neural Repair. 2015;29:278–286.
- Bortoletto M., Pellicciari M.C., Rodella C., Miniussi C. The interaction with task-induced activity is more important than polarization: a tDCS study. Brain Stimul. 2015;8:269–276.
- Bungert A., Antunes A., Espenhahn S., Thielscher A. Where does TMS stimulate the motor cortex? Combining electrophysiological measurements and realistic field estimates to reveal the affected cortex position. Cereb. Cortex (epub ahead of print) 2016
- Dale A.M., Fischl B., Sereno M.I. Cortical surface-based analysis – I. Segmentation and surface reconstruction. Neuroimage. 1999;9:179–194.
- Datta A., Baker J.M., Bikson M., Fridriksson J. Individualized model predicts brain current flow during transcranial direct-current stimulation treatment in responsive stroke patient. Brain Stimul. 2011;4:169–174.
- Deng Z.D., Lisanby S.H., Peterchev A.V. Electric field depth-focality tradeoff in transcranial magnetic stimulation: simulation comparison of 50 coil designs. Brain Stimul. 2013;6:1–13.
- Di Carlo A. Human and economic burden of stroke. Age Ageing. 2008;38:4–5.
- Dmochowski J., Datta A., Bikson M., Su Y., Parra L. Optimized multi-electrode stimulation increases focality and intensity at target. J. Neural Eng. 2011;8
- Dmochowski J.P., Datta A., Huang Y., Richardson J.D., Bikson M., Fridriksson J., Parra L.C. Targeted transcranial direct current stimulation for rehabilitation after stroke. NeuroImage. 2013;75:12–19.
- Fertonani A., Ferrari C., Miniussi C. What do you feel if I apply transcranial electric stimulation? Safety, sensations and secondary induced effects. Clin. Neurophysiol. 2015;126:2181–2188.
- Figlewski K., Blicher J.U., Mortensen J., Severinsen K.E., Nielsen J.F., Andersen H. Transcranial direct current stimulation potentiates improvements in functional ability in patients with chronic stroke receiving constraint-induced movement therapy. Stroke. 2017;48:229–232.
- Francis J.T., Gluckman B.J., Schiff S.J. Sensitivity of neurons to weak electric fields. J. Neurosci. 2003;23:7255–7261.
- Fricke K., Seeber A.A., Thirugnanasambandam N., Paulus W., Nitsche M.A., Rothwell J.C. Time course of the induction of homeostatic plasticity generated by repeated transcranial direct current stimulation of the human motor cortex. J. Neurophysiol. 2011;105:1141–1149.
- Galletta E., Cancelli A., Cottone C., Simonelli I., Tecchio F., Bikson M., Marangolo P. Use of computational modeling to inform tDCS electrode montages for the promotion of language recovery in post-stroke aphasia. Brain Stimul. 2015;8:1108–1115.
- Gauthier L.V., Taub E., Mark V.W., Barghi A., Uswatte G. Atrophy of spared grey matter tissue predicts poorer motor recovery and rehabilitation response in chronic stroke. Stroke. 2013;43:453–457.
- Hummel F., Celnik P., Giraux P., Floel A., Wu W.H., Gerloff C., Cohen L.G. Effects of non-invasive cortical stimulation on skilled motor function in chronic stroke. Brain. 2005;128:490–499.
- Jenkinson M., Beckmann C.F., Behrens T.E., Woolrich M.W., Smith S.M. Fsl. Neuroimage. 2012;62:782–790.
- Kabakov A.Y., Muller P.A., Pascual-Leone A., Jensen F.E., Rotenberg A. Contribution of axonal orientation to pathway-dependent modulation of excitatory transmission by direct current stimulation in isolated rat hippocampus. J. Neurophysiol. 2012;107:1881–1889.
- Kammer T., Beck S., Thielscher A., Laubis-Herrmann U., Topka H. Motor thresholds in humans. A transcranial magnetic stimulation study comparing different pulseforms, current directions and stimulator types. Clin. Neurophysiol. 2001;112:250–258.
- Kraemer M., Schormann T., Hagemann G., Qi B., Witte O.W., Seitz R.J. Delayed shrinkage of the brain after ischemic stroke: preliminary observations with voxel-guided morphometry. J. Neuroimaging. 2004;14:265–272.
- Kutlubaev M.A., Shenkin S.D., Farrall A.J., Duncan F.H., Lewis S.J., Greig C.A., Dennis M.S., Wardlaw J.M., Maclullich A.M.J., Mead G.E. CT and clinical predictors of fatigue at one month after stroke. Cerebrovasc. Dis. Extra. 2013;3:26–34.
- Kwakkel G., Kollen B., Lindeman E. Understanding the pattern of functional recovery after stroke: facts and theories. Restor. Neurol. Neurosci. 2004;22:281–299.
- Leys D., Hénon H., Mackowiak-Cordoliani M.A., Pasquier F. Poststroke dementia. Lancet Neurol. 2005;4:752–759.
- Liew S.L., Santarnecchi E., Buch E.R., Cohen L.G. Non-invasive brain stimulation in neurorehabilitation: local and distant effects for motor recovery. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2014;8:378.
- McConnell K.A., Nahas Z., Shastri A., Lorberbaum J.P., Kozel F.A., Bohning D.E., George M.S. The transcranial magnetic stimulation motor threshold depends on the distance from coil to underlying cortex: a replication in healthy adults comparing two methods of assessing the distance to cortex. Biol. Psychiatry. 2001;49:454–459.
- Nitkunan A., Lanfranconi S., Charlton R.A., Barrick T.R., Markus H.S. Brain atrophy and cerebral small vessel disease a prospective follow-up study. Stroke. 2011;42:133–138.
- Opitz A., Paulus W., Will S., Antunes A., Thielscher A. Determinants of the electric field during transcranial direct current stimulation. NeuroImage. 2015;109:140–150.
- O'Shea J., Boudrias M.H., Stagg C.J., Bachtiar V., Kischka U., Blicher J.U., Johansen-Berg H. Predicting behavioural response to TDCS in chronic motor stroke. NeuroImage. 2014;85:924–933.
- Radman T., Ramos R.L., Brumberg J.C., Bikson M. Role of cortical cell type and morphology in subthreshold and suprathreshold uniform electric field stimulation in vitro. Brain Stimul. 2009;2:215–228. (228 e211–213)
- Rahman A., Reato D., Arlotti M., Gasca F., Datta D., Parra L., Bikson M. Cellular effects of acute direct current stimulation: somatic and synaptic terminal effects. J. Physiol. 2013;591:2563–2578.
- Rossi S., Hallett M., Rossini P., Pascual-Leone A. Safety, ethical considerations, and application guidelines for the use of transcranial magnetic stimulation in clinical practice and research. Clin. Neurophysiol. 2009;120:2008–2039.
- Ruffini G., Fox M.D., Ripolles O., Miranda P.C., Pascual-Leone A. Optimization of multifocal transcranial current stimulation for weighted cortical pattern targeting from realistic modeling of electric fields. NeuroImage. 2014;89:216–225.
- Sato S., Bergmann T.O., Borich M.R. Opportunities for concurrent transcranial magnetic stimulation and electroencephalography to characterize cortical activity in stroke. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2015;9:250.
- Saturnino G.B., Antunes A., Thielscher A. On the importance of electrode parameters for shaping electric field patterns generated by tDCS. NeuroImage. 2015;120:25–35.
- Seghier M.L., Ramsden S., Lim L., Leff A.P., Price C.J. Gradual lesion expansion and brain shrinkage years after stroke. Stroke. 2014;45:877–879.
- Skriver E.B., Olsen T.S., McNair P. Mass effect and atrophy after stroke. Acta Radiol. 1990;31:431–438.
- Stagg C.J., Bachtiar V., O'Shea J., Allman C., Bosnell R.A., Kischka U., Matthews P.M., Johansen-Berg H. Cortical activation changes underlying stimulation-induced behavioural gains in chronic stroke. Brain. 2012;135:276–284.
- Stokes M.G., Chambers C.D., Gould I.C., English T., McNaught E., McDonald O., Mattingley J.B. Distance-adjusted motor threshold for transcranial magnetic stimulation. Clin. Neurophysiol. 2007;118:1617–1625.
- Takeda H., Matsuzawa T. Brain atrophy and cerebral infarction. Tohoku J. Exp. Med. 1984;144:361–367.
- Thielscher A., Antunes A., Saturnino G.B. Field modeling for transcranial magnetic stimulation: a useful tool to understand the physiological effects of TMS? Conf. Proc. IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. Soc. 2015;2015(2015):222–225.
- Thielscher A., Kammer T. Linking physics with physiology in TMS: a sphere field model to determine the cortical stimulation site in TMS. NeuroImage. 2002;17:1117–1130.
- Thielscher A., Kammer T. Electric field properties of two commercial figure-8 coils in TMS: calculation of focality and efficiency. Clin. Neurophysiol. 2004;115:1697–1708.
- Thielscher A., Opitz A., Windhoff M. Impact of the gyral geometry on the electric field induced by transcranial magnetic stimulation. NeuroImage. 2011;54:234–243.
- Thirugnanasambandam N., Sparing R., Dafotakis M., Meister I.G., Paulus W., Nitsche M.A., Fink G.R. Isometric contraction interferes with transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) induced plasticity - evidence of state-dependent neuromodulation in human motor cortex. Restor. Neurol. Neurosci. 2011;29:311–320.
- Wagner T., Fregni F., Eden U., Ramos-Estebanez C., Grodzinsky A., Zahn M., Pascual-Leone A. Transcranial magnetic stimulation and stroke: a computer-based human model study. NeuroImage. 2006;30:857–870.
- Windhoff M., Opitz A., Thielscher A. Field calculations in brain stimulation based on finite elements: an optimized processing pipeline for the generation and usage of accurate individual head models. Hum. Brain Mapp. 2013;34:923–935.
- Young J., Forster A. Review of stroke rehabilitation. Br. Med. J. 2007;334:86–90.
- Zelano J. Poststroke epilepsy: update and future directions. Ther. Adv. Neurol. Disord. 2016;9:424–435.
Source: PubMed