Differential analgesic effects of high-frequency or accelerated intermittent theta burst stimulation of M1 on experimental tonic pain: Correlations with cortical activity changes assessed by TMS-EEG.

IF 5.6 2区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Neurotherapeutics Pub Date : 2024-09-19 DOI:10.1016/j.neurot.2024.e00451
Bolin Tan, Jielin Chen, Ying Liu, Qiuye Lin, Ying Wang, Shuyan Shi, Yang Ye, Xianwei Che
{"title":"Differential analgesic effects of high-frequency or accelerated intermittent theta burst stimulation of M1 on experimental tonic pain: Correlations with cortical activity changes assessed by TMS-EEG.","authors":"Bolin Tan, Jielin Chen, Ying Liu, Qiuye Lin, Ying Wang, Shuyan Shi, Yang Ye, Xianwei Che","doi":"10.1016/j.neurot.2024.e00451","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Accelerated intermittent theta burst stimulation (AiTBS) has attracted much attention in the past few years as a new form of brain stimulation paradigm. However, it is unclear the relative efficacy of AiTBS on cortical excitability compared to conventional high-frequency rTMS. Using concurrent TMS and electroencephalogram (TMS-EEG), this study systematically compared the efficacy on cortical excitability and a typical clinical application (i.e. pain), between AiTBS with different intersession interval (ISIs) and 10-Hz rTMS. Participants received 10-Hz rTMS, AiTBS-15 (3 iTBS sessions with a 15-min ISI), AiTBS-50 (3 iTBS sessions with a 50-min ISI), or Sham stimulation over the primary motor cortex on four separate days. All four protocols included a total of 1800 pulses but with different session durations (10-Hz rTMS ​= ​18, AiTBS-15 ​= ​40, and AiTBS-50 ​= ​110 ​min). AiTBS-50 and 10-Hz rTMS were more effective in pain reduction compared to AiTBS-15. Using single-pulse TMS-induced oscillation, our data revealed low gamma oscillation as a shared cortical excitability change across all three active rTMS protocols but demonstrated completely opposite directions. Changes in low gamma oscillation were further associated with changes in pain perception across the three active conditions. In contrast, a distinct pattern of TMS-evoked potentials (TEPs) was revealed, with 10-Hz rTMS decreasing inhibitory N100 amplitude and AiTBS-15 reducing excitatory P60 amplitude. These changes in TEPs were also covarying with low gamma power changes. Sham stimulation indicated no significant effect on either cortical excitability or pain perception. These results are relevant only for provoked experimental pain, without being predictive for chronic pain, and revealed a change in low gamma oscillation, particularly around the very particular frequency of 40 ​Hz, shared between AiTBS and high-frequency rTMS. Conversely, cortical excitability (balance between excitation and inhibition) assessed by TEP recording was modulated differently by AiTBS and high-frequency rTMS paradigms.</p>","PeriodicalId":19159,"journal":{"name":"Neurotherapeutics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurotherapeutics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neurot.2024.e00451","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Accelerated intermittent theta burst stimulation (AiTBS) has attracted much attention in the past few years as a new form of brain stimulation paradigm. However, it is unclear the relative efficacy of AiTBS on cortical excitability compared to conventional high-frequency rTMS. Using concurrent TMS and electroencephalogram (TMS-EEG), this study systematically compared the efficacy on cortical excitability and a typical clinical application (i.e. pain), between AiTBS with different intersession interval (ISIs) and 10-Hz rTMS. Participants received 10-Hz rTMS, AiTBS-15 (3 iTBS sessions with a 15-min ISI), AiTBS-50 (3 iTBS sessions with a 50-min ISI), or Sham stimulation over the primary motor cortex on four separate days. All four protocols included a total of 1800 pulses but with different session durations (10-Hz rTMS ​= ​18, AiTBS-15 ​= ​40, and AiTBS-50 ​= ​110 ​min). AiTBS-50 and 10-Hz rTMS were more effective in pain reduction compared to AiTBS-15. Using single-pulse TMS-induced oscillation, our data revealed low gamma oscillation as a shared cortical excitability change across all three active rTMS protocols but demonstrated completely opposite directions. Changes in low gamma oscillation were further associated with changes in pain perception across the three active conditions. In contrast, a distinct pattern of TMS-evoked potentials (TEPs) was revealed, with 10-Hz rTMS decreasing inhibitory N100 amplitude and AiTBS-15 reducing excitatory P60 amplitude. These changes in TEPs were also covarying with low gamma power changes. Sham stimulation indicated no significant effect on either cortical excitability or pain perception. These results are relevant only for provoked experimental pain, without being predictive for chronic pain, and revealed a change in low gamma oscillation, particularly around the very particular frequency of 40 ​Hz, shared between AiTBS and high-frequency rTMS. Conversely, cortical excitability (balance between excitation and inhibition) assessed by TEP recording was modulated differently by AiTBS and high-frequency rTMS paradigms.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
高频或加速间歇θ猝发刺激 M1 对实验性强直性疼痛的不同镇痛效果:与 TMS-EEG 评估的皮层活动变化的相关性。
加速间歇θ脉冲刺激(AiTBS)作为一种新的脑刺激范例,在过去几年中备受关注。然而,与传统的高频经颅磁刺激相比,AiTBS 对大脑皮层兴奋性的相对功效尚不明确。本研究利用同步经颅磁刺激和脑电图(TMS-EEG),系统比较了不同时段间隔(ISI)的 AiTBS 和 10 赫兹经颅磁刺激对皮质兴奋性和典型临床应用(即疼痛)的疗效。受试者分别在四天内接受 10 赫兹经颅磁刺激、AiTBS-15(3 次 iTBS 治疗,每次 15 分钟 ISI)、AiTBS-50(3 次 iTBS 治疗,每次 50 分钟 ISI)或 Sham 刺激初级运动皮层。所有四种方案都包括总共 1800 个脉冲,但每次刺激的持续时间不同(10 赫兹经颅磁刺激 = 18 分钟,AiTBS-15 = 40 分钟,AiTBS-50 = 110 分钟)。与 AiTBS-15 相比,AiTBS-50 和 10 赫兹经颅磁刺激在减轻疼痛方面更为有效。利用单脉冲经颅磁刺激引起的振荡,我们的数据显示低伽马振荡是所有三种主动经颅磁刺激方案中共同的皮层兴奋性变化,但表现出完全相反的方向。低伽马振荡的变化还与三种活动状态下的痛觉变化有关。与此相反,经颅磁刺激诱发电位(TEPs)显示出不同的模式,10 赫兹经颅磁刺激会降低抑制性 N100 振幅,而 AiTBS-15 则会降低兴奋性 P60 振幅。TEPs 的这些变化也与低伽马功率变化有关。假刺激对大脑皮层兴奋性和痛觉均无明显影响。这些结果只与诱发实验性疼痛有关,并不能预测慢性疼痛,它们揭示了低伽马振荡的变化,尤其是在非常特殊的频率 40 Hz 附近,这是 AiTBS 和高频经颅磁刺激所共有的。相反,通过 TEP 记录评估的大脑皮层兴奋性(兴奋与抑制之间的平衡)受 AiTBS 和高频经颅磁刺激范式的调节程度不同。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Neurotherapeutics
Neurotherapeutics 医学-神经科学
CiteScore
11.00
自引率
3.50%
发文量
154
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Neurotherapeutics® is the journal of the American Society for Experimental Neurotherapeutics (ASENT). Each issue provides critical reviews of an important topic relating to the treatment of neurological disorders written by international authorities. The Journal also publishes original research articles in translational neuroscience including descriptions of cutting edge therapies that cross disciplinary lines and represent important contributions to neurotherapeutics for medical practitioners and other researchers in the field. Neurotherapeutics ® delivers a multidisciplinary perspective on the frontiers of translational neuroscience, provides perspectives on current research and practice, and covers social and ethical as well as scientific issues.
期刊最新文献
Advancements in surgical treatments for Huntington disease: From pallidotomy to experimental therapies. Differential analgesic effects of high-frequency or accelerated intermittent theta burst stimulation of M1 on experimental tonic pain: Correlations with cortical activity changes assessed by TMS-EEG. Neurological glycogen storage diseases and emerging therapeutics. Mitochondria-related HSDL2 is a potential biomarker in temporal lobe epilepsy by modulating astrocytic lipid metabolism. Extracellular vesicles from mesenchymal stem cells alter gut microbiota and improve neuroinflammation and motor impairment in rats with mild liver damage.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1