Document Type

Journal Article

Publication Title

Stroke

Volume

54

Issue

9

First Page

2254

Last Page

2264

PubMed ID

37577801

Publisher

American Heart Association

School

Exercise Medicine Research Institute / School of Medical and Health Sciences

RAS ID

61913

Funders

National Institutes of Health

Comments

Edwards, D. J., Liu, C. Y., Dunning, K., Fregni, F., Laine, J., Leiby, B. E., ... & Harvey, R. L. (2023). Electric Field Navigated 1-Hz rTMS for Poststroke Motor Recovery: The E-FIT Randomized Controlled Trial. Stroke, 54(9), 2254-2264. https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.123.043164

Abstract

BACKGROUND: To determine if low-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation targeting the primary motor cortex contralateral (M1CL) to the affected corticospinal tract in patients with hemiparetic stroke augments intensive training-related clinical improvement; an extension of the NICHE trial (Navigated Inhibitory rTMS to Contralesional Hemisphere Trial) using an alternative sham coil. METHODS: The present E-FIT trial (Electric Field Navigated 1Hz rTMS for Post-stroke Motor Recovery Trial) included 5 of 12 NICHE trial outpatient US rehabilitation centers. The stimulation protocol remained identical (1 Hz repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, M1CL, preceding 60-minute therapy, 18 sessions/6 wks; parallel arm randomized clinical trial). The sham coil appearance mimicked the active coil but without the weak electric field in the NICHE trial sham coil. Outcomes measured 1 week, and 1, 3, and 6 months after the end of treatment included the following: upper extremity Fugl-Meyer (primary, 6 months after end of treatment), Action Research Arm Test, National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale, quality of life (EQ-5D), and safety. RESULTS: Of 60 participants randomized, 58 completed treatment and were included for analysis. Bayesian analysis of combined data from the E-FIT and the NICHE trials indicated that active treatment was not superior to sham at the primary end point (posterior mean odds ratio of 1.94 [96% credible interval of 0.61-4.80]). For the E-FIT intent-to-treat population, upper extremity Fugl-Meyer improvement ≥ 5 pts occurred in 60% (18/30) active group and 50% (14/28) sham group. Participants enrolled 3 to 6 months following stroke had a 67% (31%-91% CI) response rate in the active group at the 6-month end point versus 50% in the sham group (21.5%-78.5% CI). There were significant improvements from baseline to 6 months for both active and sham groups in upper extremity Fugl-Meyer, Action Research Arm Test, and EQ-5D (P<0.05). Improvement in National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale was observed only in the active group (P=0.004). Ten serious unrelated adverse events occurred (4 active group, 6 sham group, P=0.72). CONCLUSIONS: Intensive motor rehabilitation 3 to 12 months after stroke improved clinical impairment, function, and quality of life; however, 1 Hz-repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation was not an effective treatment adjuvant in the present sample population with mixed lesion location and extent. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03010462.

DOI

10.1161/STROKEAHA.123.043164

Creative Commons License

Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License.

Share

 
COinS