Anatomy and physiology predict response to motor cortex stimulation after stroke

Objectives: Preclinical studies found that epidural motor cortex stimulation improved motor deficits after stroke, but a phase III trial in humans did not corroborate these results. The current retrospective analysis examined subjects randomized to stimulation in order to identify features distinguishing responders from nonresponders. Methods: Anatomic (MRI measures of gray matter thickness and of white matter tract injury) and physiologic methods (motor evoked responses) were examined as predictors of treatment response. Results: Among 60 subjects randomized to cortical stimulation, both anatomic and physiologic measures at baseline predicted behavioral response to therapy. Anatomically, those achieving the primary efficacy endpoint had a smaller fraction of the corticospinal tract injured by stroke compared to those who did not (44% vs 72%, p < 0.04), and rarely had severe tract injury. Physiologically, the primary efficacy endpoint was reached more often (67%) by those with preserved motor evoked responses (MER) upon cortical stimulation compared to those lacking MER (27%, p < 0.05). Those with an elicitable MER also had a lower rate of precentral gyrus injury (0% vs 33%, p < 0.05) by stroke, as compared to those lacking MER, and had higher gray matter volume compared to those lacking MER in regions including ipsilesional precentral gyrus. Conclusions: In this clinical stroke trial, the more that the physiologic integrity of the motor system was preserved, the more likely that a patient was to derive gains from subsequent therapy, consistent with preclinical models. Functional and structural preservation of key brain substrates are important to deriving gain from a restorative therapy.

[1]  Rick M Dijkhuizen,et al.  Structural and functional plasticity in the somatosensory cortex of chronic stroke patients. , 2006, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[2]  T. Jones,et al.  Cortical electrical stimulation combined with rehabilitative training: Enhanced functional recovery and dendritic plasticity following focal cortical ischemia in rats , 2003, Neurological research.

[3]  D. Mozaffarian,et al.  Heart disease and stroke statistics--2009 update: a report from the American Heart Association Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee. , 2009, Circulation.

[4]  Steven C Cramer,et al.  Anatomy of Stroke Injury Predicts Gains From Therapy , 2011, Stroke.

[5]  Carolee J Winstein,et al.  Design for the Everest Randomized Trial of Cortical Stimulation and Rehabilitation for Arm Function Following Stroke , 2009, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

[6]  N. Young,et al.  Cortical stimulation improves skilled forelimb use following a focal ischemic infarct in the rat , 2003, Neurological research.

[7]  D. Mozaffarian,et al.  Heart disease and stroke statistics--2009 update: a report from the American Heart Association Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee. , 2009, Circulation.

[8]  Christian Grefkes,et al.  Differential effects of high‐frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation over ipsilesional primary motor cortex in cortical and subcortical middle cerebral artery stroke , 2009, Annals of neurology.

[9]  Steven C Cramer,et al.  Repairing the human brain after stroke. II. Restorative therapies , 2008, Annals of neurology.

[10]  W. Byblow,et al.  Functional potential in chronic stroke patients depends on corticospinal tract integrity. , 2006, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[11]  Andreas R. Luft,et al.  Lesion location alters brain activation in chronically impaired stroke survivors , 2004, NeuroImage.

[12]  A. Dale,et al.  Subregional neuroanatomical change as a biomarker for Alzheimer's disease , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[13]  K. Felmingham,et al.  Rostral anterior cingulate volume predicts treatment response to cognitive-behavioural therapy for posttraumatic stress disorder. , 2008, Journal of psychiatry & neuroscience : JPN.

[14]  H. Hummelsheim,et al.  Intracortical Excitability After Repetitive Hand Movements is Differentially Affected in Cortical Versus Subcortical Strokes , 2009, Journal of clinical neurophysiology : official publication of the American Electroencephalographic Society.

[15]  Glenda M MacQueen,et al.  Magnetic resonance imaging and prediction of outcome in patients with major depressive disorder. , 2009, Journal of psychiatry & neuroscience : JPN.

[16]  S Lehéricy,et al.  VBM anticipates the rate of progression of Alzheimer disease , 2008, Neurology.

[17]  T. Sanger,et al.  Harnessing neuroplasticity for clinical applications , 2011, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[18]  B. Bussel,et al.  Longitudinal Study of Motor Recovery After Stroke: Recruitment and Focusing of Brain Activation , 2002, Stroke.

[19]  Steven C Cramer,et al.  Biomarkers of recovery after stroke , 2008, Current opinion in neurology.

[20]  J. Wall,et al.  Profiles of precentral and postcentral cortical mean thicknesses in individual subjects over acute and subacute time-scales. , 2010, Cerebral cortex.

[21]  G. Schlaug,et al.  Structural integrity of corticospinal motor fibers predicts motor impairment in chronic stroke , 2010, Neurology.

[22]  Theresa A. Jones,et al.  Motor cortical stimulation promotes synaptic plasticity and behavioral improvements following sensorimotor cortex lesions , 2008, Experimental Neurology.

[23]  Todd B. Parrish,et al.  Identification of critical areas for motor function recovery in chronic stroke subjects using voxel-based lesion symptom mapping , 2010, NeuroImage.

[24]  S. Barbay,et al.  Post-infarct cortical plasticity and behavioral recovery using concurrent cortical stimulation and rehabilitative training: A feasibility study in primates , 2003, Neurological research.

[25]  J. Kleim,et al.  Motor cortex stimulation enhances motor recovery and reduces peri-infarct dysfunction following ischemic insult , 2003, Neurological research.