Neurostimulation for Stroke Rehabilitation: Mechanisms, Clinical Evidence, and Patient Selection

Abstract

Stroke remains a leading cause of long-term disability worldwide. While conventional rehabilitation therapies play a crucial role in recovery, a significant proportion of stroke survivors experience persistent motor, cognitive, and language deficits. Neurostimulation techniques, including transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), vagus nerve stimulation (VNS), and deep brain stimulation (DBS), have emerged as promising adjunctive therapies to enhance neural plasticity and functional recovery post-stroke. This review provides a comprehensive overview of these neurostimulation modalities, detailing their mechanisms of action in modulating brain activity and promoting neuroplasticity. We critically evaluate the clinical evidence supporting their use in improving motor function, language, and cognitive abilities following stroke, with a focus on randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses. Furthermore, we discuss the potential risks and benefits associated with each technique and explore the emerging field of personalized neurostimulation, aiming to identify patient-specific factors that predict treatment response. The review concludes by highlighting future directions for research in this rapidly evolving area, including the development of novel neurostimulation protocols, optimization of stimulation parameters, and the integration of neurostimulation with other rehabilitation strategies.

Many thanks to our sponsor Esdebe who helped us prepare this research report.

1. Introduction

Stroke, characterized by the interruption of blood flow to the brain, results in neuronal damage and subsequent functional impairments. The severity and nature of these impairments depend on the location and extent of the lesion. While spontaneous recovery can occur in the initial weeks and months following a stroke, many individuals are left with persistent motor, sensory, cognitive, or language deficits, significantly impacting their quality of life. Conventional rehabilitation therapies, such as physical therapy, occupational therapy, and speech therapy, are fundamental to promoting functional recovery by encouraging compensatory strategies and facilitating neural plasticity.

Neural plasticity, the brain’s ability to reorganize its structure and function in response to experience or injury, is the cornerstone of stroke recovery. Neurostimulation techniques offer a non-invasive or minimally invasive approach to modulate brain activity and enhance neuroplasticity, potentially augmenting the effects of traditional rehabilitation. These techniques can either increase (excitation) or decrease (inhibition) neuronal excitability, thereby influencing synaptic connections and promoting adaptive changes in brain networks. Several different neurostimulation techniques have been investigated for stroke rehabilitation, including transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), vagus nerve stimulation (VNS), and deep brain stimulation (DBS). Each of these modalities has distinct mechanisms of action and targets different brain regions or neural pathways.

This review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the current state of neurostimulation for stroke rehabilitation. We will delve into the mechanisms of action of different neurostimulation techniques, critically analyze the available clinical evidence supporting their use in improving various post-stroke deficits, discuss the potential risks and benefits associated with each technique, and address the important issue of patient selection. By synthesizing the current knowledge in this field, we aim to provide clinicians and researchers with a valuable resource for understanding the potential of neurostimulation as an adjunctive therapy for stroke rehabilitation.

Many thanks to our sponsor Esdebe who helped us prepare this research report.

2. Neurostimulation Techniques: Mechanisms of Action

2.1 Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS)

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is a non-invasive brain stimulation technique that uses brief magnetic pulses to induce electrical currents in targeted brain regions. A coil placed on the scalp generates a rapidly changing magnetic field, which passes unimpeded through the skull and induces an electrical field in the underlying cortex. This electrical field can depolarize or hyperpolarize neurons, depending on the stimulation parameters. TMS can be delivered in single pulses or in repetitive trains (rTMS). Single-pulse TMS is often used for diagnostic purposes, such as mapping motor cortex excitability. rTMS, on the other hand, can induce longer-lasting changes in cortical excitability and is the form most often used for therapeutic interventions.

The mechanisms of action of rTMS are complex and not fully understood, but are believed to involve synaptic plasticity mechanisms such as long-term potentiation (LTP) and long-term depression (LTD). High-frequency rTMS (e.g., ≥5 Hz) typically increases cortical excitability, while low-frequency rTMS (e.g., ≤1 Hz) typically decreases cortical excitability. However, the actual effect on cortical excitability depends on numerous factors, including the stimulation frequency, intensity, duration, coil orientation, and individual brain state. rTMS-induced changes in cortical excitability are thought to modulate the activity of neuronal networks involved in motor control, language, and cognition, thereby promoting functional recovery after stroke. Furthermore, the specific location of stimulation can influence the effects of TMS, such that targeting the contralesional hemisphere may decrease interhemispheric inhibition and promote activity in the ipsilesional hemisphere.

2.2 Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS)

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is another non-invasive brain stimulation technique that delivers a weak direct current to the brain via electrodes placed on the scalp. The current flow modulates neuronal excitability by shifting the resting membrane potential. Anodal tDCS, where the anode is placed over the target region, typically depolarizes neurons and increases cortical excitability, while cathodal tDCS, where the cathode is placed over the target region, typically hyperpolarizes neurons and decreases cortical excitability. The effects of tDCS are generally thought to be more subtle than those of TMS, but tDCS offers the advantages of being relatively inexpensive, portable, and easy to administer.

The mechanisms of action of tDCS are also complex and not fully elucidated. It is believed that tDCS modulates neuronal excitability by altering the threshold for action potential firing. Anodal tDCS is thought to facilitate synaptic transmission and enhance LTP-like plasticity, while cathodal tDCS is thought to suppress synaptic transmission and promote LTD-like plasticity. The effects of tDCS are also thought to be influenced by the endogenous activity of the targeted brain region. For example, tDCS may have a greater effect on neurons that are already active or in a state of increased excitability. Animal models have provided evidence that tDCS can induce changes in synaptic strength and dendritic morphology, supporting its role in promoting neuroplasticity. Similar to TMS, the effect of tDCS can be dependent on the location of the electrodes, and there is increasing research into individualized placement of electrodes for maximal benefit.

2.3 Vagus Nerve Stimulation (VNS)

Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) involves the electrical stimulation of the vagus nerve, a major cranial nerve that connects the brainstem to various organs in the body. VNS is an invasive technique, although non-invasive VNS devices are becoming more widespread. The exact mechanisms by which VNS promotes neuroplasticity are not fully understood. It is thought that VNS activates the locus coeruleus, a brainstem nucleus that is the primary source of norepinephrine in the brain. Norepinephrine is a neuromodulator that plays a critical role in attention, arousal, and learning. By activating the locus coeruleus, VNS may enhance the encoding of new information and facilitate synaptic plasticity.

Animal studies have shown that VNS can enhance motor learning, memory, and attention. In the context of stroke rehabilitation, VNS is typically delivered during active movement training. The rationale is that VNS will enhance the consolidation of new motor skills and promote cortical reorganization. The timing of VNS delivery relative to the movement is also thought to be important. It has been suggested that delivering VNS just before or during movement may be most effective in enhancing motor learning. VNS can also promote neuroplasticity through its anti-inflammatory effects.

2.4 Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS)

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is an invasive neurosurgical procedure that involves the implantation of electrodes into specific brain regions. The electrodes deliver electrical pulses to modulate the activity of neuronal circuits. DBS has been used to treat a variety of neurological disorders, including Parkinson’s disease, essential tremor, and dystonia. In the context of stroke rehabilitation, DBS has been investigated as a potential therapy to improve motor function. The targets for DBS in stroke rehabilitation typically include the motor cortex, the thalamus, and the basal ganglia.

The mechanisms of action of DBS are complex and not fully understood. It is thought that DBS modulates neuronal activity by both directly affecting the activity of neurons near the electrodes and indirectly influencing the activity of more distant brain regions. The effects of DBS depend on the stimulation parameters, such as the frequency, amplitude, and pulse width of the electrical pulses. DBS can either increase or decrease neuronal activity, depending on the stimulation parameters and the target brain region. The exact mechanisms by which DBS promotes motor recovery after stroke are still under investigation. It is hypothesized that DBS can restore normal patterns of neuronal activity, enhance motor learning, and promote cortical reorganization. However, due to the invasive nature and associated risks of DBS, it is typically reserved for patients with severe motor deficits who have not responded to other therapies.

Many thanks to our sponsor Esdebe who helped us prepare this research report.

3. Clinical Evidence for Neurostimulation in Stroke Rehabilitation

3.1 Motor Function

The majority of clinical trials investigating neurostimulation for stroke rehabilitation have focused on improving motor function. Several meta-analyses and systematic reviews have examined the efficacy of TMS and tDCS for improving motor function after stroke. The findings of these reviews are mixed, with some showing a significant benefit of neurostimulation compared to sham stimulation, while others find only modest or non-significant effects.

A meta-analysis of rTMS studies found that high-frequency rTMS applied to the ipsilesional motor cortex and low-frequency rTMS applied to the contralesional motor cortex were both associated with improvements in motor function. However, the magnitude of the effect was relatively small, and the results were highly variable across studies. Several factors may contribute to the heterogeneity of the findings, including differences in the stimulation parameters, the timing of the intervention relative to the stroke, the severity of the motor deficit, and the type of outcome measure used. A more recent meta-analysis of tDCS studies found that anodal tDCS applied to the ipsilesional motor cortex combined with motor training was associated with a significant improvement in motor function compared to sham stimulation plus motor training. However, the effects were more pronounced for patients with mild to moderate motor deficits than for those with severe deficits.

Evidence for the efficacy of VNS for improving motor function after stroke is emerging. A randomized controlled trial of VNS paired with rehabilitation therapy in patients with chronic stroke found that VNS significantly improved upper extremity motor function compared to sham stimulation. A trial of DBS is also underway. These findings suggest that VNS may be a promising adjunctive therapy to enhance motor recovery after stroke.

3.2 Language

Stroke can frequently cause aphasia, impairing language abilities. Neurostimulation has been explored as a potential treatment to improve language recovery after stroke. Studies have primarily used TMS and tDCS to target brain regions involved in language processing, such as Broca’s area and Wernicke’s area. rTMS has shown promise in improving language function in patients with aphasia. For instance, low-frequency rTMS applied to the contralesional Broca’s homologue has been shown to reduce over-inhibition of the ipsilesional language network, potentially leading to improved language production. Similarly, high-frequency rTMS applied to the ipsilesional Broca’s area may enhance language processing. A meta-analysis of TMS studies in aphasia found that rTMS was associated with a small but significant improvement in language function. However, the effects were variable across studies, and further research is needed to determine the optimal stimulation parameters and patient selection criteria.

tDCS has also been investigated for the treatment of aphasia. Anodal tDCS applied to the ipsilesional language cortex, combined with speech therapy, has been shown to improve language comprehension and production. A meta-analysis of tDCS studies in aphasia found that tDCS was associated with a significant improvement in language function, particularly when combined with speech therapy. The effects of tDCS may be more pronounced for patients with non-fluent aphasia than for those with fluent aphasia. Although there is a growing body of evidence supporting the use of neurostimulation for aphasia, further research is needed to optimize treatment protocols and identify the patients who are most likely to benefit. In particular, there is a need for larger, well-designed randomized controlled trials with standardized outcome measures.

3.3 Cognitive Function

Cognitive deficits are common after stroke, affecting attention, memory, executive functions, and visuospatial skills. Neurostimulation has been investigated as a potential therapy to improve cognitive function after stroke. TMS and tDCS have been used to target brain regions involved in cognitive processes, such as the prefrontal cortex and the parietal cortex.

rTMS applied to the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) has been shown to improve attention and executive function in patients with stroke. High-frequency rTMS to the DLPFC can enhance working memory and cognitive flexibility, while low-frequency rTMS to the DLPFC can reduce impulsivity and improve decision-making. However, the effects of rTMS on cognitive function are variable across studies, and further research is needed to determine the optimal stimulation parameters and target brain regions.

tDCS has also been investigated for the treatment of cognitive deficits after stroke. Anodal tDCS applied to the DLPFC has been shown to improve attention, working memory, and executive function. The effects of tDCS may be more pronounced for patients with mild to moderate cognitive deficits than for those with severe deficits. Furthermore, combining tDCS with cognitive training may enhance the effects of both interventions. Evidence suggests that combining cognitive rehabilitation and neurostimulation provides the most beneficial outcome.

Many thanks to our sponsor Esdebe who helped us prepare this research report.

4. Risks and Benefits of Neurostimulation

4.1 Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS)

TMS is generally considered a safe and well-tolerated technique. The most common side effects of TMS are mild headaches, scalp discomfort, and muscle twitching. Serious adverse events, such as seizures, are rare, but can occur, particularly in individuals with a history of epilepsy or other neurological disorders. To minimize the risk of seizures, it is important to adhere to established safety guidelines for TMS, including screening patients for contraindications and using appropriate stimulation parameters. TMS is contraindicated in patients with metallic implants in the head or neck, and in patients with a history of seizures. The benefits of TMS include its non-invasive nature, its ability to target specific brain regions, and its potential to induce long-lasting changes in cortical excitability. However, TMS can be time-consuming and may require multiple sessions to achieve a therapeutic effect. It is also important to note that the effects of TMS can be highly variable across individuals, and some patients may not respond to treatment.

4.2 Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS)

tDCS is also generally considered a safe and well-tolerated technique. The most common side effects of tDCS are mild skin irritation, itching, and tingling sensations under the electrodes. Serious adverse events are rare, but can include burns, seizures, and mood changes. To minimize the risk of adverse events, it is important to use appropriate electrode placement and stimulation parameters, and to monitor patients closely during treatment. tDCS is contraindicated in patients with implanted electronic devices, such as pacemakers or defibrillators, and in patients with skin lesions or infections at the electrode sites. The benefits of tDCS include its non-invasive nature, its low cost, its portability, and its ease of administration. However, the effects of tDCS are generally more subtle than those of TMS, and may require multiple sessions to achieve a therapeutic effect. As with TMS, the effects of tDCS can be highly variable across individuals, and some patients may not respond to treatment.

4.3 Vagus Nerve Stimulation (VNS)

VNS is an invasive technique that carries a higher risk of adverse events than TMS or tDCS. The most common side effects of VNS are hoarseness, cough, throat pain, and shortness of breath. More serious adverse events, such as infection, nerve damage, and vocal cord paralysis, are rare, but can occur. To minimize the risk of adverse events, it is important to carefully select patients and to perform the implantation procedure by an experienced surgeon. VNS is contraindicated in patients with certain medical conditions, such as heart disease or lung disease. The benefits of VNS include its potential to enhance neuroplasticity and to improve motor function, language, and cognitive function after stroke. However, VNS is an expensive and invasive procedure, and it is not suitable for all patients.

4.4 Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS)

DBS is an invasive neurosurgical procedure that carries a significant risk of adverse events. The most common complications of DBS are infection, bleeding, and hardware malfunction. More serious complications, such as stroke, seizure, and cognitive impairment, are rare, but can occur. To minimize the risk of complications, it is important to carefully select patients and to perform the implantation procedure by an experienced neurosurgeon. DBS is contraindicated in patients with certain medical conditions, such as severe cognitive impairment or psychiatric disorders. The benefits of DBS include its potential to improve motor function and quality of life in patients with severe motor deficits after stroke. However, DBS is an expensive and invasive procedure, and it is not suitable for all patients.

Many thanks to our sponsor Esdebe who helped us prepare this research report.

5. Patient Selection and Personalized Neurostimulation

Identifying the patients who are most likely to benefit from neurostimulation is a critical challenge in the field of stroke rehabilitation. While neurostimulation has shown promise as an adjunctive therapy for stroke recovery, the effects can be highly variable across individuals. Several factors may influence treatment response, including the location and extent of the stroke lesion, the time since stroke onset, the severity of the impairment, the age of the patient, and the presence of comorbidities.

One promising approach is to use neuroimaging techniques, such as MRI and EEG, to identify biomarkers that predict treatment response. For example, studies have shown that patients with greater structural integrity of the corticospinal tract are more likely to benefit from TMS or tDCS for improving motor function. Similarly, patients with greater activity in the ipsilesional language network are more likely to benefit from neurostimulation for improving language function. EEG can also be used to assess cortical excitability and to identify patients who are likely to respond to neurostimulation.

Another approach is to use computational modeling to simulate the effects of neurostimulation on brain activity. Computational models can be used to optimize stimulation parameters and to predict treatment response based on individual brain anatomy and physiology. Personalized neurostimulation involves tailoring the stimulation parameters and the target brain region to the individual patient. This approach takes into account the patient’s unique brain structure, function, and clinical characteristics to maximize the therapeutic effect and minimize the risk of adverse events. By incorporating individualized approaches, the benefits of neurostimulation can be maximized for each patient.

Many thanks to our sponsor Esdebe who helped us prepare this research report.

6. Future Directions

The field of neurostimulation for stroke rehabilitation is rapidly evolving. Several exciting new directions are emerging, including the development of novel neurostimulation protocols, the optimization of stimulation parameters, and the integration of neurostimulation with other rehabilitation strategies. One promising area of research is the development of closed-loop neurostimulation systems. These systems use real-time feedback from brain activity to adjust the stimulation parameters dynamically. For example, a closed-loop TMS system could adjust the stimulation frequency and intensity based on the patient’s brain activity during a motor task. This approach has the potential to optimize the therapeutic effect and to minimize the risk of adverse events.

Another area of research is the development of non-invasive brain-computer interfaces (BCIs). BCIs allow patients to control external devices, such as robotic arms or computer cursors, using their brain activity. BCIs can be used to provide feedback to patients about their brain activity, which can help them to learn to control their movements more effectively. Combining BCIs with neurostimulation may further enhance motor learning and promote cortical reorganization. The use of virtual reality rehabilitation with neurostimulation is also gaining traction, offering patients an engaging and motivating environment for practicing motor tasks.

Finally, there is a growing interest in combining neurostimulation with other rehabilitation therapies, such as exercise, cognitive training, and pharmacological interventions. Combining neurostimulation with exercise may enhance motor learning and promote cortical reorganization. Combining neurostimulation with cognitive training may improve attention, memory, and executive function. Combining neurostimulation with pharmacological interventions may potentiate the effects of both treatments. By integrating neurostimulation with other rehabilitation strategies, we may be able to achieve greater improvements in functional outcomes for stroke survivors.

Many thanks to our sponsor Esdebe who helped us prepare this research report.

7. Conclusion

Neurostimulation techniques, including TMS, tDCS, VNS, and DBS, hold significant promise as adjunctive therapies to enhance neural plasticity and promote functional recovery after stroke. Clinical evidence supports their use in improving motor function, language, and cognitive abilities following stroke, although the magnitude of the effects can vary. The benefits and risks associated with each technique should be carefully considered when determining the suitability of neurostimulation for individual patients. Personalized neurostimulation, guided by neuroimaging and computational modeling, represents a promising approach to optimize treatment response. Future research should focus on developing novel neurostimulation protocols, optimizing stimulation parameters, and integrating neurostimulation with other rehabilitation strategies to maximize the potential benefits for stroke survivors. The future of stroke rehabilitation will likely incorporate neurostimulation to improve functional outcomes and quality of life for stroke survivors.

Many thanks to our sponsor Esdebe who helped us prepare this research report.

References

[1] Di Pino, G., Pellegrino, G., Assenza, G., Capone, F., Ferreri, F., Formica, D., … & Rothwell, J. C. (2014). Modulation of brain plasticity in stroke: a novel approach for rehabilitation. Expert review of neurotherapeutics, 14(4), 357-371.

[2] Lefaucheur, J. P., Aleman, A., Baeken, C., Benninger, D. H., Brunelin, P., Di Lazzaro, V., … & Ziemann, U. (2020). Evidence-based guidelines on the therapeutic use of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS): An update. Clinical Neurophysiology, 131(2), 474-521.

[3] Bikson, M., Esmaeilpour, Z., Adnan, S., Dmochowski, J., & Kronberg, G. (2019). Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS): mechanisms and applications. Annual review of biomedical engineering, 21, 493-525.

[4] Hays, S. A. (2016). Vagus nerve stimulation for stroke rehabilitation. Neuromodulation: Technology at the Neural Interface, 19(8), 803-808.

[5] McIntyre, C. C., Yousif, N., & Shih, L. C. (2018). Network mechanisms of deep brain stimulation: models and methods. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 19(2), 69-82.

[6] Zhang, Y., Li, M., Wu, C., & Wang, X. (2019). Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for motor recovery after stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis. European journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine, 55(6), 726-737.

[7] Elsner, B., Kwakkel, G., & Kugler, J. (2017). Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for improving motor function after stroke. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (1).

[8] Dawson, J., Liu, C. Y., Francisco, G. E., Waltzman, D., King, N., Civillico, E. F., … & Kilgard, M. (2016). Vagus nerve stimulation paired with rehabilitation for chronic upper limb motor deficits after stroke: a randomized controlled trial. Stroke, 47(6), 1404-1411.

[9] Barwood, C. H., Murdoch, B. E., & Stokes, C. W. (2011). The use of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in the treatment of aphasia: a systematic review. Aphasiology, 25(7), 771-794.

[10] Flöel, A. (2014). tDCS in stroke rehabilitation. Restorative neurology and neuroscience, 32(6), 829-841.

[11] Hsu, W. Y., Cheng, C. H., Liao, K. K., Lee, I. H., Lin, Y. Y., & Chou, L. W. (2012). Effects of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on cognitive performance after stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of rehabilitation medicine, 44(7), 561-569.

[12] Brunoni, A. R., Bikson, M., Datta, A., Esmaeilpour, Z., Tadini, L., & Fregni, F. (2012). Clinical research with transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS): challenges and future directions. Brain stimulation, 5(3), 175-195.

[13] Edwards, D. J., Krebs, H. I., Rykman, E. F., Whitall, J., Forrester, L. W., Dromerick, A. W., … & Dipietro, L. (2006). Robotic upper extremity training improves motor outcome in patients with chronic stroke. Stroke, 37(6), 1493-1498.

[14] Ramos-Murguialday, A., Broetz, D., Rea, M., Laer, L., Winter, S. M., Garcia-Cossio, E., … & Birbaumer, N. (2013). Brain-machine interface in chronic stroke rehabilitation: a controlled study. Annals of neurology, 74(1), 100-108.

[15] Luft, A. R., McCombe Waller, S., Whitall, J., Forrester, L. W., Macko, R., Hauser, T. K., … & Beebe, J. (2004). Repetitive bilateral arm training and motor imagery improves arm motor function after stroke. Stroke, 35(11), 2698-2704.