[Observation on the efficacy of different targets low-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for the treatment of tremor-dominant subtypes of Parkinson's disease]
C Qi,J H Zhao,Y R Wei,J Gan,Y Wan,N Wu,L Song,Y Zhang,Z G Liu
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.cn112137-20230629-01102
2023-10-24
Abstract:Objective: To analyze the efficacy of different targets low-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for the treatment of tremor Parkinson's disease(PD). Method: A total of 82 patients with primary PD who were admitted to the Department of Neurology, Xin Hua Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine from April 1, 2020 to March 31, 2021 were prospectively collected. According to the clinical characteristics of major movement disorders, 82 patients with tremor type (TD) were selected to enroll.The patients were randomly divided into 3 groups at a 1∶1∶1 ratio according to the randomized coding sequence of the trial: the primary motor cortex (M1) group with 26 cases, the cerebellum group with 26 cases and the dual-site (M1, cerebellum) group with 30 cases. All patients were treated with 1 Hz low-frequency stimulation of the corresponding target once a day for 5 days a week for 2 weeks, a total of 10 times; The dosage remained unchanged during the treatment for all groups. Before and after 2 weeks' treatment, the patients were assessed with the Unified PD Rating Scale (UPDRS) and PD Quality of Life Questionnaire-39 (PDQ-39) without medication. Cortical excitability, namely transcranial magnetic stimulation motor evoked potential (TMS-MEP), [including resting motor threshold (rMT) and active motor threshold (aMT) examinations], timed up and go (TUG) and electromyographic tremor were conducted. Result: There were 82 patients, 39 males and 43 females, with an average age of (67±8) years. Before the treatment, there was no statistically significant difference in the evaluation indicators among the three groups (all P>0.05). After the treatment, the differences of the UPDRS-Ⅲ score [(38.9±2.5) vs (29.2±3.6) ], UPDRS tremor score [(23.7±2.1) vs (14.6±3.1) ], TUG time [(44.8±3.1) s vs (33.7±4.1) s], tremor amplitude [(480±126) μV vs (276±94) μV], PDQ-39 score [(51±13) vs (45±13) ], rMT [(36±17)% vs (43±13)%], and aMT [(26±16)% vs (31±12)%] were statistically significant (all P<0.01) from those before the treatment. There was no statistical difference in the above factors between the M1 group and cerebellum group (all P>0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in tremor peak frequency among the three groups before and after the treatment (all P>0.05). Conclusions: Dual-site low-frequency rTMS can improve PD tremor, while M1 or cerebellar low-frequency rTMS does not significantly improve PD tremor. Its mechanism may be to improve PD tremor symptoms by regulating cortical excitability.