4.7 Article

Efficacy of single versus three sessions of high rate repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in chronic migraine and tension-type headache

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGY
卷 263, 期 11, 页码 2238-2246

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00415-016-8257-2

关键词

Chronic daily headache; Chronic tension-type headache; Chronic migraine; Magnetic stimulation; Migraine prophylaxis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We report the efficacy of three versus single session of 10 Hz repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in chronic migraine (CM) and chronic tension-type headache (CTTH). Ninety-eight patients with CM or CTTH were included and their headache frequency, severity, functional disability and number of abortive medications were noted. Fifty-two patients were randomly assigned to group I (three true sessions) and 46 to group II (one true and two sham rTMS sessions) treatment. 10 Hz rTMS comprising 600 pulses was delivered in 412.4 s on the left frontal cortex. Outcomes were noted at 1, 2 and 3 months. The primary outcome was 50 % reduction in headache frequency, and secondary outcomes were improvement in severity, functional disability, abortive drugs and side effects. The baseline headache characteristics were similar between the two groups. Follow up at different time points revealed significant improvement in headache frequency, severity, functional disability and number of abortive drugs compared to baseline in both group I and group II patients, although these parameters were not different between the two groups. In group I, 31 (79.4 %) had reduction of headache frequency and 29 (74.4 %) converted to episodic headache. In group II, these were 24 (64.8 %) and 22 (59.2 %), respectively. In chronic migraine, the severity of headache at 2 months reduced in group I compared to group II (62.5 vs 35.3 %; P = 0.01). Both single and three sessions of 10 Hz rTMS were found to be equally effective in CM and CTTH, and resulted in conversion of chronic to episodic headache in 67.1 % patients.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据