Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
J Affect Disord ; 252: 475-483, 2019 06 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31005790

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) is a non-invasive, neuromodulation approach with promising efficacy for treating depression. To date, tDCS has been limited to clinical or research centre settings with treatment administered by staff. The aim of this study is to examine the efficacy, tolerability and feasibility of home-administered, remotely-supervised tDCS for depression. METHODS: In an open label trial, 34 participants used a Soterix 1 × 1 mini-CT device to self-administer 20-28 tDCS sessions (2 mA, 30 min, F3-anode and F8-cathode montage according to 10-20 EEG placement) over 4 weeks followed by a taper phase of 4 sessions 1 week apart. Participants were initially monitored via video link and then through completion of an online treatment diary. Mixed effects repeated measures analyses assessed change in mood scores. RESULTS: Mood improved significantly from baseline (27.47 on Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale) to 1 month after the end of acute treatment (15.48) (p < 0.001). Side effects were largely transient and minor. Outcomes were comparable to those reported in clinic-based trials. Protocol adherence was excellent with a drop-out rate of 6% and 93% of scheduled sessions completed. LIMITATIONS: The tDCS and remote monitoring procedures employed in this study require a level of manual dexterity and computer literacy, which may be challenging for some patients. This study did not have a control condition. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides initial evidence that home-based, remotely-supervised tDCS treatment may be efficacious and feasible for depressed patients and has high translational potential.


Subject(s)
Depression/therapy , Self Administration/methods , Telemedicine/methods , Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation/methods , Adult , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pilot Projects , Psychiatric Status Rating Scales , Treatment Outcome
2.
J ECT ; 35(2): 127-132, 2019 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30113992

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: The dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) is a commonly targeted site using noninvasive brain stimulation techniques. Methods used to localize this site commonly rely on the International 10-20 electroencephalography (EEG) system, including elastic EEG caps, which stretch to accommodate varying head sizes, as well as the Beam F3 algorithm, which uses scalp measurements to calculate the location of the DLPFC. Both methods have been validated against magnetic resonance imaging-based DLPFC localization and are regularly used in research centers and clinics, but an in vivo comparison of reliability has not yet been conducted. This study examines whether Beam F3 and EEG cap methods differ in DLPFC localization, when applied by different practitioners (measurers) on a range of subjects. Further, whether measurer experience or subject head characteristics influence localization. METHODS: Measurers (n = 5) of varying levels of experience identified the location of the left DLFPC on subjects (n = 6) with varying head sizes, using both Beam F3 and EEG cap methods. An independent assessor recorded the measurers' placements along the anterior-posterior and medial-lateral planes. Values were normalized to the subjects' mean nasion-inion and tragus-tragus distances and examined using a mixed effects repeated measures analysis. RESULTS: The Beam F3 method resulted in significantly more anterior placements (~11.5 mm) compared with the EEG cap. Subjects with smaller head sizes had more anterior placements, compared with medium and large heads, regardless of the method used. There was no significant difference between methods along the medial-lateral plane. Measurer experience did not significantly influence DLPFC localization. CONCLUSIONS: Beam F3 and EEG cap methods resulted in similar DLPFC placements, with a small difference along the anterior-posterior plane. Measurer experience did not affect either method, suggesting that 2 weeks of training is sufficient to achieve competency. Training and reliability of DLPFC placement therefore do not represent substantial barriers to application of either method. Special care should be taken with subjects with small heads as both methods resulted in more anterior DLPFC placements.


Subject(s)
Electroencephalography/methods , Anthropometry , Brain , Brain Mapping , Electroconvulsive Therapy , Electroencephalography/instrumentation , Head/anatomy & histology , Humans , Prefrontal Cortex , Reproducibility of Results , Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...