Department of Neurology, University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
electroCore, Inc., Basking Ridge, NJ, USA.
Headache. 2020 Sep;60(8):1616-1631. doi: 10.1111/head.13891. Epub 2020 Jun 27.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to test the effects of vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) on the descending pain inhibition, quantified by the nociceptive flexor (RIII) reflex and the conditioned pain modulation (CPM) paradigm, and on supraspinal nociceptive responses, assessed by pain intensity and unpleasantness ratings and late somatosensory evoked potentials (SEPs), in healthy subjects. BACKGROUND: Non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS) showed promising effects on headache and pain treatment. Underlying mechanisms are only incompletely understood but may include the activation of the descending pain inhibitory system and/or the modification of emotional responses to pain. METHODS: Twenty-seven adult, healthy, and pain-free subjects participated in this double-blind cross-over study conducted at a university research center. They received 4 minutes of cervical nVNS or sham stimulation in randomized order. RIII reflexes, pain ratings, and SEPs were assessed before, during, and 5, 15, 30, and 60 minutes after nVNS/sham stimulation, followed by CPM testing. The primary outcome was the nVNS effect on the RIII reflex size. Three subjects were excluded after the preparatory session (before randomization), 1 subject was excluded after outlier analysis, leaving 23 for analysis. RESULTS: RIII reflex areas were 917.1 ± 563.8 µV × ms (mean ± SD) before, 952.4 ± 467.4 µV × ms during and 929.2 ± 484.0 µV × ms immediately after nVNS and 858.4 ± 489.2 µV × ms before, 913.9 ± 539.7 µV × ms during and 862.4 ± 476.0 µV × ms after sham stimulation, revealing no differences between the immediate effects of nVNS and sham stimulation (F = 0.67, P = .574). There also were no effects of nVNS over sham on RIII reflex areas up to 60 minutes after nVNS (F = 1.29, P = .283). Similarly, there was no statistically significant effect of nVNS on pain intensity ratings and thresholds, RIII reflex thresholds, late SEP amplitudes, and the CPM effect, compared to sham. Pain unpleasantness ratings statistically significantly decreased from 4.4 ± 2.4 (NRS 0-10) to 4.1 ± 2.5 during nVNS compared to sham stimulation (F = 8.74, P = .007), but there were no longer lasting effects (5-60 minutes after stimulation). CONCLUSIONS: The present study does not support an acute effect of nVNS on descending pain inhibition, pain intensity perception or supraspinal nociception in healthy adults. However, there was a small effect on pain unpleasantness during nVNS, suggesting that nVNS may preferentially act on affective, not somatosensory pain components.
目的:本研究旨在测试迷走神经刺激(VNS)对下行性疼痛抑制的影响,通过伤害性屈肌(RIII)反射和条件性疼痛调制(CPM)范式进行量化,并通过疼痛强度和不愉快感评分以及晚期体感诱发电位(SEP)评估脊髓上的伤害性反应,在健康受试者中进行测试。
背景:非侵入性迷走神经刺激(nVNS)在头痛和疼痛治疗方面显示出有希望的效果。其潜在机制尚不完全清楚,但可能包括下行性疼痛抑制系统的激活和/或对疼痛的情绪反应的改变。
方法:27 名成年、健康、无痛的受试者参加了这项在大学研究中心进行的双盲交叉研究。他们以随机顺序接受 4 分钟的颈部 nVNS 或假刺激。在 nVNS/假刺激之前、期间以及之后的 5、15、30 和 60 分钟评估 RIII 反射、疼痛评分和 SEP,然后进行 CPM 测试。主要结果是 nVNS 对 RIII 反射面积的影响。3 名受试者在预备阶段(随机分组前)后被排除,1 名受试者在离群值分析后被排除,留下 23 名受试者进行分析。
结果:nVNS 前 RIII 反射区面积为 917.1±563.8µV×ms(平均值±标准差),nVNS 期间为 952.4±467.4µV×ms,nVNS 后即刻为 929.2±484.0µV×ms,假刺激前为 858.4±489.2µV×ms,假刺激期间为 913.9±539.7µV×ms,假刺激后即刻为 862.4±476.0µV×ms,nVNS 和假刺激的即刻效果之间没有差异(F=0.67,P=0.574)。nVNS 后 60 分钟内,nVNS 对 RIII 反射区面积也没有影响(F=1.29,P=0.283)。同样,与假刺激相比,nVNS 对疼痛强度评分和阈值、RIII 反射阈值、晚期 SEP 幅度和 CPM 效应也没有统计学显著影响。与假刺激相比,nVNS 期间疼痛不愉快感评分从 4.4±2.4(NRS 0-10)显著降低至 4.1±2.5(F=8.74,P=0.007),但没有持续的影响(刺激后 5-60 分钟)。
结论:本研究不支持 nVNS 对健康成年人下行性疼痛抑制、疼痛强度感知或脊髓上伤害性感受的急性影响。然而,nVNS 期间疼痛不愉快感有轻微影响,表明 nVNS 可能优先作用于情感,而不是躯体感觉疼痛成分。
Eur J Pain. 2017-10
Clin Auton Res. 2024-12
Front Pain Res (Lausanne). 2023-3-13