Beltran Serrano Gerardo, Pooch Rodrigues Laura, Schein Bruno, Zortea Maxciel, Torres Iraci Lucenada Silva, Fregni Felipe, Caumo Wolnei
Post-Graduate Program in Medical Sciences, School of Medicine, Universidade Federal Do Rio Grande Do Sul (UFRGS), Porto Alegre, Brazil.
Laboratory of Pain and Neuromodulation at Hospital De Clínicas De Porto Alegre (HCPA), Porto Alegre, Brazil.
J Pain Res. 2020 Sep 16;13:2297-2311. doi: 10.2147/JPR.S253747. eCollection 2020.
We evaluated whether active(a)-tDCS combined with hypnotic analgesia suggestion (HS) would be more effective than a single active(a)-tDCS, and/or sham-(s)-tDCS and s-tDCS/HS on the following outcomes: function of descending pain modulatory system (DPMS) during the conditioned pain modulation test (CPM-test) (primary outcome), heat pain threshold (HPT), heat pain tolerance (HPTo) and cold pressor test (CPT) (secondary outcomes). We also examined whether their effects are related to neuroplasticity state evaluated by serum brain-derived-neurotropic factor (BDNF).
Forty-eight females received one session of one of the four interventions (a-tDCS/HS, s-tDCS/HS, a-tDCS, and s-tDCS) in an incomplete randomized crossover sequence. The a-tDCS or s-tDCS was applied over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) for 30 minutes at 2mA.
A generalized linear model revealed a significant main effect for the intervention group (P <0.032). The delta-(Δ) pain score on the Numerical Pain Scale (NPS0-10) during CPM-test in the a-tDCS/HS group was -0.25 (0.43). The (Δ) pain score on NPS (0-10) during CPM-test in the other three groups was a-tDCS=-0.54 (0.41), HS -0.01 (0.41) and s-tDCS/HS=-0.19 (0.43). A-tDCS/HS intervention increased the CPT substantially compared to all other interventions. Also, higher baseline levels of BDNF were associated with a larger change in CPT and HPTo.
These findings indicate that the HS combined with a-tDCS mitigated the effect of the a-tDCS on the DPMS. The a-tDCS up-regulates the inhibition on DPMS, and the HS improved pain tolerance. And, together they enhanced the reaction time substantially upon the CPT.
www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT03744897.
我们评估了主动(a)-经颅直流电刺激联合催眠镇痛暗示(HS)在以下结果方面是否比单一主动(a)-经颅直流电刺激、和/或假刺激(s)-经颅直流电刺激以及假刺激(s)-经颅直流电刺激/HS更有效:条件性疼痛调制测试(CPM测试)期间下行疼痛调制系统(DPMS)的功能(主要结果)、热痛阈值(HPT)、热痛耐受(HPTo)和冷加压试验(CPT)(次要结果)。我们还研究了它们的效果是否与通过血清脑源性神经营养因子(BDNF)评估的神经可塑性状态相关。
48名女性按照不完全随机交叉序列接受四种干预措施(a-经颅直流电刺激/HS、s-经颅直流电刺激/HS、a-经颅直流电刺激和s-经颅直流电刺激)中的一种。以2mA的电流强度在左侧背外侧前额叶皮层(DLPFC)施加a-经颅直流电刺激或s-经颅直流电刺激30分钟。
广义线性模型显示干预组有显著的主效应(P<0.032)。a-经颅直流电刺激/HS组在CPM测试期间数字疼痛量表(NPS 0 - 10)上的疼痛评分差值(Δ)为-0.25(0.43)。其他三组在CPM测试期间NPS(0 - 10)上的疼痛评分差值(Δ)分别为:a-经颅直流电刺激=-0.54(0.41),HS=-0.01(0.41),s-经颅直流电刺激/HS=-0.19(0.43)。与所有其他干预措施相比,a-经颅直流电刺激/HS干预显著增加了CPT。此外,BDNF的较高基线水平与CPT和HPTo的较大变化相关。
这些发现表明,HS联合a-经颅直流电刺激减轻了a-经颅直流电刺激对DPMS的影响。a-经颅直流电刺激上调了对DPMS的抑制作用,而HS提高了疼痛耐受性。并且,它们共同显著提高了CPT时的反应时间。