Enax-Krumova Elena, Plaga Ann-Christin, Schmidt Kimberly, Özgül Özüm S, Eitner Lynn B, Tegenthoff Martin, Höffken Oliver
Department of Neurology, Ruhr-University Bochum, Berufsgenossenschaftliches Universitätsklinikum Bergmannsheil gGmbH Bochum, 44789 Bochum, Germany.
Department of Pain Medicine, Ruhr-University Bochum, Berufsgenossenschaftliches Universitätsklinikum Bergmannsheil gGmbH Bochum, 44789 Bochum, Germany.
Brain Sci. 2020 Sep 28;10(10):684. doi: 10.3390/brainsci10100684.
Different paradigms can assess the effect of conditioned pain modulation (CPM). The aim of the present study was to compare heat pain, as an often used test stimulus (TS), to painful cutaneous electrical stimulation (PCES), having the advantage of the additional recording of PCES-related evoked potentials. In 28 healthy subjects we applied heat and PCES at the dominant hand as test stimulus (TS) to compare the CPM-effect elicited by hand immersion into cold water (10 °C) as conditioning stimulus (CS). Subjects rated the pain intensity of TS at baseline, during and 5 min after CS application and additionally of CS, on a numerical rating scale (NRS) (0-100). The 'early' (during CS-before CS) and 'late' (after CS-before CS) CPM-effects were analyzed. Parallel to the PCES, the related evoked potentials were recorded via Cz to evaluate any changes in PCES-amplitudes. CS reduced significantly the pain intensity of both PCES and heat pain as TS. On a group level, the CPM-effect did not differ significantly between both paradigms. Both early and late CPM-effect based on PCES correlated significantly with the CS pain intensity ( = -0.630 and -0.503, respectively), whereas using heat pain the correlation was not significant. We found a significant reduction of PCES-amplitudes during CS, but this did not correlate with the PCES-induced pain intensity. Correlation with the CS painfulness ( = -0.464) did not achieve the significance level after Bonferroni correction. The extent of the CPM effects was similar in both testing paradigms at group level, despite intraindividual differences. Future studies should further elicit the exact mechanisms explaining the modality of these specific differences.
不同的范式可以评估条件性疼痛调制(CPM)的效果。本研究的目的是将热痛作为一种常用的测试刺激(TS)与疼痛性皮肤电刺激(PCES)进行比较,后者具有额外记录与PCES相关的诱发电位的优势。在28名健康受试者中,我们在优势手施加热刺激和PCES作为测试刺激(TS),以比较将手浸入冷水(10°C)作为条件刺激(CS)所引发的CPM效应。受试者在基线、CS施加期间和之后5分钟对TS的疼痛强度进行评分,并对CS的疼痛强度额外进行评分,采用数字评分量表(NRS)(0 - 100)。分析了“早期”(CS期间 - CS前)和“晚期”(CS后 - CS前)的CPM效应。与PCES并行,通过Cz记录相关的诱发电位,以评估PCES振幅的任何变化。CS显著降低了作为TS的PCES和热痛的疼痛强度。在组水平上,两种范式之间的CPM效应没有显著差异。基于PCES的早期和晚期CPM效应均与CS疼痛强度显著相关(分别为r = -0.630和 -0.503),而使用热痛时相关性不显著。我们发现在CS期间PCES振幅显著降低,但这与PCES诱发的疼痛强度无关。与CS疼痛程度的相关性(r = -0.464)在Bonferroni校正后未达到显著水平。尽管存在个体差异,但在组水平上两种测试范式中CPM效应的程度相似。未来的研究应进一步阐明解释这些特定差异模式的确切机制。