SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Intermuscular coherence as a biomarker of subthalamic nucleus deep brain stimulation efficacy in Parkinson's disease.

Clin Neurophysiol · 2022-07-26

DOI: 10.1016/j.clinph.2022.07.489PMID: 35963183

Check source for accessResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

ObjectiveDeep brain stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus (STN-DBS) is an established treatment in advanced Parkinson's disease (PD). However, the clinical outcome after STN-DBS is variable. The aim of this study was to explore the coherence of antagonistic muscles measured with electromyography (EMG) as novel biomarker of STN-DBS efficacy in PD.MethodsEMG of bilateral wrist and upper arm antagonistic muscles of 21 PD patients was recorded during three standardized motor tasks. Patients were measured one day prior to DBS surgery (pre-DBS) and 6 months afterwards (post-DBS). Coherence analyses were performed on the antagonistic muscle pairs. Pearson correlations between intermuscular coherence and clinical performance were calculated.ResultsIntermuscular coherence during each of the different co-contraction tasks significantly correlated to UPDRS-III bradykinesia scores (p ConclusionsHigher pre-DBS coherence of antagonistic arm muscles is correlated to worsening of clinical PD state and higher intermuscular coherence predicts enhanced clinical improvement.SignificanceWe propose that pre-DBS intermuscular coherence could be developed into a predictor of STN-DBS clinical outcome. It could aid patient selection and adaptive stimulation algorithms for DBS.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.