OBJECTIVES: This pilot study compared the motor evoked potential (MEP) changes using different settings of rTMS in the post-ischemic stroke patient. The goal of the study is to identify effect sizes for a further trial and evaluate safety aspects.
METHODS: Eight post-stroke patients with upper limb hemiparesis for at least six months duration were studied in a tertiary hospital in Northeast Malaysia. Quasi experimental design was applied and the participants were randomised into two groups using software generated random numbers. One of the two settings: i) inhibitory setting, or ii) facilitatory setting have been applied randomly during the first meeting. The motor evoked potential (MEP) were recorded before and after application of the rTMS setting. A week later, a similar procedure will be repeated but using different setting than the first intervention. Each patient will serve as their own control. Repeated measures ANOVA test was applied to determine the effect sizes for both intervention through the options of partial eta-squared (η2 p).
RESULT: The study observed large effect sizes (η2 p > 0.14) for both rTMS settings in the lesion and non-lesion sides. For safety aspects, no minor or major side effects associated with the rTMS was reported by the participants.
CONCLUSIONS: The partial eta square of MEP value for both rTMS settings (fascilitatory and inhibitory) in both lesion and non-lesion sides represents large effect sizes. We recommend further trial to increase number of sample in order to study the effectiveness of both settings in ischemic stroke patient. Our preliminary data showed both settings may improve the MEP of the upper extremity in the ischemic stroke patient. No significant improvement noted when comparing both settings.
METHODS: In 20 patients undergoing cardiac surgery in sevoflurane-remifentanil anesthesia, we analyzed intraoperative S' values which were determined after 10 min exposure to sevoflurane at 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0 inspired-vol% (T1, T2, and T3, respectively) with a fixed remifentanil dose (1.0 μg/kg/min) using transesophageal echocardiography.
RESULTS: Linear mixed-effect modeling demonstrated dose-dependent declines in S' according to the end-tidal sevoflurane concentration increments (C(ET)-sevoflurane, p < 0.001): the mean value of S' reduction for each 1.0 vol%-increment of C(ET)-sevoflurane was 1.7 cm/s (95 % confidence interval 1.4-2.1 cm/s). Medians of S' at T1, T2, and T3 (9.6, 8.9, and 7.5 cm/s, respectively) also exhibited significant declines (by 6.6, 15.6, and 21.2 % for T1 vs. T2, T2 vs. T3, and T1 vs. T3, p < 0.001, =0.002, and <0.001 in Friedman pairwise comparisons, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: Administering sevoflurane as a part of a sevoflurane-remifentanil anesthesia regimen appears to dose-dependently reduce S', indicating LV systolic performance, in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Further studies may be required to evaluate the clinical implications of these findings.