↓ Skip to main content

Facial nerve stimulation in normal pigs and healthy human volunteers: transitional development of a medical device for the emergency treatment of ischemic stroke

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Translational Medicine, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 Mendeley
Title
Facial nerve stimulation in normal pigs and healthy human volunteers: transitional development of a medical device for the emergency treatment of ischemic stroke
Published in
Journal of Translational Medicine, February 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12967-018-1398-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Olivia Sanchez, Andrea García, Fernando Castro-Prado, Miriam Perez, Rafael Lara-Estrada, Martin Ramirez-Meza, Montserrat Godinez, Michael L. Coco, Joaquín Azpiroz, Mark K. Borsody, Emilio Sacristán

Abstract

Magnetic stimulation of the facial nerve has been tested in preclinical studies as a new, non-invasive emergency treatment of ischemic stroke that acts by increasing cerebral blood flow (CBF). The objective of the studies reported herein was to identify minimal stimulation parameters that increase CBF in large animals and then test those stimulation parameters in healthy volunteers for safety, tolerability, and effectiveness at increasing CBF. This translational research is necessary preparation for clinical studies in ischemic stroke patients. Initial experiments in anesthetized Yorkshire pigs were undertaken in order to identify the lowest stimulus power and duration that increase CBF. A full 3 × 3 factorial design was used to evaluate magnetic stimulation of the facial nerve at various stimulation powers (1.3, 1.6, and 1.9 Tesla field strength at coil surface) and for various durations (2, 3.5, and 5 min). CBF was measured with contrast MRI perfusion imaging and the internal carotid arteries were assessed with MR angiography. Magnetic facial nerve stimulation with parameters identified in the pig study was then applied to 35 healthy volunteers. Safety was assessed with adverse event reports and by medical examination. Tolerability was defined as each volunteer's ability to withstand at least 2 min of stimulation. Volunteers could determine the maximum power of stimulation they received during a ramp-up period. In pigs, unilateral facial nerve stimulation increased CBF by as much as 77% over pre-stimulation baseline when administered across a range of 1.3-1.9 Tesla power and for 2- to 5-min duration. No clear dose-response relationship could be observed across this range, but lower powers and durations than these were markedly less effective. The effect of a single stimulation lasted 90 min. A second stimulation delivered 100 min after the first stimulation sustained the increased CBF without evidence of tachyphylaxis. In human, bilateral facial nerve stimulation caused only non-serious adverse events that were limited to the 2-min stimulation period. Tolerability was greatly improved by gentle encouragement from the study staff, which enabled most volunteers to tolerate 1.6-1.8 Tesla of stimulation power. CBF measures taken approximately 10 min after stimulation demonstrated on average a 32 ± 6% increase in CBF, with ≥ 25% increases in CBF occurring in 10 of the 31 volunteers who had adequate CBF measurements. The minimal effective stimulation parameters defined by increased CBF, as identified in the pig study, translated into safe, tolerable, and effective stimulation of healthy volunteers. These results support the future development and evaluation of non-invasive facial nerve stimulation for the emergency treatment of ischemic stroke. Trial Registration retrospectively registered with clinicaltrials.gov NRV_P1_01_15 on June 6, 2017.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 14%
Student > Master 2 9%
Researcher 2 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 5%
Student > Bachelor 1 5%
Other 5 23%
Unknown 8 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 18%
Arts and Humanities 2 9%
Neuroscience 2 9%
Engineering 2 9%
Psychology 1 5%
Other 3 14%
Unknown 8 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 February 2018.
All research outputs
#15,492,327
of 23,023,224 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Translational Medicine
#2,259
of 4,029 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#291,593
of 474,288 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Translational Medicine
#48
of 82 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,023,224 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,029 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 474,288 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 82 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.