8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Application of transcranial magnetic stimulation for major depression: Coil design and neuroanatomical variability considerations

      , , , ,
      European Neuropsychopharmacology
      Elsevier BV

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          <p class="first" id="d4678833e91">High-frequency repeated transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) as a treatment for major depressive disorder (MDD) has received FDA clearance for both the figure-of-8 coil (figure-8 coil) and the H1 coil. The FDA-cleared MDD protocols for both coils include high frequency (10-18 Hz) stimulation targeting the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC) at an intensity that is 120% of the right-hand resting motor threshold. Despite these similar parameters, the two coils generate distinct electrical fields (e-fields) which result in differences in the cortical stimulation they produce. Due to the differences in coil designs, the H1 coil induces a stimulation e-field that is broader and deeper than the one induced by the figure-8 coil. In this paper we review theoretical and clinical implications of these differences between the two coils and compare evidence of their safety and efficacy in treating MDD. We present the design principles of the coils, the challenges of identifying, finding, and stimulating the optimal brain target of each individual (both from functional and connectivity perspectives), and the possible implication of stimulating outside that target. There is only one study that performed a direct comparison between clinical effectiveness of the two coils, using the standard FDA-approved protocols in MDD patients. This study indicated clinical superiority of the H1 coil but did not measure long-term effects. Post-marketing data suggest that both coils have a similar safety profile in clinical practice, whereas effect size comparisons of the two respective FDA pivotal trials suggests that the H1 coil may have an advantage in efficacy. We conclude that further head-to-head experiments are needed, especially ones that will compare long-term effects and usage of similar temporal stimulation parameters and similar number of pulses. </p>

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Journal
          European Neuropsychopharmacology
          European Neuropsychopharmacology
          Elsevier BV
          0924977X
          July 2019
          July 2019
          Article
          10.1016/j.euroneuro.2019.06.009
          31285123
          00fe51f2-6071-4572-8828-def428d0e321
          © 2019

          https://www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/

          History

          Comments

          Comment on this article

          scite_
          0
          0
          0
          0
          Smart Citations
          0
          0
          0
          0
          Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
          View Citations

          See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

          scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

          Similar content2,223

          Cited by15