Comparison of the effects of different frequency rTMS treatments on secondary epilepsy after cerebral infarction

doi:10.19854/j.cnki.1008-2425.2025.04.0005

Abstract

Abstract: Objective To investigate the effect of different frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) on secondary epilepsy after cerebral infarction. Methods A total of 122 patients with epilepsy secondary to cerebral infarction who were treated in our hospital from June 2022 to January 2024 were selected and randomly divided into group A (n=61) and group B(n=61) using a random number table method.Both groups were given conventional drug therapy and group cognitive training.Group A received 1.0 Hz rTMS,while group B received 0.5 Hz rTMS.The efficacy,rehabilitation indicators [Seizure Status Epilepsy Severity Scale (STESS) score,monthly seizure frequency,and duration of each seizure],neurological function [Modified Rankin Scale (mRS)],cognitive function [Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE)],oxidative-antioxidant indicators [serum malondialdehyde (MDA),total antioxidant capacity (TAC),superoxide dismutase (SOD),glutathione peroxidase (GSH-Px)],factors related to neurological injury [glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP),S-100β,neuron-specific enolase (NSE)],indicators related to inflammation [hippocampal nuclear transcription factor κB (NF-κB),interleukin-1β (IL-1β),tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α)],and safety were compared between the two groups. Results The total effective rate of group A was 93.44% (57/61) higher than that of group B (80.33% (49/61) (P＜0.05).After treatment,STESS score,mRS Score,monthly seizure frequency and duration of epilepsy in group A were lower than those in group B,and MMSE score was higher than those in group B (P＜0.05).After treatment,TAC,SOD and GSH-Px in group A were higher than those in group B,MDA,GFAP,IL-1β,S-100β,NSE,NF-κB and TNF-α were lower than those in group B (P＜0.05).Neither group experienced adverse reactions,abnormalities in liver and kidney function,or blood routine tests. Conclusion Compared with 0.50 Hz low-frequency rTMS,1.0 Hz low-frequency rTMS has better therapeutic effects on secondary epilepsy after cerebral infarction,which can better alleviate epilepsy symptoms by inhibiting oxidative stress and inflammatory response,improve neurological damage and cognitive impairment,and is highly safe.

Key words: Cerebral infarction, Secondary epilepsy, Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, Frequency, Neurological function

摘要： 目的探讨不同频率重复经颅磁刺激(rTMS)治疗脑梗死继发癫痫中效果。方法选取2022年6月~2024年1月于我院就诊的脑梗死继发癫痫患者122例,以随机数字表法分为A组(n=61)、B组(n=61),均给予常规药物治疗及小组认知训练,A组联合1.0HZ rTMS,B组联合0.5HZ rTMS,比较两组疗效、康复指标[癫痫持续状态严重程度量表(STESS)评分、癫痫每月发作次数、癫痫每次持续时间]、神经功能[改良Rankin量表(mRS)]、认知功能[简易精神状态评价量表(MMSE)]、氧化-抗氧化指标[血清丙二醛(MDA)、总抗氧化能力(TAC)、超氧化物歧化酶(SOD)、谷胱甘肽过氧化物酶(GSH-Px)]、神经损伤相关因子[胶质酸性纤维蛋白(GFAP)、S-100β、神经元特异性烯醇化酶(NSE)]、炎症相关指标[海马核转录因子κB(NF-κB)、白介素-1β(IL-1β)、肿瘤坏死因子-α(TNF-α)]及安全性。结果 A组总有效率93.44%(57/61)明显高于B组80.33%(49/61)(P＜0.05);治疗后A组STESS评分、mRS评分、癫痫每月发作次数、癫痫持续时间低于B组,MMSE评分高于B组(P＜0.05);治疗后A组TAC、SOD、GSH-Px高于B组,MDA、GFAP、IL-1β、S-100β、NSE、NF-κB、TNF-α低于B组(P＜0.05);两组均未发生不良反应、未出现肝肾功能、血常规异常。结论相比0.50Hz低频rTMS,1.0Hz低频rTMS治疗脑梗死继发癫痫效果更佳,可通过抑制机体氧化应激、炎症反应更好地减轻癫痫症状,改善神经损伤、认知障碍,且安全性高。

关键词: 脑梗死, 继发癫痫, 重复经颅磁刺激, 频率, 神经功能

CLC Number:

R742.1

Xing Chaoran, Ning Liangxia, Qiao Bo, Zou Yinghui, Yuan Yongkang. Comparison of the effects of different frequency rTMS treatments on secondary epilepsy after cerebral infarction[J]. Chinese Journal of Stereotactic and Functional Neurosurgery, 2025, 38(4): 220-226.

行超然, 宁良霞, 乔波, 邹映慧, 原永康. 不同频率rTMS治疗脑梗死继发癫痫的效果对比[J]. 立体定向和功能性神经外科杂志, 2025, 38(4): 220-226.

References

[1] Song LL,Wang YM,Wu XX,et al.Correlation between AT1R gene polymorphism and epilepsy secondary to cerebral infarction[J].Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci,2020,24(12):6873~6880.
[2] Wang D,Hu B,Dai Y,et al.Serum uric acid is highly associated with epilepsy secondary to cerebral infarction[J].Neurotox Res,2019,35(1):63~70.
[3] Falco-Walter J.Epilepsy-definition,classification,pathophysiology,and epidemiology[J].Semin Neurol,2020,40(6):617~623.
[4] Sultana B,Panzini MA,Veilleux Carpentier A,et al.Incidence and prevalence of drug-resistant epilepsy:a systematic review and meta-analysis[J].Neurology,2021,96(17):805~817.
[5] Marini C,Giardino M.Novel treatments in epilepsy guided by genetic diagnosis[J].Br J Clin Pharmacol,2022,88(6):2539~2551.
[6] Hakami T.Neuropharmacology of antiseizure drugs[J].Neuropsychopharmacol Rep,2021,41(3):336~351.
[7] Perucca E,White HS,Bialer M.New GABA-targeting therapies for the treatment of seizures and epilepsy:II.treatments in clinical development[J].CNS Drugs,2023,37(9):781~795.
[8] Kanner AM,Bicchi MM.Antiseizure medications for adults with epilepsy:a review[J].Jama,2022,327(13):1269~1281.
[9] Hamed SA.Cortical excitability in epilepsy and the impact of antiepileptic drugs:transcranial magnetic stimulation applications[J].Expert Rev Neurother,2020,20(7):707~723.
[10] Gefferie SR,Jiménez-Jiménez D,Visser GH,et al.Transcranial magnetic stimulation-evoked electroencephalography responses as biomarkers for epilepsy:A review of study design and outcomes[J].Hum Brain Mapp,2023,44(8):3446~3460.
[11] 邓琴琴,王梦阳.重复经颅磁刺激治疗药物难治性癫痫的临床研究进展[J].临床神经病学杂志,2021,34(1):62~64.
[12] 中华医学会神经病学分会脑电图与癫痫学组.卒中后癫痫诊治的中国专家共识[J].中华脑血管病杂志(电子版),2022,16(2):80~83.
[13] 中国抗癫痫协会.临床诊疗指南:癫痫病分册[M].北京:人民卫生出版社,2015:16~69.
[14] 张群群,刘灵芝,苏军,等.血清新饱食分子蛋白1联合癫痫持续状态严重程度评分量表评分对儿童癫痫持续状态近期预后的预测价值分析[J].中华实用儿科临床杂志,2022,37(9):687~691.
[15] 孙冲,徐迪荣,李碧磊.改良Rankin量表在急性大面积脑梗死长期生存的预后价值[J].医学研究杂志,2012,41(12):179~182.
[16] 许曦鸣,于洋,戚小航,等.简易精神状态量表(MMSE)对长期饮酒的老年患者全麻腹腔镜术后认知功能的评价[J].河北医药,2017,39(13):1995~1997.
[17] Andreasson AC,Sigurdsson GV,Pegenius G,et al.Cortical excitability measured with transcranial magnetic stimulation in children with epilepsy before and after antiepileptic drugs[J].Develop Med Child Neuro,2020,62(7):793~798.
[18] 关晨霞,郭钢花,李哲.不同频率低频重复经颅磁刺激对有癫痫发作史的颅脑损伤患者认知功能的影响[J].中华物理医学与康复杂志,2016,38(5):349~352.
[19] 张元元.不同频率低频重复经颅磁刺激对癫痫患者认知功能及生活质量的影响[J].首都食品与医药,2020,27(9):50~51.
[20] Mishra A,Maiti R,Mishra BR,et al.Effect of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on seizure frequency and epileptiform discharges in drug-resistant epilepsy:a meta-analysis[J].J Clin Neurol,2020,16(1):9~18.
[21] Ŀukawski K,Czuczwar SJ.Oxidative stress and neurodegeneration in animal models of seizures and epilepsy[J].Antioxidants,2023,12(5):1049.
[22] Pracucci E,Pillai V,Lamers D,et al.Neuroinflammation:a signature or a cause of epilepsy[J].Int J Mol Sci,2021,22(13):6981.
[23] 陈小妮,谭会会,殷艳玲,等.癫痫发作患者病情严重程度与氧化应激指标、BDNF、IGF-1水平的关系[J].医学临床研究,2023,40(4):485~488.
[24] Liu C,Zhao XM,Wang Q,et al.Astrocyte-derived SerpinA3N promotes neuroinflammation and epileptic seizures by activating the NF-κB signaling pathway in mice with temporal lobe epilepsy[J].J Neuroinflammation,2023,20(1):161.
[25] 彭羽,林赟,余能伟,等.银杏叶提取物联合低频重复经颅磁刺激治疗缺血性脑卒中的临床研究[J].四川大学学报(医学版),2021,52(5):883~889.
[26] 张风林,柳惠青,姚玮,等.经颅磁刺激联合医痫丸辅助治疗颅脑外伤继发性癫痫效果观察[J].山东医药,2017,57(20):52~54.
[27] Wen F,Yu LZ,Xia CC,et al.Development and study of S100 calcium-binding protein B and Neuron-specific enolase-based predictive model for epilepsy secondary to cerebral infarction[J].Cell Mol Biol (Noisy-le-grand),2022,68(10):130~135.
[28] Fan Y,Wang W,Li W,et al.miR-15a inhibits cell apoptosis and inflammation in a temporal lobe epilepsy model by downregulating GFAP[J].Mol Med Rep,2020,22(4):3504~3512.