Contralesional Cathodal versus Dual Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation for Decreasing Upper Limb Spasticity in Chronic Stroke Individuals: A Clinical and Neurophysiological Study

Background Different transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) paradigms have been implemented to treat poststroke spasticity, but discordant results have been reported. Objective This study aimed to determine the efficacy and persistence of dual tDCS (anode over affected motor cortex [M1] and cathode over contralateral M1) compared with cathodal tDCS (cathode over contralateral M1) on upper limb (UL) functional, behavioral, and neurophysiological measures in chronic poststroke individuals. Subjects and Methods Ten subjects with UL spasticity (7 men; mean 62 years; 8 ischemic stroke; years from event: 2.3 years) were enrolled in a cross-over, double-blinded study. Cathodal and dual tDCS, both preceded by 1 week of sham stimulation 1 month before real stimulation, were applied with 3 months interval. Stimulating paradigm was 20 minutes for five consecutive days in each block. Evaluations were performed before (T1), after real or sham treatment (T2), and after 1 (T3), 4 (T4), and 8 weeks (T5). Functional, behavioral, and neurophysiological tests were performed at each time. Results Both tDCS paradigms decreased spasticity, increased strength, and ameliorated behavioral scales. Cathodal tDCS was superior to dual tDCS in reducing UL distal spasticity immediately after treatment (T2: cathodal > dual: P = .023) and provided a higher and longer lasting reduction at proximal districts (T3: cathodal > dual: P = .042; T4: cathodal > dual: P = .028; T5: cathodal > dual: P = .05). These findings are supported by an H-reflex modulation (overall time effect P > .002). Conclusions Cathodal tDCS is slightly more effective than dual tDCS in reducing distal UL spasticity in chronic poststroke subjects. A modulation of spinal inhibitory mechanisms, demonstrated by H-reflex modifications, supports this finding