Brain Stimulation (Nov 2022)

Assessment of safety and feasibility of non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation for treatment of acute stroke

  • Ethem Murat Arsava,
  • Mehmet Akif Topcuoglu,
  • Ilknur Ay,
  • Atilla Ozcan Ozdemir,
  • Ibrahim Levent Gungor,
  • Canan Togay Isikay,
  • Bijen Nazliel,
  • Hasan Huseyin Kozak,
  • Serefnur Ozturk,
  • İbrahim Arda Yilmaz,
  • Babur Dora,
  • Hakan Ay,
  • Ali Unal,
  • Tugba Ozel,
  • Mine Hayriye Sorgun,
  • Eda Aslanbaba Bahadır,
  • Elif Peker,
  • Ozlem Aykac,
  • Zaur Mehdiyev,
  • Hale Zeynep Batur Caglayan,
  • Asli Akyol Gurses,
  • Mehmet Yasir Pektezel,
  • Ezgi Yilmaz,
  • Dogan Dinc Oge,
  • Safak Parlak,
  • Ahmet Bugrul,
  • Hilal Ozguner,
  • Aysu Cetiner Seker,
  • Gokhan Ozdemir,
  • Gozde Ongun,
  • Sueda Ecem Yilmaz,
  • Cihat Ozguncu,
  • Saziye Melike Turan Isik,
  • Omer Faruk Ildiz,
  • Azer Mammadli,
  • Aydin Talip Yildogan,
  • Candace McClure

Journal volume & issue
Vol. 15, no. 6
pp. 1467 – 1474

Abstract

Read online

Background: Non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS) using a hand-held stimulator placed on the neck is an FDA-approved treatment for primary headache disorders. The safety of nVNS is unknown in stroke patients. Objective: To assess the safety and feasibility of nVNS for the acute treatment of stroke. Methods: TR-VENUS (clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT03733431) was a randomized, sham-controlled, open-label, multicenter trial conducted in patients with acute ischemic stroke (IS) or intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH). Patients were randomly assigned to standard-dose nVNS, high-dose nVNS, or sham stimulation. The primary endpoint was a composite safety outcome defined as bradycardia or reduction in mean arterial blood pressure during treatment or progression of neurological or death within 24 h of treatment. The feasibility endpoints were the proportion of eligible subjects receiving nVNS within 6 h of symptom onset and the proportion completing all pre-specified treatment doses. Efficacy assessments included infarct growth from baseline to 24 h after treatment. Results: Sixty-nine patients (61 IS, 8 ICH) completed the study. The composite safety outcome was achieved in 32.0% in sham and 47.7% in nVNS group (p = 0.203). Treatment was initiated in all but two randomized patients. All dosed subjects received 100% of prespecified stimulations. A non-significant reduction in infarct growth was observed in the high-dose nVNS group (184.2% in sham vs. 63.3% in high-dose nVNS; p = 0.109). Conclusions: The results of this study suggest that nVNS may be safe and feasible in the setting of acute stroke. These findings support further development of nVNS as a potential treatment for acute ischemic stroke.

Keywords