Evidence Hub

Understanding the Neuroplastic Effects of Auricular Vagus Nerve Stimulation in Animal Models of Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Paulo S. de Melo, Joao Parente, Ingrid Rebello-Sanchez, A. Marduy, A. Gianlorenço, Chi Kyung Kim, Hyuk Choi, Jae-Jun Song et al.

Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, 2023

15 citations

Abstract

Background Transauricular vagus nerve stimulation (taVNS) is being studied as a feasible intervention for stroke, but the mechanisms by which this non-invasive technique acts in the cortex are still broadly unknown. Objectives This study aimed to systematically review the current pre-clinical evidence in the auricular vagus nerve stimulation (aVNS) neuroplastic effects in stroke. Methods We searched, in December of 2022, in Medline, Cochrane, Embase, and Lilacs databases. The authors executed the extraction of the data on Excel. The risk of bias was evaluated by adapted Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for animal studies (SYRCLES’s RoB tool). Results A total of 8 studies published between 2015 and 2022 were included in this review, including 391 animal models. In general, aVNS demonstrated a reduction in neurological deficits (SMD = −1.97, 95% CI −2.57 to −1.36, I2 = 44%), in time to perform the adhesive removal test (SMD = −2.26, 95% CI −4.45 to −0.08, I2 = 81%), and infarct size (SMD = −1.51, 95% CI −2.42 to −0.60, I2 = 58%). Regarding the neuroplasticity markers, aVNS showed to increase microcapillary density, CD31 proliferation, and BDNF protein levels and RNA expression. Conclusions The studies analyzed show a trend of results that demonstrate a significant effect of the auricular vagal nerve stimulation in stroke animal models. Although the aggregated results show high heterogeneity and high risk of bias. More studies are needed to create solid conclusions.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in animal, not in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free