Dataset Information

Effect of cervical manipulation on vertebral artery and cerebral haemodynamics in patients with chronic neck pain: a crossover randomised controlled trial.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:It is hypothesised that cervical manipulation may increase the risk of cerebrovascular accidents. We aimed to determine whether cervical spine manipulation is associated with changes in vertebral artery and cerebrovascular haemodynamics measured with MRI compared with neutral neck position and maximum neck rotation in patients with chronic neck pain. SETTING:The Imaging Research Centre at St. Joseph's Hospital in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. PARTICIPANTS:Twenty patients were included. The mean age was 32 years (SD ±12.5), mean neck pain duration was 5.3 years (SD ±5.7) and mean neck disability index score was 13/50 (SD ±6.4). INTERVENTIONS:Following baseline measurement of cerebrovascular haemodynamics, we randomised participants to: (1) maximal neck rotation followed by cervical manipulation or (2) cervical manipulation followed by maximal neck rotation. The primary outcome, vertebral arteries and cerebral haemodynamics, was measured after each intervention and was obtained by measuring three-dimensional T1-weighted high-resolution anatomical images, arterial spin labelling and phase-contrast flow encoded MRI. Our secondary outcome was functional connectivity within the default mode network measured with resting state functional MRI. RESULTS:Compared with neutral neck position, we found a significant change in contralateral blood flow following maximal neck rotation. There was also a significant change in contralateral vertebral artery blood velocity following maximal neck rotation and cervical manipulation. We found no significant changes within the cerebral haemodynamics following cervical manipulation or maximal neck rotation. However, we observed significant increases in functional connectivity in the posterior cerebrum and cerebellum (resting state MRI) after manipulation and maximum rotation. CONCLUSION:Our results are in accordance with previous work, which has shown a decrease in blood flow and velocity in the contralateral vertebral artery with head rotation. This may explain why we also observed a decrease in blood velocity with manipulation because it involves neck rotation. Our work is the first to show that cervical manipulation does not result in brain perfusion changes compared with a neutral neck position or maximal neck rotation. The changes observed were found to not be clinically meaningful and suggests that cervical manipulation may not increase the risk of cerebrovascular events through a haemodynamic mechanism. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT02667821.

SUBMITTER: Moser N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6549698 | biostudies-literature | 2019 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effect of cervical manipulation on vertebral artery and cerebral haemodynamics in patients with chronic neck pain: a crossover randomised controlled trial.

Moser Nicholas N Mior Silvano S Noseworthy Michael M Côté Pierre P Wells Greg G Behr Michael M Triano John J

BMJ open 20190528 5

<h4>Objective</h4>It is hypothesised that cervical manipulation may increase the risk of cerebrovascular accidents. We aimed to determine whether cervical spine manipulation is associated with changes in vertebral artery and cerebrovascular haemodynamics measured with MRI compared with neutral neck position and maximum neck rotation in patients with chronic neck pain.<h4>Setting</h4>The Imaging Research Centre at St. Joseph's Hospital in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.<h4>Participants</h4>Twenty pati ...[more]

PMID: 31142519

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundGlucagon-like peptide-1 receptor (GLP-1R) activation may improve myocardial performance in the context of ischaemia, independent of glycaemic control, in individuals with and without type 2 diabetes mellitus.MethodsThe LIONESS trial was a single-centre randomised double-blind placebo-controlled crossover study to determine whether prolonged GLP-1R activation could improve exercise haemodynamics in chronic stable angina patients. Eligibility criteria comprised angiographic evidence of obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) and an abnormal baseline exercise tolerance test (ETT) demonstrating > 0.1 mV of planar or downsloping ST-segment depression (STD). Those randomised to active agent started with a 1-week run-in phase of 0.6 mg liraglutide daily, an established injectable GLP-1R agonist, followed by 1 week of 1.2 mg liraglutide, after which patients performed a week 2 ETT. Patients then self-administered 1.8 mg liraglutide for a week before completing a week 3 ETT. The placebo arm received visually and temporally matched daily saline injections. Participants then crossed over to a 3-week course of saline injections interspersed with a week 5 ETT and week 6 ETT and vice versa. Co-primary endpoints were rate pressure product (RPP) at 0.1 mV STD and magnitude of STD at peak exercise.ResultsTwenty-two patients (21 without diabetes) were randomised. There was no significant difference between saline versus liraglutide in the co-primary endpoints of RPP achieved at 0.1 mV STD (saline vs. liraglutide 1.2 mg p = 0.097; saline vs. liraglutide 1.8 mg p = 0.48) or the degree of STD at peak exercise (saline vs. liraglutide 1.2 mg p = 0.68; saline vs. liraglutide 1.8 mg p = 0.57). Liraglutide did not cause symptomatic hypoglycaemia, renal dysfunction, acute pancreatitis or provoke early withdrawal from the trial. Liraglutide significantly reduced weight (baseline 88.75 ± 16.5 kg vs. after liraglutide 87.78 ± 16.9 kg; p = 0.0008) and improved the lipid profile (mean total cholesterol: at baseline 3.97 ± 0.88 vs. after liraglutide 3.56 ± 0.71 mmol/L; p < 0.0001).ConclusionLiraglutide did not enhance exercise tolerance or haemodynamics compared with saline placebo during serial treadmill testing in patients with established obstructive CAD. It did, however, significantly reduce weight and improve the lipid profile. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT02315001. Retrospectively registered on 11th December 2014.

Project description:BackgroundEvidence indicates that supervised home exercises, combined or not with manual therapy, can be beneficial for patients with non-specific chronic neck pain (NCNP). The objective of the study is to investigate the efficacy of preventive spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) compared to a no treatment group in NCNP patients. Another objective is to assess the efficacy of SMT with and without a home exercise program.MethodsNinety-eight patients underwent a short symptomatic phase of treatment before being randomly allocated to either an attention-group (n = 29), a SMT group (n = 36) or a SMT + exercise group (n = 33). The preventive phase of treatment, which lasted for 10 months, consisted of meeting with a chiropractor every two months to evaluate and discuss symptoms (attention-control group), 1 monthly SMT session (SMT group) or 1 monthly SMT session combined with a home exercise program (SMT + exercise group). The primary and secondary outcome measures were represented by scores on a 10-cm visual analog scale (VAS), active cervical ranges of motion (cROM), the neck disability index (NDI) and the Bournemouth questionnaire (BQ). Exploratory outcome measures were scored on the Fear-avoidance Behaviour Questionnaire (FABQ) and the SF-12 Questionnaire.ResultsOur results show that, in the preventive phase of the trial, all 3 groups showed primary and secondary outcomes scores similar to those obtain following the non-randomised, symptomatic phase. No group difference was observed for the primary, secondary and exploratory variables. Significant improvements in FABQ scores were noted in all groups during the preventive phase of the trial. However, no significant change in health related quality of life (HRQL) was associated with the preventive phase.ConclusionsThis study hypothesised that participants in the combined intervention group would have less pain and disability and better function than participants from the 2 other groups during the preventive phase of the trial. This hypothesis was not supported by the study results. Lack of a treatment specific effect is discussed in relation to the placebo and patient provider interactions in manual therapies. Further research is needed to delineate the specific and non-specific effects of treatment modalities to prevent unnecessary disability and to minimise morbidity related to NCNP. Additional investigation is also required to identify the best strategies for secondary and tertiary prevention of NCNP.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00566930.

Project description:IntroductionJoint mobilisation and manipulation often results in immediate pain relief in people with neck pain. However, the biological mechanisms behind pain relief are largely unknown. There is preliminary evidence that joint mobilisation and manipulation lessens the upregulated neuroimmune responses in people with persistent neck pain.Methods and analysisThis study protocol describes a randomised placebo-controlled trial to investigate whether joint mobilisation and manipulation influence neuroimmune responses in people with persistent neck pain. People with persistent neck pain (N=100) will be allocated, in a randomised and concealed manner, to the experimental or control group (ratio 3:1). Short-term (ie, baseline, immediately after and 2 hours after the intervention) neuroimmune responses will be assessed, such as inflammatory marker concentration following in vitro stimulation of whole blood cells, systemic inflammatory marker concentrations directly from blood samples, phenotypic analysis of peripheral blood mononuclear cells and serum cortisol. Participants assigned to the experimental group (N=75) will receive cervical mobilisations targeting the painful and/or restricted cervical segments and a distraction manipulation of the cervicothoracic junction. Participants assigned to the control group (N=25) will receive a placebo mobilisation and placebo manipulation. Using linear mixed models, the short-term neuroimmune responses will be compared (1) between people in the experimental and control group and (2) within the experimental group, between people who experience a good outcome and those with a poor outcome. Furthermore, the association between the short-term neuroimmune responses and pain relief following joint mobilisation and manipulation will be tested in the experimental group.Ethics and disseminationThis trial is approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of Amsterdam University Medical Centre, location VUmc (Approval number: 2018.181).Trial registration numberNL6575 (trialregister.nl.

Project description:Spinal mobilisation/manipulation is a common intervention for spinal pain, yet the working mechanisms are largely unknown. A randomised placebo-controlled trial was conducted to (1) compare the immediate neuroimmune responses following spinal mobilisation/manipulation and placebo spinal mobilisation/manipulation; (2) compare the immediate neuroimmune responses of those with a good outcome with those of a poor outcome following spinal mobilisation/manipulation; and (3) explore the association between neuroimmune responses and pain reduction. One hundred patients were randomly allocated to spinal mobilisation/manipulation or a placebo mobilisation/manipulation. Primary outcomes were whole blood in-vitro evoked released concentrations of IL-1β and TNF-α measured 10 min and 2 h after the intervention. Immediate effects were studied because successful mobilisation/manipulation is often associated with immediate pain reduction, and immediate neuroimmune responses are less affected by potential confounders than long-term responses. Secondary outcomes included multiple systemic inflammatory marker concentrations, phenotypic analysis of white blood cells and clinical outcomes. Outcomes were compared between the experimental and placebo group, and between people with a good and poor outcome in the experimental group. Estimates of intervention effects were based on intention-to-treat analyses, by using linear mixed-effect models. Although there was a substantial difference in pain reduction between groups (mean (SD) difference visual analogue scale: 30 (21) mm at 10 min and 32 (21) mm at 2 h (p < 0.001) in favour of mobilisation/manipulation, there were no differences in primary outcomes between groups or between people with a good and poor outcome (p ≥ 0.10). In conclusion, possible neuroimmune responses following spinal mobilisations/manipulation cannot be identified at a systemic level. Future research may focus on longer treatment duration and more localised neuroimmune responses.

Dataset Information

Effect of cervical manipulation on vertebral artery and cerebral haemodynamics in patients with chronic neck pain: a crossover randomised controlled trial.

Publications

Effect of cervical manipulation on vertebral artery and cerebral haemodynamics in patients with chronic neck pain: a crossover randomised controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets