Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2020 Aug;23(6):770-777.
doi: 10.1111/ner.13127. Epub 2020 Feb 25.

A Head-to-Head Comparison of Percutaneous Mastoid Electrical Stimulator and Supraorbital Transcutaneous Stimulator in the Prevention of Migraine: A Prospective, Randomized Controlled Study

Yushuang Deng  1 , Min Zheng  2 , Lanying He  1 , Juan Yang  3 , Gang Yu  4 , Jian Wang  1
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

A Head-to-Head Comparison of Percutaneous Mastoid Electrical Stimulator and Supraorbital Transcutaneous Stimulator in the Prevention of Migraine: A Prospective, Randomized Controlled Study

Yushuang Deng et al. Neuromodulation. 2020 Aug.

Abstract

Introduction: This prospective, randomized, multicenter head-to-head outcome study was performed to compare the efficacy and safety of Percutaneous Mastoid Electrical Stimulator (PMES) and Supraorbital Transcutaneous Stimulator (STS) in migraine prevention.

Methods: This was a prospective, randomized, head-to-head outcome study that involved three medical centers. After a one-month run-in, episodic patients with at least two migraine attacks/month were randomized to receive PMES daily for 45 min or STS daily for 20 min for three months. The primary outcomes were change in monthly migraine days and the 50% response rate.

Results: A total of 90 patients were included in this study. We observed statistically significant reduction of migraine days in the third month treatment both in the PMES group and STS group. The difference between the two groups was not significant (60.5% vs. 53.8%, p = 0.88). Of note, 77.8% patients in the PMES group and 62.2% patients in the STS group had a ≥50% reduction of migraine days in the third month (p = 0.070). The change in monthly migraine days, monthly migraine attacks, severity of migraine days, accompanying symptoms during migraine and monthly acute anti-migraine drug intake were not significantly different between the two groups. The change of Headache Impact Test-6 (HIT-6) from run-in to the third-month treatment in the STS group was more remarkable than that in the PMES group (36.5% vs. 25.6%, p = 0.041). The occurrence of discomfort paresthesia was higher in the STS group (13.3% vs. 0%, p = 0.026).

Conclusion: PMES and STS treatment were both effective in migraine prevention. The safety and efficacy of PMES and STS were comparable.

Keywords: Migraine; PMES; STS; percutaneous mastoid electrical stimulator; supraorbital transcutaneous stimulator; treatment.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

REFERENCES

    1. Dodick DW. Migraine. Lancet 2018;391:1315-1330.
    1. Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 328 diseases and injuries for 195 countries, 1990-2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. Lancet 2017;390:1211-1259.
    1. GBD 2015 Neurological Disorders Collaborator Group. Global, regional, and national burden of neurological disorders during 1990-2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study2015. Lancet Neurol 2017;16:877-897.
    1. Vecsei L, Majlath Z, Szok D, Csati A, Tajti J. Drug safety and tolerability in prophylactic migraine treatment. Expert Opin Drug Saf 2015;14:667-681.
    1. Blumenfeld AM, Bloudek LM, Becker WJ et al. Patterns of use and reasons for discontinuation of prophylactic medications for episodic migraine and chronic migraine: Results from the second international burden of migraine study (IBMS-II). Headache 2015;53:644-655.

Publication types