Back

Transauricular vagus nerve stimulation for aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage: a pilot randomised controlled trial

Myers, M.; Robson, F.; Baig, S.; Kular, S.; Aziz, M.; Burchi, E.; Battacharyya, D.; Li, S.; Majid, A.; Ali, A. N.

2026-08-31 neurology
10.64898/2026.08.25.26361366 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background: Aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage (aSAH) is frequently complicated by delayed cerebral ischaemia (DCI), for which current therapies incompletely target the underlying multifactorial pathophysiology. Transauricular vagus nerve stimulation (taVNS) modulates inflammatory, vasoactive and autonomic pathways and may attenuate secondary brain injury after aSAH. Methods: We conducted a prospective, single-centre, single-blind, randomised, sham-controlled pilot trial in adults within 5 days of aneurysm securing for non-traumatic aSAH. Participants were allocated 1:1 to active taVNS (left tragus) or sham (left earlobe) using a portable device delivered for 45 minutes twice daily over 5 days. Primary outcomes were safety (taVNS-related serious adverse events), acceptability, and compliance; secondary outcomes included inflammatory biomarkers, DCI, in-hospital complications, and functional outcomes to 1 month. Results: Thirty patients were randomised (16 taVNS, 14 sham), with numerically more severe aSAH at baseline in the taVNS arm. No taVNS-related serious adverse events occurred; side effects were generally mild and transient, and over 80% of planned sessions were completed. TaVNS produced greater reductions in serum tumour necrosis factor- and trends towards reductions in interleukin-1{beta} and interleukin-10, with numerically fewer DCI events (6.6% vs 35.7%) and neurological impairments (16.7% vs 53.8%), although functional outcomes were not statistically different at 1 month. Conclusions: Early taVNS after aSAH is safe, acceptable, and feasible in the neurocritical care setting and shows biologically plausible signals warranting evaluation in larger multi-centre trials.

Matching journals

The top 9 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.