This review updates and consolidates evidence on the safety of transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS). Safety is here operationally defined by, and limited to, the absence of evidence for a Serious Adverse Effect, the criteria for which are rigorously defined. This review adopts an evidence-based approach, based on an aggregation of experience from human trials, taking care not to confuse speculation on potential hazards or lack of data to refute such speculation with evidence for risk. Safety data from animal tests for tissue damage are reviewed with systematic consideration of translation to humans. Arbitrary safety considerations are avoided. Computational models are used to relate dose to brain exposure in humans and animals. We review relevant dose-response curves and dose metrics (e.g. current, duration, current density, charge, charge density) for meaningful safety standards. Special consideration is given to theoretically vulnerable populations including children and the elderly, subjects with mood disorders, epilepsy, stroke, implants, and home users. Evidence from relevant animal models indicates that brain injury by Direct Current Stimulation (DCS) occurs at predicted brain current densities (6.3–13 A/m2) that are over an order of magnitude above those produced by conventional tDCS. To date, the use of conventional tDCS protocols in human trials (≤40 min, ≤4 mA, ≤7.2 Coulombs) has not produced any reports of a Serious Adverse Effect or irreversible injury across over 33,200 sessions and 1,000 subjects with repeated sessions. This includes a wide variety of subjects, including persons from potentially vulnerable populations.

Objective: Understanding how current reaches the brain during transcranial Electrical Stimulation (tES) underpins efforts to rationalize outcomes and optimize interventions. To this end, computational models of current flow relate applied dose to brain electric field. Conventional tES modeling considers distinct tissues like scalp, skull, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), gray matter and white matter. The properties of highly conductive CSF are especially important. However, modeling the space between skull and brain as entirely CSF is not an accurate representation of anatomy. The space conventionally modeled as CSF is approximately half meninges (dura, arachnoid, and pia) with lower conductivity. However, the resolution required to describe individual meningeal layers is computationally restrictive in an MRI-derived head model. Emulating the effect of meninges through CSF conductivity modification could improve accuracy with minimal cost. Approach: Models with meningeal layers were developed in a concentric sphere head model. Then, in a model with only CSF between skull and brain, CSF conductivity was optimized to emulate the effect of meningeal layers on cortical electric field for multiple electrode positions. This emulated conductivity was applied to MRI-derived models. Main results: Compared to a model with conventional CSF conductivity (1.65 S/m), emulated CSF conductivity (0.85 S/m) produced voltage fields better correlated with intracranial recordings from epilepsy patients. Significance: Conventional tES mpodels have been validated using intracranial recording. Residual errors may nonetheless impact model utility. Because CSF is so conductive to current flow, misrepresentation of the skull-brain interface as entirely CSF is not realistic for tES After the embargo period, everyone is permitted to use copy and redistribute this article for non-commercial purposes only, provided that they adhere to all the terms of the licence https://creativecommons.org/licences/by-nc-nd/3.0

No abstract

No abstract