Literature DB >> 25154429

Comparative lower limb hemodynamics using neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) versus intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC).

Barry J Broderick1, Sandra O'Connell, Shelly Moloney, Kevin O'Halloran, James Sheehan, Fabio Quondamatteo, Leo R Quinlan, Gearoid OLaighin.   

Abstract

Deep Vein Thrombosis (DVT) is a life threatening condition and a serious concern among hospitalised patients, with death occurring in approximately 6% of cases. Intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) is commonly used for DVT prevention, however suffers from low compliance and issues of usability and portability. Neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) has been shown to improve lower limb hemodynamics but direct comparison with IPC in terms of hemodynamics is rare but very important to determine the potential effectiveness of NMES in DVT prevention.Lower limb IPC was compared to calf NMES, in 30 healthy volunteers (18-23 years). Each intervention was carried out on each leg, on the popliteal vein measured using Doppler ultrasound. All interventions produced significantly greater haemodynamic responses compared to baseline. Calf-IPC and NMES produced significant increases in venous blood velocity (cm/s) and volume of blood ejected per cycle (1 cycle of NMES expels 23.22 ml compared to the baseline ejected volume of 2.52 ml, measured over 1 s (p < 0.001 versues baseline).Improving lower limb hemodynamics is vital in preventing DVT. NMES resulted in larger ejected volumes compared to IPC (x3 greater than foot-IPC and x1.7 greater than calf-IPC) more effectively emptying the veins and soleal sinuses. This is an important finding as DVT occurs predominantly in the soleal sinuses. NMES is silent and portable and thus does not suffer many of the issues associated with IPC. This work supports the potential widespread application of NMES in hospital and home settings where the risk of DVT formation is high.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25154429     DOI: 10.1088/0967-3334/35/9/1849

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Physiol Meas        ISSN: 0967-3334            Impact factor:   2.833


  6 in total

1.  Hemodynamic effects of electrical muscle stimulation in the prophylaxis of deep vein thrombosis for intensive care unit patients: a randomized trial.

Authors:  Masahiro Ojima; Ryosuke Takegawa; Tomoya Hirose; Mitsuo Ohnishi; Tadahiko Shiozaki; Takeshi Shimazu
Journal:  J Intensive Care       Date:  2017-01-13

2.  Electrical stimulation devices for the prevention of venous thromboembolism: Preliminary studies of physiological efficacy and user satisfaction.

Authors:  James Badger; Paul Taylor; Neil Papworth; Ian Swain
Journal:  J Rehabil Assist Technol Eng       Date:  2018-09-25

3.  Effects of electrode size and placement on comfort and efficiency during low-intensity neuromuscular electrical stimulation of quadriceps, hamstrings and gluteal muscles.

Authors:  J Flodin; R Juthberg; P W Ackermann
Journal:  BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil       Date:  2022-01-16

4.  Effects on venous flow of transcutaneous electrical stimulation, neuromuscular stimulation, and sham stimulation on soleus muscle: A randomized crossover study in healthy subjects.

Authors:  Francisco Senin-Camargo; Alicia Martínez-Rodríguez; Marcelo Chouza-Insua; Isabel Raposo-Vidal; M Amalia Jácome
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2022-09-02       Impact factor: 1.817

Review 5.  Electrical muscle stimulation in thomboprophylaxis: review and a derived hypothesis about thrombogenesis-the 4th factor.

Authors:  Christos Stefanou
Journal:  Springerplus       Date:  2016-06-24

6.  Effects of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation via peroneal nerve or soleus muscle on venous flow: A randomized cross-over study in healthy subjects.

Authors:  Alicia Martínez-Rodríguez; Francisco Senin-Camargo; Isabel Raposo-Vidal; Marcelo Chouza-Insua; Beatriz Rodríguez-Romero; M Amalia Jácome
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2018-09       Impact factor: 1.817

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.