Literature DB >> 28610546

Neuromuscular electrical stimulation for the prevention of venous thromboembolism.

Raveena Ravikumar1, Katherine J Williams1, Adarsh Babber1, Hayley M Moore1, Tristan Ra Lane1, Joseph Shalhoub1, Alun H Davies1.   

Abstract

Objective Venous thromboembolism, encompassing deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality, affecting one in 1000 adults per year. Neuromuscular electrical stimulation is the transcutaneous application of electrical impulses to elicit muscle contraction, preventing venous stasis. This review aims to investigate the evidence underlying the use of neuromuscular electrical stimulation in thromboprophylaxis. Methods The Medline and Embase databases were systematically searched, adhering to PRISMA guidelines, for articles relating to electrical stimulation and thromboprophylaxis. Articles were screened according to a priori inclusion and exclusion criteria. Results The search strategy identified 10 randomised controlled trials, which were used in three separate meta-analyses: five trials compared neuromuscular electrical stimulation to control, favouring neuromuscular electrical stimulation (odds ratio of deep vein thrombosis 0.29, 95% confidence interval 0.13-0.65; P = .003); three trials compared neuromuscular electrical stimulation to heparin, favouring heparin (odds ratio of deep vein thrombosis 2.00, 95% confidence interval 1.13-3.52; P = .02); three trials compared neuromuscular electrical stimulation as an adjunct to heparin versus heparin only, demonstrating no significant difference (odds ratio of deep vein thrombosis 0.33, 95% confidence interval 0.10-1.14; P = .08). Conclusion Neuromuscular electrical stimulation significantly reduces the risk of deep vein thrombosis compared to no prophylaxis. It is inferior to heparin in preventing deep vein thrombosis and there is no evidence for its use as an adjunct to heparin.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis; deep vein thrombosis

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28610546     DOI: 10.1177/0268355517710130

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Phlebology        ISSN: 0268-3555            Impact factor:   1.740


  4 in total

1.  Effect of neuromuscular electrical stimulation combined with swallowing rehabilitation training on the treatment efficacy and life quality of stroke patients with dysphagia.

Authors:  Zhimei Tan; Xiangyang Wei; Chunmei Tan; Haiming Wang; Shanshan Tian
Journal:  Am J Transl Res       Date:  2022-02-15       Impact factor: 4.060

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.  Clinical Study of Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation in the Prevention of Deep Venous Thrombosis of Lower Extremities after Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.

Authors:  Jun Xiong; Qingsong Zhang; Yanan Li
Journal:  J Healthc Eng       Date:  2022-03-11       Impact factor: 2.682

Review 4.  Effect of neuromuscular electrical stimulation on the recovery of people with COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit: A narrative review.

Authors:  Louise C Burgess; Lalitha Venugopalan; James Badger; Tamsyn Street; Gad Alon; Jonathan C Jarvis; Thomas W Wainwright; Tamara Everington; Paul Taylor; Ian D Swain
Journal:  J Rehabil Med       Date:  2021-03-18       Impact factor: 2.912

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.