Y Zayed1, B Kheiri2, M Barbarawi2, A Chahine2, L Rashdan2, S Chintalapati2, G Bachuwa2, I Al-Sanouri3. 1. Department of Internal Medicine, Hurley Medical Center/Michigan State University, Flint, MI, 48503, USA. Electronic address: yzayed1@hurleymc.com. 2. Department of Internal Medicine, Hurley Medical Center/Michigan State University, Flint, MI, 48503, USA. 3. Pulmonary and Critical Care Department, Hurley Medical Center/Michigan State University, Flint, MI, 48503, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the effect of neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NES) on prevention of critical care myopathy and its effect on various clinical outcomes in the intensive care unit (ICU). REVIEW METHODS USED: This study involved systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing NES (applied to different muscle groups combined with usual care) and usual care (passive and active exercises along with early mobilisation and rehabilitation). Included studies enrolled adult patients managed in the ICU for medical or surgical diseases who were or were not mechanically ventilated. The primary outcome was global muscle strength measured by the Medical Research Council grading system. Secondary outcomes included ICU mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation (MV), and ICU length of stay. Risk ratio for dichotomous data and mean difference (MD) for continuous data with their corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. DATA SOURCE: A search in major electronic databases, including PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase, from inception to November 2018 was carried out. RESULTS: Six RCTs were included, representing 718 patients. The mean age 60 ± 15.3 years, and 60.6% were male. There was no significant difference between NES and usual care on global muscle strength measured by Medical Research Council grading system (MD: 0.45; 95% CI: -2.89 to 3.80; p = 0.79), ICU mortality (risk ratio: 1.30; 95% CI: 0.95-1.78; p = 0.10), duration of MV (days) (MD: -2.07; 95% CI: -5.06 to 0.92; p = 0.18), or ICU length of stay (days) (MD: -3.06; 95% CI: -9.79 to 3.68; p = 0.37) in comparison with the usual therapy alone in critically ill patients. CONCLUSION: NES combined with usual care was not associated with significant differences in global muscle strength, ICU mortality, duration of MV, or ICU length of stay in comparison with usual care alone in critically ill patients. Further RCTs are needed to determine patients with maximum benefit and to examine NES safety and efficacy.
OBJECTIVES: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the effect of neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NES) on prevention of critical care myopathy and its effect on various clinical outcomes in the intensive care unit (ICU). REVIEW METHODS USED: This study involved systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing NES (applied to different muscle groups combined with usual care) and usual care (passive and active exercises along with early mobilisation and rehabilitation). Included studies enrolled adult patients managed in the ICU for medical or surgical diseases who were or were not mechanically ventilated. The primary outcome was global muscle strength measured by the Medical Research Council grading system. Secondary outcomes included ICU mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation (MV), and ICU length of stay. Risk ratio for dichotomous data and mean difference (MD) for continuous data with their corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. DATA SOURCE: A search in major electronic databases, including PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase, from inception to November 2018 was carried out. RESULTS: Six RCTs were included, representing 718 patients. The mean age 60 ± 15.3 years, and 60.6% were male. There was no significant difference between NES and usual care on global muscle strength measured by Medical Research Council grading system (MD: 0.45; 95% CI: -2.89 to 3.80; p = 0.79), ICU mortality (risk ratio: 1.30; 95% CI: 0.95-1.78; p = 0.10), duration of MV (days) (MD: -2.07; 95% CI: -5.06 to 0.92; p = 0.18), or ICU length of stay (days) (MD: -3.06; 95% CI: -9.79 to 3.68; p = 0.37) in comparison with the usual therapy alone in critically illpatients. CONCLUSION: NES combined with usual care was not associated with significant differences in global muscle strength, ICU mortality, duration of MV, or ICU length of stay in comparison with usual care alone in critically illpatients. Further RCTs are needed to determine patients with maximum benefit and to examine NES safety and efficacy.
Authors: Maryam Balke; Marc Teschler; Hendrik Schäfer; Pantea Pape; Frank C Mooren; Boris Schmitz Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2022-05-09 Impact factor: 4.755
Authors: Kevin Cheung; Alasdair Rathbone; Michel Melanson; Jessica Trier; Benjamin R Ritsma; Matti D Allen Journal: J Appl Physiol (1985) Date: 2021-03-18
Authors: Alessandra Fabiane Lago; Anibal Basile-Filho; Anamaria Siriani de Oliveira; Hugo Celso Dutra de Souza; Daniele Oliveira Dos Santos; Ada Clarice Gastaldi Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-02-17 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Rahel Vollenweider; Anastasios I Manettas; Nathalie Häni; Eling D de Bruin; Ruud H Knols Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-05-12 Impact factor: 3.752