4.5 Article

Neuromuscular electrical stimulation in mechanically ventilated patients: A randomized, sham-controlled pilot trial with blinded outcome assessment

Journal

JOURNAL OF CRITICAL CARE
Volume 30, Issue 1, Pages 32-39

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2014.09.014

Keywords

Randomized controlled trial; Electric stimulation; Critical illness; Intensive care units; Respiration artificial; Muscle

Funding

  1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research Fellowship Award
  2. Bisby Prize
  3. National Institutes of Health (NIH) [T32HL007534-31]
  4. National Center for Research Resources, NIH [UL1 RR 025005]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: The purpose of the study is to compare neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) vs sham on leg strength at hospital discharge in mechanically ventilated patients. Materials and methods: We conducted a randomized pilot study of NMES vs sham applied to 3 bilateral lower extremity muscle groups for 60 minutes daily in the intensive care unit (ICU). Between June 2008 and March 2013, we enrolled adults who were receiving mechanical ventilation within the first week of ICU stay and who could transfer independently from bed to chair before hospital admission. The primary outcome was lower extremity muscle strength at hospital discharge using Medical Research Council score (maximum, 30). Secondary outcomes at hospital discharge included walking distance and change in lower extremity strength from ICU awakening. Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT00709124. Results: We stopped enrollment early after 36 patients due to slow patient accrual and the end of research funding. For NMES vs sham, mean (SD) lower extremity strength was 28 (2) vs 27 (3), P = .072. Among secondary outcomes, NMES vs sham patients had a greater mean (SD) walking distance (514 [389] vs 251 [210] ft, P = .050) and increase in muscle strength (5.7 [5.1] vs 1.8 [2.7], P = .019). Conclusions: In this pilot randomized trial, NMES did not significantly improve leg strength at hospital discharge. Significant improvements in secondary outcomes require investigation in future research. (C) 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available