Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Respir Care. 2019 Mar;64(3):262-271. doi: 10.4187/respcare.05921. Epub 2019 Feb 5.

Effects of Electrical Muscle Stimulation in Subjects Undergoing Prolonged Mechanical Ventilation.

Author information

1
Department of Respiratory Therapy, College of Medicine, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan.
2
Department of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taoyuan, Taiwan.
3
Department of Respiratory Care, Chang Gung University of Science and Technology, Taiwan.
4
Department of Respiratory Therapy, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taoyuan, Taiwan.
5
Department of Respiratory Therapy, College of Medicine, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan. cch4848@adm.cgmh.org.tw.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Muscle atrophy and deconditioning are common complications in patients on prolonged mechanical ventilation (PMV). There are few studies that reviewed the effects of electrical muscle stimulation in this population. The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of electrical muscle stimulation on muscle function and hospitalization outcomes in subjects with PMV.

METHODS:

Subjects on mechanical ventilation for ≥21 d were randomly assigned to the electrical muscle stimulation group (n = 16) or the control group (n = 17). The electrical muscle stimulation group received daily muscle electrical stimulation for 30 min/session for 10 d. The measurement of muscle strength (by medical research council [MRC] scale), leg circumference, and physical functional status (by Functional Independence Measure [FIM] scores) were performed before and after completion of the study. The length of stay in respiratory care center of subjects were recorded.

RESULTS:

After electrical muscle stimulation, there was no difference in pulmonary function between the electrical muscle stimulation and control groups. Significantly increased in MRC points was found in the electrical muscle stimulation group after intervention (2 [1-7] points vs 2 [1-3.5] points, respectively, P = .034). No difference in MRC points was found between baseline and post-measurement in the control group (1[1-2] points vs 1[1-2.5] points, respectively, P > .99). At the end of the study, leg circumference in control group significantly decreased when compared with baseline (47.5 ± 8.3 cm vs 44.6 ± 5.7 cm, respectively, P = .004) and remained unchanged in the EMS group. However, no significant differences were found between the electrical muscle stimulation and control groups. There was no difference in physical functional status and hospital stay between the electrical muscle stimulation and control groups.

CONCLUSIONS:

Electrical muscle stimulation enhanced muscle strength in subjects who received PMV. Electrical muscle stimulation can be considered a preventive strategy for muscle weakness in patients who receive PMV. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration NCT02227810.).

KEYWORDS:

critical illness; electrical stimulation; hospitalization outcomes; mechanical ventilation; muscle weakness; physical function

PMID:
30723168
DOI:
10.4187/respcare.05921

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for HighWire
Loading ...
Support Center