Key result
Interferential current application significantly increased parasympathetic activity and decreased sympathetic activity compared to sham electrotherapy (P<0.001 for Poincaré plot 2).
Why the study?
Applying electrical currents in physiotherapy training is considered stressful for students, but the stress-associated autonomic response of students receiving interferential current had not been evaluated using heart rate variability.
Does interferential current electrotherapy alter the stress-associated autonomic response in healthy male physiotherapy students?
RCT (n=90)
randomly allocated
Does interferential current electrotherapy alter the stress-associated autonomic response in healthy male physiotherapy students?
p-value: p=<0.001
Interferential current electrotherapy produces a stress-associated autonomic response characterized by increased parasympathetic and decreased sympathetic activity in healthy volunteers.
Supports interferential current for autonomic modulation in stress; confirms parasympathetic shift over sham in healthy males.
Electrical currents are didactic contents widely applied in the training of physiotherapy students, but the treatment is considered a stressful situation for both the patient who receives it and the student who applies it. The aim of this study was to evaluate the stress-associated autonomic response of physiotherapy students receiving interferential current by measuring and analysing heart rate variability. An observational case–control study was conducted. Ninety healthy male volunteers, all physiotherapy degree students, were enrolled while attending laboratory practice during the 2020–2021 academic year. Participants were randomly allocated to a sham electrotherapy group (44 subjects), in which heart rate variability was recorded for 10 min, both at rest and during the application of sham technique on the lower back (10 min), and an electrotherapy group (46 subjects), applying the same procedure with the electrical current flowing. Outcome measures included baseline (seated position) and postintervention (prone position) time domain parameter, diameters of the Poincaré plot 1 and 2, stress score, and sympathetic/parasympathetic ratio. The sham electrotherapy group exhibited significant increases in time domain parameter (p = 0.027) and diameters of the Poincaré plot 1 (p = 0.032), with a small effect size (d ≤ 0.5). The electrotherapy group exhibited significant increases in time domain parameter and diameters of the Poincaré plot 1 and 2 (p < 0.001) and decreases in the stress score and sympathetic/parasympathetic ratio (p < 0.001), with a large effect size (d > 0.8) other than for the time domain parameter (d = 0.42), indicating increased parasympathetic and decreased sympathetic activity. After interventions, there were significant differences between groups in diameters of the Poincaré plot 2 (p < 0.001), stress score (p = 0.01) and sympathetic/parasympathetic ratio (p = 0.003), with moderate effect size (d > 0.5). The application of the interferential current technique produces stress-associated autonomic response characterized by greater parasympathetic activity and decreased sympathetic activity. Further studies are needed to determine possible adverse effects.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Espejo-Antúnez et al. (2022) conducted an RCT in Healthy volunteers (physiotherapy students) (n=90). Interferential current vs. Sham electrotherapy was evaluated on Stress-associated autonomic response (heart rate variability, Poincaré plot diameters, stress score, sympathetic/parasympathetic ratio) (p=<0.001). Interferential current application significantly increased parasympathetic activity and decreased sympathetic activity compared to sham electrotherapy (P<0.001 for Poincaré plot 2).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: