Key result
Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation significantly improved renal tissue perfusion markers compared to sham TENS in patients with hypovolemic shock (P=0.007 and P=0.000).
Why the study?
Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) can increase blood flow, but its effect on renal tissue perfusion and hemodynamic stability in hypovolemic shock required evaluation.
Does active transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation improve renal tissue perfusion and hemodynamic stability in patients with hypovolemic shock?
RCT
Single-blind
randomized
Does active transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation improve renal tissue perfusion and hemodynamic stability in patients with hypovolemic shock?
The application of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation alongside standard resuscitation protocols significantly improves renal tissue perfusion markers in patients with hypovolemic shock.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Active TENS improves renal perfusion markers during hypovolemic shock resuscitation; extends neuromodulation evidence and supports larger outcome trials.
Background: Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is widely practiced method to increase blood flow in clinical practice as some authors have observed that, in addition to its analgesic effects, TENS can alter skin temperature and increase blood flow. Objective: Was to evaluate the effect of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation application on the renal tissue perfusion and hemodynamic stability for patients with hypovolemic shock. Methods: A prospective, single-blind, randomized, controlled trial was conducted as patients were randomized into two groups (active TENS (intervention group) and sham TENS (control group). Active TENS group received resuscitation protocol and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation while sham TENS group received resuscitation protocol only. Data was collected from ICU. Improvement of renal tissue perfusion was considered the primary outcome and secondary outcomes was improvement of hemodynamic parameters. Results: TENS application had caused a highly statistical significant change in serum creatinine and NGAL test (74.43 ± 7.16 in intervention group versus 114.48 ± 13.6 2 in control group) and (7.35 ± 0.7716 in intervention group versus 20.76 ± 2.11 in control group (P = 0.007 & P= 0.000) respectively. There was highly statistical significant difference before treatment and after treatment regarding urea, creatinine and NGAL test in the control group (P= 0.002 & P= 0.006& P= 0.000) respectively and there was highly statistical significant difference before treatment and after treatment in TENS group regarding to serum creatinine (P= 0.003). Conclusion: Application of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation had significant improvement for renal tissue perfusion and hemodynamic parameters. Recommendation: TENS should be included as one of the ICU therapeutic modalities to improve patient's outcomes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mahgoub et al. (2023) conducted an RCT in Hypovolemic shock. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) vs. Sham TENS was evaluated on Improvement of renal tissue perfusion (p=0.007 and 0.000). Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation significantly improved renal tissue perfusion markers compared to sham TENS in patients with hypovolemic shock (P=0.007 and P=0.000).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: