Key result
Epidural spinal cord stimulation was applied to improve upper body exercise capacity in one individual with a spinal cord injury via modulation of cardiovascular and respiratory function.
Why the study?
Individuals with spinal cord injury at or above T6 exhibit impaired cardiovascular responses to exercise that limit exercise capacity, but whether epidural spinal cord stimulation can improve upper body exercise capacity is unknown.
Does epidural spinal cord stimulation improve upper body exercise capacity in an individual with spinal cord injury?
Case Report (n=1)
Does epidural spinal cord stimulation improve upper body exercise capacity in an individual with spinal cord injury?
Epidural spinal cord stimulation may offer a novel approach to improving exercise capacity and cardiovascular responses in patients with spinal cord injury.
May aid exercise capacity in spinal cord injury; hypothesis-generating case report requiring prospective validation.
Individuals with a spinal cord injury (SCI) ≥T6 level exhibit impaired cardiovascular responses to exercise that can limit exercise capacity.1 The burgeoning field of neuromodulation has recently demonstrated that epidural spinal cord stimulation (ESCS), configured to facilitate motor function in humans with SCI, can also modulate cardiovascular function (i.e., increasing or maintaining arterial blood pressure at rest or in response to an orthostatic challenge, respectively).2–4 Here we present a unique application of ESCS to improve upper body exercise capacity in an individual with SCI, via the modulation of cardiovascular and respiratory function.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nightingale et al. (2019) conducted a case report in Spinal cord injury (n=1). Epidural spinal cord stimulation (ESCS) was evaluated on Upper body exercise capacity. Epidural spinal cord stimulation was applied to improve upper body exercise capacity in one individual with a spinal cord injury via modulation of cardiovascular and respiratory function.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: