Key result
Less intensive NMES matches high-intensity stimulation for improving 6MWT distance in elderly CHF patients.
Why the study?
The effects of different intensities of neuromuscular electrostimulation on tolerance and physical work ability in elderly patients with decompensated chronic heart failure were unclear.
Does less intensive NMES improve physical work ability and tolerance compared to high intensity NMES in elderly patients with decompensated CHF?
Cohort (n=22)
Does less intensive NMES improve physical work ability and tolerance compared to high intensity NMES in elderly patients with decompensated CHF?
Less intensive NMES is as effective as high-intensity NMES for improving physical capacity in elderly patients with decompensated CHF, but offers better tolerance and compliance.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May support less intensive NMES as comparably effective for capacity in decompensated CHF; leaves open tolerance advantages pending randomized confirmation.
Aim To compare effects of neuromuscular electrostimulation (NMES) with various intensity of induced muscle contractions on its tolerance and effect on physical work ability in elderly patients admitted for chronic heart failure (CHF).Material and methods The study included 22 patients older than 60 years admitted for decompensated CHF. NMES was performed from the 2nd or 3d day of stay in the hospital to the discharge from the hospital. Patients choose the stimulation regimen themselves based on the result of the first session: the high intensity to achieve maximum tolerable muscle contractions (group 1) or the lower intensity to achieve visible/ palpable muscle contractions (group 2). Prior to the onset and after the completion of the training, the 6-min walk test (6MWT) was performed and the general condition of the patient was assessed with a visual analogue scale (VAS).Results More patients, mostly women, chose the less intensive NMES (14 vs. 8). The groups did not differ in age, comorbidity, and functional condition. Both groups achieved considerable increases in the 6MWT distance (7.3 [5.6; 176] and 9.8 [7.0; 9.9] %, respectively, p>0.05) and VAS scores without a significant difference between the groups. Among the patients who were compliant with continuing NMES after the discharge from the hospital, 69% were patients of the group of the less intensive stimulation.Conclusion The less intensive NMES (with achieving visible muscle contractions) was characterized by better tolerance and better compliance in elderly patients with decompensated CHF compared to the more intensive NMES (with achieving maximum contractions), but the less intensive NMES was not inferior to the more intensive NMES in effectiveness.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Veliev et al. (2021) conducted a cohort in Decompensated chronic heart failure (CHF) (n=22). Less intensive neuromuscular electrostimulation (NMES) vs. High intensity neuromuscular electrostimulation (NMES) was evaluated on Increase in 6-min walk test (6MWT) distance (p=>0.05). Less intensive neuromuscular electrostimulation was not inferior to high-intensity stimulation in improving 6-minute walk test distance (9.8% vs 7.3% increase, p>0.05) in elderly CHF patients.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: