Effects of 12 weeks of neuromuscular electrical stimulation of the quadriceps muscles on the function and physio-biochemical traits in functionally fit female nursing-home residents aged 75 + years: a pilot study.

PURPOSE: Muscular changes induced by neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) are well recognized, but knowledge of how NMES influences the physio-biochemical traits of the oldest old is still limited. This study investigated the effect of NMES applied for 12 weeks to the quadriceps muscles of female nursing-home residents aged 75 + on their functional capability and inflammatory, bone metabolism, and cardiovascular traits. METHODS: Nineteen women regularly taking part in two body conditioning sessions per week were randomized into an electrical stimulation group (ES; n = 10; 30 min sessions, 3 times per week) or a control group (CON; n = 9). At baseline and study week 12, all women performed the 30 s chair stand test (30sCST), the 6-minute walk test (6MWT), and the instrumented timed up and go test (iTUG). Resting heart rates, blood pressure, and the blood concentrations of inflammatory and bone metabolism markers were also measured twice. RESULTS: NMES increased the strength of participants' quadriceps muscles and their performance on the 30sCST and 6MWT while lowering resting arterial blood pressure and inflammatory marker levels; osteoclast activity showed a tendency to decrease. Changes in the iTUG results were not observed. A multiple regression analysis found that the results of functional tests in the ES group were best correlated with pulse pressure (the 30sCST and iTUG tests) and diastolic blood pressure (the 6MWT test). CONCLUSION: Twelve weeks of NMES treatment improved participants' functional capacity and inflammatory, bone metabolism, and cardiovascular traits. The ES group participants' performance on functional tests was best predicted by hemodynamic parameters.

Electrical Stimulation in the Treatment of Pressure Injuries: A Systematic Review of Clinical Trials.

GENERAL PURPOSE: To provide information on evidence-based practice regarding the use of electrical stimulation for pressure injury management. TARGET AUDIENCE: This continuing education activity is intended for physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and nurses with an interest in skin and wound care. LEARNING OBJECTIVES/OUTCOMES: After participating in this educational activity, the participant will:1. Apply clinical practice recommendations related to the use of electrical stimulation in the treatment of pressure injuries.2. Identify issues related to the use of electrical stimulation to treat pressure injuries.

To summarize evidence regarding the use of electrical stimulation for pressure injury (PI) management with a systematic review of randomized clinical trials. The authors searched scientific databases (PubMed, EBSCO, Medline, and Elsevier) and the online resources of gray publications for studies published between January 1, 1980, and June 20, 2021, using the keywords "electrostimulation," "electrical stimulation," "pressure ulcer," "pressure injury," "bedsore," and "decubitus ulcer." The search procedure generated 342 articles. Of these, 241 were disqualified after title screening, 52 after abstract screening, and 33 after full-text review; 16 articles were included in the review. Included articles were full-text reports of randomized clinical trials involving patients with PIs that had at least two patient groups, detailed how wounds healed, and were written in English. The authors extracted information about the purpose and design of each trial, patient inclusion and exclusion criteria, research methods, statistical analysis, findings, and conclusions. Researchers applied high-voltage monophasic pulsed current (HVMPC) in 10 trials, two trials used low-voltage monophasic pulsed current, three trials tested a low-voltage biphasic pulsed current, and one trial used low-intensity direct current. The effect of HVMPC in the treatment of PIs has been most thoroughly investigated in clinical trials. The results are consistent and indicate that HVMPC (twin-peak impulse, 50­154 µs, 100 pps, 45­60 min/d) is effective in PI treatment.

The Efficacy of Pressure Ulcer Treatment With Cathodal and Cathodal-Anodal High-Voltage Monophasic Pulsed Current: A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Studies show that anode and cathode electrical stimulation (ES) promotes the healing of wounds, but specific protocols for both electrodes are not available. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of cathodal versus cathodal+anodal ES in the treatment of Category II-IV pressure ulcers (PrUs). DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, controlled, clinical study. SETTING: Three nursing and care centers. PATIENTS: Sixty-three participants with PrUs were randomly formed into a cathodal ES group (CG: N = 23; mean age of 79.35; SD 8.48), a cathodal+anodal ES group (CAG: N = 20; mean age of 79.65; SD 11.44) and a placebo ES group (PG: N = 20; mean age of 76.75; SD 12.24). INTERVENTION: All patients were treated with standard wound care and high-voltage monophasic pulsed current (HVMPC; twin-peak impulses; 154 µs; 100 pps; 0.25 A; 250 µC/s) for 50 minutes per day, 5 times a week, for 6 weeks. The CG, CAG, and PG received, respectively, cathodal, cathodal+anodal, and sham ES through electrodes placed on a moist gauze pad. The treatment electrode was placed on the wound, and the return electrode was positioned on healthy skin at least 20 cm from the PrU. MEASUREMENTS: Measurements were made at baseline, and after each of the 6 weeks of treatment. Primary outcome was percentage wound surface area reduction at week 6. RESULTS: Wound surface area decreased in the CG by 82.34% (95% confidence interval [CI] 70.06-94.63) and in the CAG by 70.77% (95% CI 53.51-88.04). These reductions were significantly greater than in the PG (40.53%; 95% CI 23.60-57.46). The CG and CAG were not statistically significantly different regarding treatment results. LIMITATIONS: The time of treatment proved insufficient for PrUs to close. CONCLUSIONS: Cathodal and cathodal+anodal HVMPC similarly reduced the area of Category II-IV PrUs.

Evaluation of the Healing Progress of Pressure Ulcers Treated with Cathodal High-Voltage Monophasic Pulsed Current: Results of a Prospective, Double-blind, Randomized Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effectiveness of high-voltage monophasic pulsed current (HVMPC) as an adjunct to a standard wound care for the treatment of Stage II and III pressure ulcers (PrUs). DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled clinical study. SETTING: Two nursing and care centers. PATIENTS: Patients with PrUs that did not respond to previous treatment for at least 4 weeks were randomly assigned to the electrical stimulation (ES) group (25 patients; mean age of 79.92 ± 8.50 years; mean wound surface area [WSA] of 10.58 ± 10.57 cm) or to the control group (24 patients; mean age of 76.33 ± 12.74 years; mean WSA of 9.71 ± 6.70 cm). INTERVENTIONS: Both the ES and control groups received standard wound care and respectively, cathodal HVMPC (154 microseconds; 100 pulses per second; 0.24 A; 250 µ/s) applied continuously for 50 minutes once a day, 5 times a week, or sham HVMPC. MAIN OUTCOME: Percentage area reduction over 6 weeks of intervention. MAIN RESULTS: In the ES group, there was a statistically significant decrease in WSA after 1 week of treatment (35% ± 30.5%) compared with 17.07% ± 34.13% in the control group (P = .032). After treatment, at week 6, percentage area reduction in the ES group was 80.31% ± 29.02% versus 54.65% ± 42.65% in the control group (P = .046). CONCLUSIONS: Cathodal HVMPC reduces the WSA of Stage II and III PrUs. The results are consistent with the results of other researchers who used HVMPC to treat PrUs.