Functional electrical stimulation cycling-based muscular evaluation method in mechanically ventilated patients.

BACKGROUND: Intensive care acquired muscle weakness is a common feature in critically ill patients. Beyond the therapeutic uses, FES-cycling could represent a promising nonvolitional evaluation method for detecting acquired muscle weakness. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether FES-cycling is able to identify muscle dysfunctions, and to evaluate the survival rate in patients with detected muscle dysfunction. METHODS: A prospective observational study was carried out, with 29 critically ill patients and 20 healthy subjects. Maximum torque and power achieved were recorded, in addition to the stimulation cost, and patients were followed up for six months. RESULTS: Torque (2.64 [1.53 to 4.81] vs 6.03 [4.56 to 6.73] Nm) and power (3.31 [2.33 to 6.37] vs 6.35 [5.22 to 10.70] watts) were lower and stimulation cost (22 915 [5069 to 37 750] vs 3411 [2080 to 4024] µC/W) was higher in patients compared to healthy people (p < 0.05). Surviving patients showed a nonsignificant difference in power and torque in relation to nonsurvivors (p > 0.05), but they had a lower stimulation cost (4462 [3598 to 11 788] vs 23 538 [10 164 to 39 836] µC/W) (p < 0.05). In total, 34% of all patients survived during the six months of follow-up. Furthermore, 62% of patients with a stimulation cost below 15 371 µC/W and 7% of patients with a stimulation cost above 15 371 µC/W survived. CONCLUSIONS: FES-cycling has good sensitivity and specificity for detecting muscle disorders. Critical patients have low torque and power and a high stimulation cost. Stimulation cost is related to survival. A low stimulation cost was related to a 3 times greater chance of survival.

Safety and feasibility of a functional electrical stimulation cycling-based muscular dysfunction diagnostic method in mechanically ventilated patients.

BACKGROUND: A nonvolitional diagnostic method based on FES-Cycling technology has recently been demonstrated for mechanically ventilated patients. This method presents good sensitivity and specificity for detecting muscle dysfunction and survival prognosis, even in unconscious patients. As the clinical relevance of this method has already been reported, we aimed to evaluate its safety and feasibility. METHODS: An observational prospective study was carried out with 20 critically ill, mechanically ventilated patients. The FES-cycling equipment was set in a specific diagnostic mode. For safety determination, hemodynamic parameters and peripheral oxygen saturation were measured before and immediately after the diagnostic protocol, as well as venous oxygen saturation and blood lactate. The creatine phosphokinase level (CPK) was measured before and 24, 48, and 72 h after the test. The time taken to carry out the entire diagnostic protocol and the number of patients with visible muscle contraction (capacity of perceptive muscular recruitment) were recorded to assess feasibility. RESULTS: Heart rate [91 ± 23 vs. 94 ± 23 bpm (p = 0.0837)], systolic [122 ± 19 vs. 124 ± 19 mm Hg (p = 0.4261)] and diastolic blood pressure [68 ± 13 vs. 70 ± 15 mm Hg (p = 0.3462)], and peripheral [98 (96-99) vs. 98 (95-99) % (p = 0.6353)] and venous oxygen saturation [71 ± 14 vs. 69 ± 14% (p = 0.1317)] did not change after the diagnostic protocol. Moreover, blood lactate [1.48 ± 0.65 vs. 1.53 ± 0.71 mmol/L (p = 0.2320)] did not change. CPK did not change up to 72 h after the test [99 (59-422) vs. 125 (66-674) (p = 0.2799) vs. 161 (66-352) (p > 0.999) vs. 100 (33-409) (p = 0.5901)]. The time taken to perform the diagnostic assessment was 11.3 ± 1.1 min. In addition, 75% of the patients presented very visible muscle contractions, and 25% of them presented barely visible muscle contractions. CONCLUSIONS: The FES cycling-based muscular dysfunction diagnostic method is safe and feasible. Hemodynamic parameters, peripheral oxygen saturation, venous oxygen saturation, and blood lactate did not change after the diagnostic protocol. The muscle damage marker (CPK) did not increase up to 72 h after the diagnostic protocol.

Metabolic, ventilatory and cardiovascular responses to FES-cycling: A comparison to NMES and passive cycling.

BACKGROUND: Cyclergometry with functional electrical stimulation (FES-cycling) is a feasible method for rehabilitation. The concept is to promote exercise induced by depolarization of the motoneuron and muscular contraction. OBJECTIVE: To measure acute physiological responses to FES-cycling. METHODS: Retrospective study of data from ten healthy volunteers who performed FES-cycling, passive cycling and neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) alone. Metabolic, ventilatory and cardiovascular parameters were analyzed. RESULTS: Oxygen uptake enhanced 97 ± 15% during FES-cycling, with medium effect size compared to NMES and large effect size compared to passive cycling. Energy expenditure enhanced 102 ± 15% during FES-cycling, with medium effect size compared to NMES and large effect size compared to passive cycling. Minute ventilation enhanced 115 ± 26% during FES-cycling, with small effect size compared to NMES and medium effect size compared to passive cycling. Cardiac output enhanced 21 ± 4% during FES-cycling, with medium effect size compared to NMES and passive cycling. Arterial - mixed venous oxygen content difference enhanced 60 ± 8% during FES-cycling, with a medium effect size compared to NMES and large effect size compared to passive cycling. CONCLUSIONS: FES-cycling enhances metabolic, ventilatory and cardiovascular demands and the physiological responses are higher than NMES and passive cycling.