dc.contributor.author
Grunow, Julius J.
dc.contributor.author
Goll, Moritz
dc.contributor.author
Carbon, Niklas M.
dc.contributor.author
Liebl, Max E.
dc.contributor.author
Weber-Carstens, Steffen
dc.contributor.author
Wollersheim, Tobias
dc.date.accessioned
2020-01-17T09:28:57Z
dc.date.available
2020-01-17T09:28:57Z
dc.identifier.uri
https://refubium.fu-berlin.de/handle/fub188/26433
dc.identifier.uri
http://dx.doi.org/10.17169/refubium-26193
dc.description.abstract
BACKGROUND:
Neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) has been investigated as a preventative measure for intensive care unit-acquired weakness. Trial results remain contradictory and therefore inconclusive. As it has been shown that NMES does not necessarily lead to a contractile response, our aim was to characterise the response of critically ill patients to NMES and investigate potential outcome benefits of an adequate contractile response.
METHODS:
This is a sub-analysis of a randomised controlled trial investigating early muscle activating measures together with protocol-based physiotherapy in patients with a SOFA score ≥ 9 within the first 72 h after admission. Included patients received protocol-based physiotherapy twice daily for 20 min and NMES once daily for 20 min, bilaterally on eight muscle groups. Electrical current was increased up to 70 mA or until a contraction was detected visually or on palpation. Muscle strength was measured by a blinded assessor at the first adequate awakening and ICU discharge.
RESULTS:
One thousand eight hundred twenty-four neuromuscular electrical stimulations in 21 patients starting on day 3.0 (2.0/6.0) after ICU admission were included in this sub-analysis. Contractile response decreased from 64.4% on day 1 to 25.0% on day 7 with a significantly lower response rate in the lower extremities and proximal muscle groups. The electrical current required to elicit a contraction did not change over time (day 1, 50.2 [31.3/58.8] mA; day 7, 45.3 [38.0/57.5] mA). The electrical current necessary for a contractile response was higher in the lower extremities. At the first awakening, patients presented with significant weakness (3.2 [2.5/3.8] MRC score). When dividing the cohort into responders and non-responders (> 50% vs. ≤ 50% contractile response), we observed a significantly higher SOFA score in non-responders. The electrical current necessary for a muscle contraction in responders was significantly lower (38.0 [32.8/42.9] vs. 54.7 [51.3/56.0] mA, p < 0.001). Muscle strength showed higher values in the upper extremities of responders at ICU discharge (4.4 [4.1/4.6] vs. 3.3 [2.8/3.8] MRC score, p = 0.036).
CONCLUSION:
Patients show a differential contractile response to NMES, which appears to be dependent on the severity of illness and also relevant for potential outcome benefits.
TRIAL REGISTRATION:
ISRCTN ISRCTN19392591 , registered 17 February 2011
en
dc.rights.uri
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.subject
Critical illness
en
dc.subject
Critical illness myopathy
en
dc.subject
Early mobilisation
en
dc.subject
Intensive care unit-acquired weakness
en
dc.subject
Neuromuscular electrical stimulation
en
dc.subject.ddc
600 Technik, Medizin, angewandte Wissenschaften::610 Medizin und Gesundheit::610 Medizin und Gesundheit
dc.title
Differential contractile response of critically ill patients to neuromuscular electrical stimulation
dc.type
Wissenschaftlicher Artikel
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.articlenumber
308
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.doi
10.1186/s13054-019-2540-4
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.journaltitle
Critical Care
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.originalpublishername
BMC
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.volume
23
refubium.affiliation
Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin
refubium.resourceType.isindependentpub
no
dcterms.accessRights.openaire
open access
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.pmid
31506074
dcterms.isPartOf.eissn
1466-609X