PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Chen, Yen-Huey
AU  - Hsiao, Hsiu-Feng
AU  - Li, Li-Fu
AU  - Chen, Ning-Hung
AU  - Huang, Chung-Chi
TI  - Effects of Electrical Muscle Stimulation in Subjects Undergoing Prolonged Mechanical Ventilation
AID  - 10.4187/respcare.05921
DP  - 2019 Mar 01
TA  - Respiratory Care
PG  - 262--271
VI  - 64
IP  - 3
4099  - http://rc.rcjournal.com/content/64/3/262.short
4100  - http://rc.rcjournal.com/content/64/3/262.full
AB  - BACKGROUND: Muscle atrophy and deconditioning are common complications in patients on prolonged mechanical ventilation (PMV). There are few studies that reviewed the effects of electrical muscle stimulation in this population. The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of electrical muscle stimulation on muscle function and hospitalization outcomes in subjects with PMV.METHODS: Subjects on mechanical ventilation for ≥21 d were randomly assigned to the electrical muscle stimulation group (n = 16) or the control group (n = 17). The electrical muscle stimulation group received daily muscle electrical stimulation for 30 min/session for 10 d. The measurement of muscle strength (by medical research council [MRC] scale), leg circumference, and physical functional status (by Functional Independence Measure [FIM] scores) were performed before and after completion of the study. The length of stay in respiratory care center of subjects were recorded.RESULTS: After electrical muscle stimulation, there was no difference in pulmonary function between the electrical muscle stimulation and control groups. Significantly increased in MRC points was found in the electrical muscle stimulation group after intervention (2 [1-7] points vs 2 [1-3.5] points, respectively, P = .034). No difference in MRC points was found between baseline and post-measurement in the control group (1[1-2] points vs 1[1-2.5] points, respectively, P > .99). At the end of the study, leg circumference in control group significantly decreased when compared with baseline (47.5 ± 8.3 cm vs 44.6 ± 5.7 cm, respectively, P = .004) and remained unchanged in the EMS group. However, no significant differences were found between the electrical muscle stimulation and control groups. There was no difference in physical functional status and hospital stay between the electrical muscle stimulation and control groups.CONCLUSIONS: Electrical muscle stimulation enhanced muscle strength in subjects who received PMV. Electrical muscle stimulation can be considered a preventive strategy for muscle weakness in patients who receive PMV. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration NCT02227810.)