Annals of Intensive Care · 2022 · 21 citations · 27 references
MedicineInjury PreventionNeurocritical CareNeuromusculoskeletal AssessmentTrauma Critical CareIntensive Care MedicineMuscle Strength AssessmentPressure Injury PreventionElectrical StimulationIntensive Care Unit MortalityMuscle Mass MaintenanceMuscle Mass PreservationMuscle ThicknessPressure ForcesPressure Injury MonitoringSacral Pressure Injuries
BACKGROUND: Pressure injuries (PIs), especially in the sacral region are frequent, costly, and increase morbidity and mortality of patients in an intensive care unit (ICU). These injuries can occur as a result of prolonged pressure and/or shear forces. Neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) can increase muscle mass and improve local circulation, potentially reducing the incidence of PI. METHODS: We performed a randomized controlled trial to assess the efficacy and safety of NMES in preventing PI in critically ill patients. We included patients with a period of less than 48 h in the ICU, aged ≥ 18 years. Participants were randomly selected (1:1 ratio) to receive NMES and usual care (NMES group) or only usual care (control group-CG) until discharge, death, or onset of a PI. To assess the effectiveness of NMES, we calculated the relative risk (RR) and number needed to treat (NNT). We assessed the muscle thickness of the gluteus maximus by ultrasonography. To assess safety, we analyzed the effects of NMES on vital signs and checked for the presence of skin burns in the stimulated areas. Clinical outcomes were assessed by time on mechanical ventilation, ICU mortality rate, and length of stay in the ICU. RESULTS: We enrolled 149 participants, 76 in the NMES group. PIs were present in 26 (35.6%) patients in the CG and 4 (5.3%) in the NMES group (p ˂ 0.001). The NMES group had an RR = 0.15 (95% CI 0.05-0.40) to develop a PI, NNT = 3.3 (95% CI 2.3-5.9). Moreover, the NMES group presented a shorter length of stay in the ICU: Δ = - 1.8 ± 1.2 days, p = 0.04. There was no significant difference in gluteus maximus thickness between groups (CG: Δ = - 0.37 ± 1.2 cm vs. NMES group: Δ = 0 ± 0.98 cm, p = 0.33). NMES did not promote deleterious changes in vital signs and we did not detect skin burns. CONCLUSIONS: NMES is an effective and safe therapy for the prevention of PI in critically ill patients and may reduce length of stay in the ICU. Trial registration RBR-8nt9m4. Registered prospectively on July 20th, 2018, https://ensaiosclinicos.gov.br/rg/RBR-8nt9m4.
27
Isabelle Boutron, Douglas G. Altman, David Moher et al. · Annals of Internal Medicine · 2017 · 1.5K citations · Full text
The cost of pressure ulcers in the UK
George Bennett · Age and Ageing · 2004 · 743 citations · Full text
Vasiliki Gerovasili, Konstantinos Stefanidis, Konstantinos Vitzilaios et al. · Critical Care · 2009 · 370 citations · Full text
Medicine, Emergency Medical Services, Cardiopulmonary Rehabilitation +10
Number of contractions to maintain mass and force of a denervated rat muscle
Douglas E. Dow, Paul S. Cederna, Cheryl A. Hassett et al. · Muscle & Nerve · 2004 · 161 citations · Full text