Neuromuscular electrical stimulation for the prevention of venous thromboembolism

Comparison of the Hemodynamic Performance of Two Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation Devices Applied to the Lower Limb

Currently, 1% of the population of the Western world suffers from venous leg ulcers as a result of chronic venous insufficiency. Current treatment involves the use of moist wound healing, compression bandages, and intermittent pneumatic compression. Neuromuscular electrical stimulation is a novel potential new therapeutic method for the promotion of increased lower limb hemodynamics. The aim of this study was to measure the hemodynamic changes in the lower limb with the use of two neuromuscular electrical stimulation devices. Twelve healthy volunteers received two neuromuscular stimulation device interventions. The Geko^TM and National University of Ireland (NUI) Galway neuromuscular electrical stimulation devices were randomized between dominant and non-dominant legs. Hemodynamic measurements of peak venous velocity (cm/s), the time average mean velocity (TAMEAN) (cm/s), and ejected volume (mL) of blood were recorded. Peak venous velocity was significantly increased by the Geko^TM and the NUI Galway device compared to baseline blood flow (p < 0.0001), while only the voluntary contraction produced significant increases in TAMEAN and ejected volume (both p < 0.05). Neuromuscular muscular electrical stimulation can produce adequate increases in lower limb hemodynamics sufficient to prevent venous stasis. Greater use of neuromuscular stimulation devices could be considered in the treatment of conditions related to chronic venous insufficiency but requires further research.

[Alternating pneumocompression - effective physiotherapeutic method for the prevention of venous thromboembolic complications in patients of medium and high risk in the acute period of the stroke]

BACKGROUND

the patients presenting with severe post-stroke in the acute period of this condition are characterized by the high risk of venous thromboembolic complications (VTEC), with the most dangerous of them being pulmonary embolism that makes an appreciable contribution to the mortality rate of such patients at the hospital stage of their treatment. Among the physical methods for the prevention of VTE, such as wearing graduated compression stockings (GCS), myoelectrostimulation (MES), pneumatic intermittent compression (PIC), only the latter technique has been shown to be efficient when applied for the treatment of surgical patients during the post-stroke period with the level of evidence 2B and the very uncertain parameters of the impact.

AIM

The objective of the present study was to evaluate the advantages of the PIC in comparison with that of GCS and MES, substantiate the choice of the former method for the management of the high-risk post-stroke patients, and determine the impact parameters of PIC during the peracute and acute periods of the disease.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We conducted a series of analyses of the results of several controlled randomized studies and relevant reviews of the literature with a view to determining the feasibility and effectiveness of application of one or another approach and clarifying the parameters of the exposure to GCS, MES, and PIC for the prevention of VTEC.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The results of these studies gave evidence that the effectiveness of the GCS and MES is insufficient in contrast to that of PIC that was found to decrease the relative risk of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) by 62% compared with placebo and by 47% in comparison with GCS. The low risk of DVT associated with the application of PIC was apparent from the low OR value of 0.45 and the absolute reduction in the risk of DVT by 3.6%. The analysis of the parameters being used made it possible to identify side effects and thereby allowed to formulate the optimal method for the application of PIC for the purpose of prevention of VTEC in the post-stroke patients during the peracute and acute periods of the disease.

CONCLUSION

Only PIC of all the currently available methods for the physical prevention of VTEC in the group of high risk post-stroke patients during the peracute and acute periods of this condition can be practiced in the reliable evidence-based manner. The most rational PIC modality consists of exerting the external pressure on the lower extremities within the first 12-24 hours after stroke with the use of the cuffs of the «lower leg» type (i.e. at a pressure of 40-50 mm Hg in the wave mode with memorization for the multi-sectional cuffs, daily in the continuous manner throughout the daytime till the patient is downgraded to the group at lower risk of VTEC or actually till the discharge from the hospital.

Neuromuscular electrical stimulation for the prevention of venous thromboembolism

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a serious but preventable cause of morbidity and mortality. Neuromuscular electrical stimulation systems (NMES) for the prevention of VTE may be beneficial for patients in whom pharmacological or standard mechanical prophylaxis methods are contraindicated or are regarded as unsafe or impractical. Although findings of experimental studies suggest that NMES reduce venous stasis, the clinical utility and effectiveness of NMES in VTE prevention remain controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of neuromuscular electrical stimulation in the prevention of venous thromboembolism.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Vascular Group Information Specialist (CIS) searched the Specialised Register (22 March 2017) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Studies (CENTRAL (2017, Issue 2)). The CIS also searched trial registries for details of ongoing and unpublished studies. The review authors searched the bibliographic lists of relevant articles and reviews to look further for potentially eligible trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We planned to include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised trials that compared any form of neuromuscular electrical stimulation as an intervention for VTE prophylaxis (alone or combined with pharmacological or other mechanical methods) versus no prophylaxis and other mechanical or pharmacological methods of VTE prophylaxis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two independent review authors were involved in study selection, data extraction, methodological quality assessment of included studies, and data analysis. We resolved disagreements by discussion between the two review authors. If no agreement could be reached, a third review author acted as an adjudicator. The main outcomes of the review were total deep vein thrombosis (DVT), symptomatic and asymptomatic DVT, pulmonary embolism (PE), total VTE and bleeding (major and minor). The quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach and is indicated in italics.

MAIN RESULTS

We included in the review five randomised controlled trials and three quasi-randomised trials, enrolling a total of 904 participants. Among these, four studies included patients undergoing major surgical procedures; one study included patients undergoing surgery for hip fracture under spinal anaesthesia; one study included trauma patients with a contraindication for prophylactic heparin; one study included neurosurgical patients who were operated on under general anaesthesia; and one study included patients with non-functional spinal cord injuries. Overall, eight studies investigated 22 treatment arms. Four studies compared the NMES arm with a no prophylaxis arm, and five studies compared the NMES arm with alternative methods of prophylaxis arms. Alternative methods of prophylaxis included low-dose heparin (5000 IU subcutaneously) - two studies, Dextran 40 - one study, graduated compression stockings (GCS) and intermittent pneumatic compression devices (IPCD) - one study. One study compared combined NMES and low-dose heparin versus no prophylaxis or low-dose heparin alone.We found no clear difference in risks of total DVT (odds ratio (OR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60 to 1.70, P = 0.98; 6 studies, 415 participants; low-quality evidence), asymptomatic DVT (OR 1.61, 95% CI 0.40 to 6.43, P = 0.50; 1 study, 89 participants; low-quality evidence), symptomatic DVT (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.02 to 10.07, P = 0.58; 1 study, 89 participants; low-quality evidence), PE (OR 1.31, 95% CI 0.38 to 4.48, P = 0.67; 2 studies, 126 participants;low-quality evidence), and total VTE (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.34 to 2.52, P = 0.88; 1 study, 72 participants; low-quality evidence) between prophylaxis with NMES and alternative methods of prophylaxis. None of the studies in this comparison reported bleeding.Compared with no prophylaxis, NMES showed lower risks of total DVT (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.70, P = 0.02; 4 studies, 576 participants; moderate-quality evidence) and total VTE (OR 0.23, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.59, P = 0.002; 1 study, 77 participants; low-quality evidence). Data show no clear differences in risk of asymptomatic DVT (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.62, P = 0.17; 1 study, 200 participants; low-quality evidence), symptomatic DVT (OR 0.06, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.36, P = 0.08; 1 study, 160 participants;low-quality evidence), or PE (OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.07, P = 0.07; 1 study, 77 participants; low-quality evidence) between prophylaxis with NMES and no prophylaxis. None of the studies in this comparison reported bleeding.In comparison with low-dose heparin, NMES was associated with higher risk of total DVT (OR 2.78, 95% CI 1.19 to 6.48, P = 0.02; 2 studies, 194 participants; low-quality evidence), but data were inadequate for other comparisons (NMES vs Dextran 40, NMES vs GCS, or NMES vs IPCD) and for other clinical outcomes such as symptomatic or asymptomatic DVT, PE, total VTE, and bleeding in individual comparisons.Overall, we judged the quality of available evidence to be low owing to high or unclear risk of bias and imprecise effect estimates due to small numbers of studies and events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Low-quality evidence shows no clear difference in the risk of DVT between NMES and alternative methods of prophylaxis but suggest that NMES may be associated with lower risk of DVT compared with no prophylaxis (moderate-quality evidence) and higher risk of DVT compared with low-dose heparin (low-quality evidence). The best available evidence about the effectiveness of NMES in the prevention of VTE is not adequately robust to allow definitive conclusions. Adequately powered high-quality randomised controlled trials are required to provide adequately robust evidence.