• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Artificial Organs >Beneficial Effect of Intradialytic Electrical Muscle Stimulation in Hemodialysis Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial
【24h】

Beneficial Effect of Intradialytic Electrical Muscle Stimulation in Hemodialysis Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial

机译：血液透析患者脑内电肌刺激的有益效果：随机对照试验

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Abstract Many hemodialysis (HD) patients cannot perform self‐administered exercise training for their muscle wasting, weakness, and sarcopenia. Electrical muscle stimulation (EMS) has the advantages of easy application, and minimal risks for these patients. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of intradialytic EMS. This was a prospective, open‐label, randomized controlled trial. Twenty‐nine HD patients were randomly assigned to either the EMS group or the control (no training) group, and 13 patients in each group were eventually analyzed. The EMS group received intradialytic EMS over an 8‐week period. Measurement of isometric knee extensor strength using a handheld dynamometer, evaluation of the quadriceps cross‐sectional area (CSA) using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), the Timed Up & Go Test (TUG) for physical function assessment, the Japanese version of the Short Form‐8 Health Survey (SF‐8), and blood tests were performed before and after the intervention period. The primary and secondary outcomes were improvement of quadriceps muscle strength and size, respectively. The EMS group demonstrated significant improvement compared with the control group in terms of knee extensor strength (right: 22.3?±?12.8 vs. ?10.8?±?22.3 N, P ??0.001; left: 26.1?±?29.7 vs. ?8.3?±?18.7 N, P ??0.001), quadriceps CSA at three positions, 25, 50, and 75% of the segment length from the greater trochanter to the inferior border of the lateral epicondyle of the femur (25% right: EMS group 1.7?±?2.0 vs. Control group ?0.4?±?1.8 cm 2 , P ?=?0.05; 25% left: EMS group 1.3?±?1.1 vs. Control group ?0.6?±?1.8 cm 2 , P ?=?0.01; 50% right: EMS group 2.0?±?2.2 vs. Control group ?0.7?±?1.9 cm 2 , P ?=?0.004; 50% left: EMS group 2.7?±?2.1 vs. Control group ?0.7?±?1.6 cm 2 , P ?=?0.001; 75% right: EMS group 1.8?±?2.2 vs. Control group ?0.7?±?1.5 cm 2 , P ?=?0.003; 75% left: EMS group 2.1?±?1.9 vs. Control group ?0.4?±?1.5 cm 2 , P ?=?0.003); and TUG time (–0.8?±?0.6 vs. 0.2?±?0.5 s, P ??0.001). The EMS group showed improvement after intervention in all components of SF‐8, but these were not statistically significant. EMS could be an effective exercise training tool for HD patients with either muscle wasting, weakness, or sarcopenia.
机译：摘要许多血液透析（HD）患者无法为其肌肉浪费，弱点和肌肉衰退进行自我管理的运动培训。电肌刺激（EMS）具有易于应用的优点，以及这些患者的最小风险。本研究旨在评估细胞内EMS的影响。这是一个未来的开放标签随机对照试验。将29例HD患者随机分配给EMS组或对照（无培训）组，每组13名患者最终分析。 EMS集团在8周内收到颅内EMS。使用手持测功机测量等距膝关节延伸强度，使用磁共振成像（MRI）评估Quaddriceps横截面积（CSA），定时上升和amp;去测试（拖船）用于物理函数评估，日本版本的短型8卫生调查（SF-8）和血液检验在干预期之前和之后进行。初级和二次结果分别改善了Quaddriceps肌肉力量和大小。与膝盖伸长强度（右：22.3？±12.8 Vs.1.10.8，p≤x0.0.001;左：左：26.1？±22.3n，p≤2.8;左：26.1？±29.7 vs 。α.8.3？±18.7 n，p？α.<0.001），四个位置的Quadriceps CSA，25,50和75％的区段长度从更大的沿股骨的横向上髁的下边界（ 25％右：EMS组1.7？±2.0与对照组？0.4？±1.1.8厘米2，p？= 0.05; 25％左：EMS组1.3？±1.1与对照组？0.6？± 1.8 cm 2，p？= 0.01; 50％右：EMS组2.0？±2.2与对照组？0.7？±1.1.9 cm 2，p？= 0.004; 50％左：EMS组2.7？ 2.1对照组？0.7？±1.6厘米2，p？= 0.001; 75％右：EMS组1.8？±2.2与对照组？0.7？±1.5cm 2，p？= 0.003; 75％左：EMS组2.1？±1.9与对照组？0.4？±1.5cm 2，p？= 0.003）;和拖轮时间（-0.8？±±0.6 vs. 0.2？±0.5 s，p？0.001）。 EMS组在介入SF-8的所有组分后显示出改善，但这些在统计学上没有统计学意义。 EMS可以是HD患者的有效运动培训工具，患有肌肉浪费，弱点或肌肉炎。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号