Functional electrical stimulation cycling‐based muscular evaluation method in mechanically ventilated patients

• Published in: Artificial organs Vol. 48; no. 3; pp. 254 - 262
• Main Authors: de Gomes Figueiredo, Thainá, Frazão, Murillo, Werlang, Luiz Augusto, Peltz, Maikel, Sobral Filho, Dário Celestino
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Wiley Subscription Services, Inc 01.03.2024
• Subjects: Cycles; Electrical stimuli; Muscles; Observational studies; Stimulation; Survival; Torque; FES-cycling; weakness; intensive care unit; muscle
• ISSN: 0160-564X; 1525-1594; 1525-1594
• DOI: 10.1111/aor.14677

Intensive care acquired muscle weakness is a common feature in critically ill patients. Beyond the therapeutic uses, FES-cycling could represent a promising nonvolitional evaluation method for detecting acquired muscle weakness. To assess whether FES-cycling is able to identify muscle dysfunctions, and to evaluate the survival rate in patients with detected muscle dysfunction. A prospective observational study was carried out, with 29 critically ill patients and 20 healthy subjects. Maximum torque and power achieved were recorded, in addition to the stimulation cost, and patients were followed up for six months. Torque (2.64 [1.53 to 4.81] vs 6.03 [4.56 to 6.73] Nm) and power (3.31 [2.33 to 6.37] vs 6.35 [5.22 to 10.70] watts) were lower and stimulation cost (22 915 [5069 to 37 750] vs 3411 [2080 to 4024] μC/W) was higher in patients compared to healthy people (p < 0.05). Surviving patients showed a nonsignificant difference in power and torque in relation to nonsurvivors (p > 0.05), but they had a lower stimulation cost (4462 [3598 to 11 788] vs 23 538 [10 164 to 39 836] μC/W) (p < 0.05). In total, 34% of all patients survived during the six months of follow-up. Furthermore, 62% of patients with a stimulation cost below 15 371 μC/W and 7% of patients with a stimulation cost above 15 371 μC/W survived. FES-cycling has good sensitivity and specificity for detecting muscle disorders. Critical patients have low torque and power and a high stimulation cost. Stimulation cost is related to survival. A low stimulation cost was related to a 3 times greater chance of survival.