An interventional study of electrical muscle stimulation and conventional physical therapy in Polyneuropathies, Septic Shock and Muscle Weakness, sponsored by University of Chile. Completed. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2018-12-05.
Sponsored by University of Chile · Not applicable, Interventional, and Prevention
The aim of this study is to compare the effect of EMS and conventional physical therapy on strength and muscle mass and development in adult patients with severe sepsis and septic shock.
Septic patients are at high risk of developing intensive care unit acquired weakness (ICUAW). Electrical muscle stimulation (EMS) has become an alternative exercise for critical and non-cooperative patients.
1,899 studies on the registry are indexed under Sepsis; 462 are open to participants now.
This study's enrollment of 23 is below the median of 105 across 896 interventional studies indexed under Sepsis.
Browse Sepsis studies →University of Chile is the lead sponsor of 191 studies on the registry; 36 are open to participants now.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Exclusion Criteria:
conventional physical therapy according to the adaptation of the "Start to move" protocol of Gosselink et al. plus electrical muscle stimulation: The parameters used in biceps were: 35 Hz, 250 μs and in quadriceps were: 50 Hz, 400 μs. In both, biphasic wave was used, 45 minutes of total work, 5 seconds of contraction and 10 seconds of relaxation and the intensity was adjusted to present a visible contraction
Device: electrical muscle stimulation · Procedure: conventional physical therapy
conventional physical therapy according to the adaptation of the "Start to move" protocol of Gosselink et al
Procedure: conventional physical therapy
electrical muscle stimulation: The parameters used in biceps were: 35 Hz, 250 μs and in quadriceps were: 50 Hz, 400 μs. In both, biphasic wave was used, 45 minutes of total work, 5 seconds of contraction and 10 seconds of relaxation and the intensity was adjusted to present a visible contraction
conventional physical therapy according to the adaptation of the "Start to move" protocol of Gosselink et al
intensive care unit acquired weakness
Medical research council sum score: Bilateral testing of 6 muscle groups (shoulder abduction, elbow flexion, wrist extension, hip flexion, knee extension, and ankle dorsiflexion). Ranges from 0 (total paralysis) to 60 (normal strength). Score under 48 points indicates intensive care unit acquired weakness
Time frame: at awakening of the subject, an average of 8 days
muscle strength
Medical research council sum score: Bilateral testing of 6 muscle groups (shoulder abduction, elbow flexion, wrist extension, hip flexion, knee extension, and ankle dorsiflexion). Ranges from 0 (total paralysis) to 60 (normal strength).
Time frame: at awakening of the subject, an average of 8 days
muscle mass
ultrasonography
Time frame: at ICU admission of the subjet, at 48 hours post admission and at awakening of the subject, an average of 8 days
maximum inspiratory pressure
maximum inspiratory pressure
Time frame: at awakening of the subject, an average of 8 days
days of mechanical ventilation
number of days wirh mechanical ventilation
Time frame: an average of 11 days
Number of Participants with weaning failure
Number of Participants who presented reintubation
Time frame: 48 hours post extubation day
days of ICU stay
number of days in ICU
Time frame: at ICU discharge, an average of 18 days
mortality at 28 days
mortality
Time frame: at 28 days post ICU admission
gait ability at hospital discharge
presence or not of gait ability
Time frame: at hospital discharge, an averange of 3 months
No study locations are listed for this record.
Documents are hosted by the registry — open the source record to download them.
This study is completed, as verified in Dec 2018. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.
University of Chile