A Comparison of Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation and Intermittent Pneumatic Compression in Terms of Lower Limb Blood Flow

Not Applicable

Completed

• Conditions: Venous Thrombosis

• Registration Number: NCT01886612
• Lead Sponsor: National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland

Brief Summary

Deep Vein Thrombosis (DVT) is a life threatening condition and a serious concern among hospitalized patients, with death occurring in approximately 6% of cases. It involves the formation of a clot where stagnant blood flow occurs, predominantly in the deep veins of the legs. Three mechanisms underlie DVT, venous stasis (slowing or stopping of the blood), hypercoagulability (increased clotting) and damage to blood vessel endothelium (damage to blood vessel wall), collectively known as Virchow's triad.

Intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) and neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) have been shown to improve lower limb blood flow. However, few studies have directly compared the two methods and those that have, have used dated NMES techniques.

The objective of this study is to compare the two methods in terms of blood flow.

Detailed Description

Deep Vein Thrombosis (DVT) is a life threatening condition and a serious concern among hospitalized patients, with death occurring in approximately 6% of cases. It involves the formation of a clot where stagnant blood flow occurs, predominantly in the deep veins of the legs. Three mechanisms underlie DVT, venous stasis (slowing or stopping of the blood), hypercoagulability (increased clotting) and damage to blood vessel endothelium (damage to blood vessel wall), collectively known as Virchow's triad.

Intermittent Pneumatic Compression (IPC) involves the use of an inflatable cuff placed around the limb. This cuff inflates and deflates intermittently in order to squeeze blood from the underlying veins. Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation (NMES) leads to a contraction of muscles by delivering a series of controlled electrical pulses via skin surface electrodes placed over the motor points of the targeted muscle.

Both IPC and NMES have been shown to improve lower limb blood flow. However, few studies have directly compared the two methods and those that have, have used dated NMES techniques.

The objective of this study is to compare the two methods in terms of lower limb haemodynamics.

Study Timeline

• Study Start: 2013-06
• Study First Submitted: 2013-06-21
• Study First Submitted QC: 2013-06-21
• Study First Posted: 2013-06-26
• Status Verified: 2013-08
• Primary Completion: 2013-08
• Study Completion: 2013-08
• Last Update Submitted: 2013-08-01
• Last Update Posted: 2013-08-02

Recruitment & Eligibility

• Status: COMPLETED
• Sex: All
• Target Recruitment: 30

Inclusion Criteria

• Free from any known illness.
• Between 18 and 40 years of age.

Exclusion Criteria

• History of heart/respiratory problems
• Pregnancy
• Presence of implants, including cardiac pacemakers or orthopaedic implants
• History of a neurological disorder
• History of severe arterial disease or known dermatological problems.

Study & Design

• Study Type: INTERVENTIONAL
• Study Design: SINGLE_GROUP

Primary Outcome Measures

Name	Time	Method
Blood Flow Measurements from the Lower Limb	An hour and a half (plus or minus half an hour)	Doppler measurements must be taken for each of the interventions. The measurement site of interest is the popliteal vein, located at the lateral aspect of the knee, below the sapheno-popliteal junction. Peak venous velocity, time averaged mean velocity, vein cross-sectional area and volume flow are required. A minimum of 3 measurements per intervention is required for rigor. Do not take any measurement within the first minute of the intervention

Secondary Outcome Measures

Name	Time	Method
Blood Pressure	An hour and a half (plus or minus half an hour)
Heart Rate	An hour and a half (plus or minus half an hour)

Trial Locations

Locations (1)

National University of Ireland, Galway; 🇮🇪 Galway, Ireland