Dobsák Petr, Nováková Marie, Fiser Bohumil, Siegelová Jarmila, Balcárková Pavla, Spinarová Lenka, Vítovec Jirí, Minami Naoyoshi, Nagasaka Makoto, Kohzuki Masahiro, Yambe Tomoyuki, Imachi Kou, Nitta Shin-ichi, Eicher Jean-Christophe, Wolf Jean-Eric
Department of Functional Diagnostics and Rehabilitation, St. Anna Faculty Hospital and Masaryk University of Brno, Czech Republic.
Int Heart J. 2006 May;47(3):441-53. doi: 10.1536/ihj.47.441.
The aim of this study was to investigate whether electrical stimulation of skeletal muscles could represent a rehabilitation alternative for patients with chronic heart failure (CHF). Thirty patients with CHF and NYHA class II-III were randomly assigned to a rehabilitation program using either electrical stimulation of skeletal muscles or bicycle training. Patients in the first group (n = 15) had 8 weeks of home-based low-frequency electrical stimulation (LFES) applied simultaneously to the quadriceps and calf muscles of both legs (1 h/day for 7 days/week); patients in the second group (n = 15) underwent 8 weeks of 40 minute aerobic exercise (3 times a week). After the 8-week period significant increases in several functional parameters were observed in both groups: maximal VO2 uptake (LFES group: from 17.5 +/- 4.4 mL/kg/min to 18.3 +/- 4.2 mL/kg/min, P < 0.05; bicycle group: from 18.1 +/- 3.9 mL/kg/min to 19.3 +/- 4.1 mL/kg/min, P < 0.01), maximal workload (LFES group: from 84.3 +/- 15.2 W to 95.9 +/- 9.8 W, P < 0.05; bicycle group: from 91.2 +/- 13.4 W to 112.9 +/- 10.8 W, P < 0.01), distance walked in 6 minutes (LFES group: from 398 +/- 105 m to 435 +/- 112 m, P < 0.05; bicycle group: from 425 +/- 118 m to 483 +/- 120 m, P < 0.03), and exercise duration (LFES group: from 488 +/- 45 seconds to 568 +/- 120 seconds, P < 0.05; bicycle group: from 510 +/- 90 seconds to 611 +/- 112 seconds, P < 0.03). These results demonstrate that an improvement of exercise capacities can be achieved either by classical exercise training or by home-based electrical stimulation. LFES should be considered as a valuable alternative to classical exercise training in patients with CHF.
本研究的目的是调查骨骼肌电刺激是否可作为慢性心力衰竭(CHF)患者的一种康复替代方案。30例纽约心脏协会(NYHA)心功能分级为II - III级的CHF患者被随机分配到一个康复项目中,该项目采用骨骼肌电刺激或自行车训练。第一组(n = 15)患者在家中进行为期8周的低频电刺激(LFES),同时对双腿的股四头肌和小腿肌肉进行刺激(每天1小时,每周7天);第二组(n = 15)患者进行为期8周的有氧运动,每次40分钟(每周3次)。8周后,两组患者的几个功能参数均显著增加:最大摄氧量(LFES组:从17.5±4.4 mL/kg/min增至18.3±4.2 mL/kg/min,P < 0.05;自行车组:从18.1±3.9 mL/kg/min增至19.3±4.1 mL/kg/min,P < 0.01)、最大工作量(LFES组:从84.3±15.2 W增至95.9±9.8 W,P < 0.05;自行车组:从91.2±13.4 W增至112.9±10.8 W, P < 0.01)、6分钟步行距离(LFES组:从398±105 m增至435±112 m,P < 0.05;自行车组:从425±118 m增至483±12 m,P < 0.03)以及运动持续时间(LFES组:从488±45秒增至568±120秒,P < 0.05;自行车组:从510±90秒增至611±112秒,P < 0.03)。这些结果表明,通过传统运动训练或家庭式电刺激均可实现运动能力的改善。对于CHF患者,LFES应被视为传统运动训练的一种有价值的替代方案。