Therapeutic Actions Electrotherapy

NCBI pubmed

High-Voltage Electrical Stimulation Versus Ultrasound in the Treatment of Pressure Ulcers.

Related Articles High-Voltage Electrical Stimulation Versus Ultrasound in the Treatment of Pressure Ulcers. Adv Skin Wound Care. 2017 Dec;30(12):565-570 Authors: Bora Karsli P, Gurcay E, Karaahmet OZ, Cakci A Abstract OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess and compare the efficacy of high-voltage electrical stimulation (HVES) with ultrasound (US) in treating Stage II through Stage IV pressure ulcers (PrUs)* of hospitalized patients. DESIGN: This study was designed as a prospective, controlled trial in which patients were randomly assigned to 2 groups. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTINGS: A total of 27 patients (22 male, 5 female) hospitalized for neurologic rehabilitation in the Clinic of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation with Stage II through Stage IV PrUs were included in this study. The patients were randomly assigned to either HVES or US treatment group, and all patients underwent standard wound care. Over 4 to 12 weeks, HVES was applied for 60 minutes 3 times per week, and US was applied 3 times per week. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Properties of the PrUs were noted during pre- and posttreatment. RESULTS: The PrUs of patients in the HVES and US groups healed at a mean rate of 43% and 63%, respectively. There was no statistically significant intergroup difference in healing found after treatment. Regression analysis was performed for the factors that could influence the wound surface areas, and significant effects were detected among the level of ambulation, pretreatment stage, and smoking. CONCLUSIONS: Both HVES and US are promising methods for wound healing, and both electrotherapy modalities have been demonstrated to support the healing of PrUs. PMID: 29140840 [PubMed - in process]

Prognostic Factors in Patients with an Implanted Pacemaker after 80 Years of Age in a 4-Year Follow-Up.

Related Articles Prognostic Factors in Patients with an Implanted Pacemaker after 80 Years of Age in a 4-Year Follow-Up. Gerontology. 2017 Nov 15;: Authors: Krzemień-Wolska K, Tomasik A, Wojciechowska C, Barańska-Pawełczak K, Nowalany-Kozielska E, Jacheć W Abstract BACKGROUND: The controversy over electrotherapy for patients aged >80 years occurs already at the stage of qualification for this treatment type and concerns optimal device selection, the implantation strategy, and the overall benefit from pacemaker therapy. The group also has a considerable number of cardiovascular risk factors, and the data from the literature on the impact of the pacing mode on the remote prognosis of this group are ambiguous. OBJECTIVE: Assessment of the risk factors for death among patients with implanted pacemakers >80 years of age in a 4-year follow-up. METHODS: The study group consisted of 140 consecutive patients (79 women) aged 84.48 ± 3.65 years with single- or dual-chamber pacemakers implanted >80 years of age because of symptomatic bradycardia. In univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses, demographic, echocardiographic, and laboratory parameters, pharmacotherapy, and factors related to the implanted device - i.e., indications, pacemaker type, and the implantation position of the tip of the right ventricular lead - were included. The endpoint was death for any reason in a 4-year follow-up. RESULTS: During follow-up, 68 patients (48.6%) died. Although atrial fibrillation with a slow ventricular response constituted 20% of the indications for implantation, 60.8% of the patients received a single-chamber system (VVI/VVIR). In the whole group, the multivariate Cox regression analysis showed both a favourable prognostic significance of DDD pacing system implantation (HR = 0.507; 95% CI: 0.294-0.876) and coexisting hypertension (HR = 0.520; 95% CI: 0.299-0.902). The risk factors were fasting glycaemia (HR = 1.180; 95% CI: 1.038-1.342) and, potentially, female sex (HR = 1.672; 95% CI: 0.988-2.830; p = 0.056). In the female subgroup a more favourable prognosis was related to the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (HR = 0.435; 95% CI: 0.202-0.933) and DDD pacemaker implantation (HR = 0.381; 95% CI: 0.180-0.806). In the male subgroup a more favourable prognosis was related to concerned patients with coexisting hypertension (HR = 0.349; 95% CI: 0.079-0.689). CONCLUSIONS: DDD mode pacing seems to serve as a factor which decreases mortality among patients aged >80 years in long-term follow-up. The potentially poorer prognosis for the female patients in this group may result from a combination of the dominant VVI pacing mode, potential propagation of atrial fibrillation, a low proportion of antithrombotic therapy, and sex-related predispositions to thromboembolic complications. PMID: 29136617 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]