The effectiveness of a novel neuromuscular electrostimulation method versus intermittent pneumatic compression in enhancing lower limb blood flow

Huda Jawad; Duncan S Bain; Helen Dawson; Kate Crawford; Atholl Johnston; Arthur Tucker

doi:10.1016/j.jvsv.2013.10.052

The effectiveness of a novel neuromuscular electrostimulation method versus intermittent pneumatic compression in enhancing lower limb blood flow

J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord. 2014 Apr;2(2):160-5. doi: 10.1016/j.jvsv.2013.10.052. Epub 2014 Jan 28.

Authors

Huda Jawad¹, Duncan S Bain², Helen Dawson³, Kate Crawford³, Atholl Johnston², Arthur Tucker⁴

Affiliations

¹ Department of Clinical Pharmacology, William Harvey Research Institute, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, London, United Kingdom. Electronic address: hjawad@uob.edu.bh.
² Department of Clinical Pharmacology, William Harvey Research Institute, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, London, United Kingdom.
³ Ernest Cooke Vascular & Microvascular Unit, St Bartholomew's Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom.
⁴ Department of Clinical Pharmacology, William Harvey Research Institute, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, London, United Kingdom; Ernest Cooke Vascular & Microvascular Unit, St Bartholomew's Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom.

PMID: 26993181
DOI: 10.1016/j.jvsv.2013.10.052

Abstract

Objective: This study compares the effectiveness of a neuromuscular electrostimulation device (geko T-1; Firstkind Ltd, High Wycombe, UK) in enhancing lower limb blood perfusion with two leading intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) devices, the Huntleigh Flowtron Universal (Huntleigh Healthcare Ltd, Cardiff, UK) and the Kendall SCD Express (Covidien plc, Dublin, Ireland). The subjects' tolerance of the devices was also compared.

Methods: Ten healthy subjects were recruited. The devices were fitted bilaterally, in a sequential manner, for 30 minutes. Ultrasound and laser Doppler fluxmetry assessments were performed.

Results: The geko T-1 device was superior to both IPC devices in increasing both venous and arterial blood volume flow by ∼30% (95% confidence interval [CI], 23.7%-82.4%; P ≤ .001). The geko T-1 increased arterial blood velocity by 24% (95% CI, 9.7%-24.5%; P ≤ .001). A substantial increase in the total microcirculatory blood velocity by ∼370% (95% CI, 13.5%-39.7%) was reported after the use of the geko T-1 (P ≤ .001). With use of the visual analog scale, no significant differences in discomfort were found between the geko T-1 device and the IPC devices (P >.05).

Conclusions: The geko T-1 device is more effective than the IPC devices in increasing venous, arterial, and microcirculatory blood velocity. The devices studied were safe and well tolerated by healthy subjects.