Peripheral muscle electrostimulation: Cardiovascular response in COPD patients and long term effects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Conventionnal pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) suppose minimal active exercise. Because the ventilatory limitation, severe COPD patients are not always able to fully participate. Electrostimulation (ESM) of the peripheral muscles helps to prevent total unuse of the patients muscles and could aim to a complete PR program. The long term benefits of this intervention may be evanescent. The cardiovascular effects of ESM are not known in severe to very severe COPD patients. We prospectively studied 9 COPD patients (3 females and 6 males, mean age of 65 y/o, mean FEV1 of 0,78 L (28%)) undergoing home-based peripheral muscles ESM. This latter consisted of 5 periods of 20 minutes, 5 times a week and for 3 weeks. Short and long term benefits were measured according to 6MWT and 1RM leg press test. Cardiac frequency (F) and arterial pressure (AP) were registered each 5 minutes during periods 1, 7 and 15. F and AP did not show any significant fluctuations from beginning to end of the ESM period, and there is no difference between periods 1 and 15. 6MWT showed a mild but statistically significant improvement (232 to 244 m, p = 0,02). The 1RM leg press was also improved (192 to 209 p, p=0,004). After, 3/9 patients were able to complete a PR program. At one year, 6MWT and 1RM leg press test were below the baseline values. ESM was well tolerated by the patients, without complication. Conclusion: Home-based ESM program is a safe procedure and is not associated with significant change in F and AP, and an immediate impact was observed on 6MWT and 1RM leg press test. It could precede a complete PR program in selected severe to very severe COPD patients and be offered in a context of hospitalization.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".