4.3 Article

Metabolic, ventilatory and cardiovascular responses to FES-cycling: A comparison to NMES and passive cycling

Journal

TECHNOLOGY AND HEALTH CARE
Volume 30, Issue 4, Pages 909-918

Publisher

IOS PRESS
DOI: 10.3233/THC-213220

Keywords

FES-cycling; exercise; oxygen uptake; NMES; electrical stimulation; cycling

Ask authors/readers for more resources

FES-cycling enhances metabolic, ventilatory, and cardiovascular demands, and the physiological responses are higher than NMES and passive cycling.
BACKGROUND: Cyclergometry with functional electrical stimulation (FES-cycling) is a feasible method for rehabilitation. The concept is to promote exercise induced by depolarization of the motoneuron and muscular contraction. OBJECTIVE: To measure acute physiological responses to FES-cycling. METHODS: Retrospective study of data from ten healthy volunteers who performed FES-cycling, passive cycling and neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) alone. Metabolic, ventilatory and cardiovascular parameters were analyzed. RESULTS: Oxygen uptake enhanced 97 +/- 15% during FES-cycling, with medium effect size compared to NMES and large effect size compared to passive cycling. Energy expenditure enhanced 102 +/- 15% during FES-cycling, with medium effect size compared to NMES and large effect size compared to passive cycling. Minute ventilation enhanced 115 +/- 26% during FES-cycling, with small effect size compared to NMES and medium effect size compared to passive cycling. Cardiac output enhanced 21 +/- 4% during FES-cycling, with medium effect size compared to NMES and passive cycling. Arterial - mixed venous oxygen content difference enhanced 60 +/- 8% during FES-cycling, with a medium effect size compared to NMES and large effect size compared to passive cycling. CONCLUSIONS: FES-cycling enhances metabolic, ventilatory and cardiovascular demands and the physiological responses are higher than NMES and passive cycling.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available