Spinal Cord Research Help
AboutCategoriesLatest ResearchContact
Subscribe
Spinal Cord Research Help

Making Spinal Cord Injury (SCI) Research Accessible to Everyone. Simplified summaries of the latest research, designed for patients, caregivers and anybody who's interested.

Quick Links

  • Home
  • About
  • Categories
  • Latest Research
  • Disclaimer

Contact

  • Contact Us
© 2025 Spinal Cord Research Help

All rights reserved.

  1. Home
  2. Research
  3. Cardiovascular Science
  4. Neuromuscular electrical stimulation for the prevention of venous thromboembolism

Neuromuscular electrical stimulation for the prevention of venous thromboembolism

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2017 · DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011764.pub2 · Published: November 1, 2017

Cardiovascular ScienceNeurology

Simple Explanation

Venous thromboembolism (VTE), the formation of unwanted blood clots in the deep veins of the legs, is a serious health problem that can be prevented by pharmacological or mechanical methods. Neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) is a mechanical method that delivers electrical impulses to induce muscle contraction. This review compared NMES with no treatment or other methods like low-dose heparin and compression stockings for preventing blood clots. The review included eight studies enrolling a total of 904 participants. The review found no clear difference in the risk of unwanted blood clots in the legs between NMES and alternative methods, but NMES was associated with a lower risk compared to no treatment, and a higher risk compared to heparin. However, the quality of evidence was generally low, and more studies are needed to strengthen the evidence.

Study Duration
Not specified
Participants
904 participants
Evidence Level
Systematic Review of RCTs and quasi-RCTs

Key Findings

  • 1
    No clear difference in the risk of DVT between NMES and alternative methods of prophylaxis (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.70; low-quality evidence).
  • 2
    NMES associated with lower risk of DVT compared with no prophylaxis (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.70; moderate-quality evidence).
  • 3
    NMES associated with higher risk of DVT compared with low-dose heparin (OR 2.78, 95% CI 1.19 to 6.48; low-quality evidence).

Research Summary

This review evaluated the effectiveness of neuromuscular electrical stimulation systems (NMES) in preventing venous thromboembolism (VTE) through a systematic review of randomized controlled trials and quasi-randomized trials. The results indicated no significant difference in the risk of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) between NMES and alternative methods of prophylaxis. However, NMES was associated with a lower risk of DVT compared to no prophylaxis and a higher risk compared to low-dose heparin. The review concludes that the evidence supporting the effectiveness of NMES in VTE prevention is not robust enough for definitive conclusions and calls for more adequately powered, high-quality randomized controlled trials.

Practical Implications

Clinical Practice

Low-quality evidence suggests no clear differences in DVT risk between NMES and alternative prophylaxis, but moderate-quality evidence indicates NMES may lower DVT risk compared to no prophylaxis. Low-quality evidence suggests higher DVT risk with NMES compared to low-dose heparin.

Further Research

Adequately powered RCTs are needed to provide robust evidence on the effectiveness of NMES versus other methods, additional effects of NMES combined with other methods, and cost-effectiveness of NMES.

Device and Patient Selection

Research is needed to determine the most effective NMES device and setting for delivery, as well as identify patient populations that may benefit most from NMES for VTE prophylaxis.

Study Limitations

  • 1
    Inadequate allocation concealment and blinding in included trials.
  • 2
    Limited number of studies reporting most outcomes.
  • 3
    Heterogeneity among the included studies.

Your Feedback

Was this summary helpful?

Back to Cardiovascular Science