Trial reportESC heart failure2026
Improved performance after neuromuscular electrical stimulation in hospitalized patients with severe heart failure.
Trial report in ESC heart failure, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPatients with severe heart failure often suffer from sarcopenia, which contributes to reduced exercise capacity and might worsen during a hospital stay. The study thus aimed to investigate the safety of neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) and its effects on functional performance in hospitalized patients with severe heart failure, including patients with electronic cardiac devices, in addition to regular physiotherapeutic treatment.
methodsBased on their functional performance level, 30 patients (48.0 ± 14.3 years; 19 males, 11 females) were stratified and 1:1 randomized to either the control group (CON) with regular physiotherapeutic treatment only, or the stimulation group (STIM), who additionally received a 2-week NMES of the leg muscles. Functional performance was evaluated using a battery of 5 distinct functional tests [including the 6-minute walking test (6MWT) and the sit-to-stand test (SST)] administered at baseline (T0) and after 2 weeks (T1). The individual test outcomes were subsequently aggregated into a composite measure, the StimFIT5-Score. Furthermore, the PHQ9-Score was assessed to evaluate depressive symptoms.
resultsNo adverse side effects occurred and specifically, no electromagnetic interferences in patients with cardiac electronic devices were detected. For the StimFIT5-Score, a significantly greater improvement (P = .002) was observed in STIM (+8.2 points, P < .001) compared to CON (+3.6 points, P = .006). The percentage improvement in the StimFIT5-Score was the greatest in STIM-patients with low StimFIT5-Scores at baseline (+53%). STIM showed significant improvements from T0 to T1 in the 6MWT (+ 68 m, P < .001) and SST (+3.8 repetitions, P < .001) but with no significantly greater improvement in both tests (6-minute walking test P = .087, SST P = .085) compared to CON (6MWT +35 m, P = .05; SST +1.7 repetitions, P = .078). There was also no significant difference (P = .078) in the improvement of the PHQ9-Score in STIM (-3.2 points, P < .001) compared to CON (-2.4 points, P = .013). In STIM, no sex-specific differences were observed for the improvement in StimFIT5-Score (P = .388), 6MWT (P = .685), and SST (P = .720), with both female and male patients showing significant improvements from T0 to T1.
conclusionIn this study, NMES was safely applied in patients with severe heart failure and electronic cardiac devices. Two weeks of NMES in addition to regular physiotherapeutic treatment had significant effects on functional performance measured by StimFIT5-Score, independent of sex and with the greatest benefits observed in the least fit patients .
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.