Alternating Current Is More Fatigable Than Pulsed Current in People Who Are Healthy: A Double-Blind, Randomized Crossover Trial. Issue 6 (9th February 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Paz, Isabel de Almeida; Rigo, Graciane Taglian; Sgarioni, Amanda; Baroni, Bruno Manfredini; Frasson, Viviane Bortoluzzi; Vaz, Marco Aurélio
• Is Part Of: Physical therapy. Volume 101:Issue 6(2021)
• Publication Date: 2021-02-09
• Subjects: Electric Stimulation -- Electric Stimulation Therapy -- Muscle Fatigue -- Muscle Performance -- Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation; Physical therapy -- Periodicals; Physical therapy; Physical Therapy Modalities; Rehabilitation; Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine; Periodicals; 615.8205
• DOI: 10.1093/ptj/pzab056
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0031-9023

Abstract

Abstract: Objective: Tolerance level and rapid fatigue onset are limitations in the use of neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) as an electrotherapeutic resource in rehabilitation and training protocols; however, it is unclear if pulsed current (PC) and alternating current (AC) produce different fatigue levels when applied at submaximal contraction level. The purpose of this study was to compare fatigue and discomfort levels between PC and AC during a submaximal contraction protocol in people who are healthy. Methods: In this double-blind, randomized crossover trial conducted in a laboratory setting, 30 male volunteers [23.23 years of age (SD = 4.59)] performed 2 submaximal fatigue protocols (with a 7-day interval) in a randomized order: PC (pulse duration = 2 milliseconds, pulse frequency = 100 Hz) and AC (2.5 kHz, pulse duration = 0.4 milliseconds, burst frequency = 100 Hz). NMES currents were applied to the knee extensor motor point of the dominant limb. The NMES protocol consisted of 80 evoked contractions (time on:off = 5:10 seconds) and lasted 20 minutes. The current was maintained at a constant intensity throughout the NMES protocol. The primary outcome measures were maximal voluntary isometric contraction, fatigue index (evoked torque decline), fatigability (number of contractions for a 50% drop in evoked-torque from the protocol start), total evoked torque-time integral (TTI), decline in TTI, and discomfort level. Results: AC at 2.5 kHz demonstrated higher maximal voluntary isometric contraction decline post-fatigue, higher fatigue index, higher fatigability (ie, fewer contractions to reach the 50% evoked torque decline from the protocol start), smaller total TTI, and higher TTI decline compared with PC. No between-currents difference was observed in discomfort level. Conclusion: PC is less fatigable than AC at 2.5 kHz. Impact: Based on this study, PC is the preferred current choice when the NMES goal is to generate higher muscle work, higher mechanical load, and smaller fatigability during training both for athletes who are healthy and for rehabilitation programs for people with disease or injury.