The complementary effects of galvanic current electrical stimulation associated with conservative treatment to increase vasodilation in patients with Raynaud’s phenomenon: a randomized trial

Objective: To analyze the effectiveness of an electrotherapy intervention with galvanic current on symptoms associated with Raynaud’s phenomenon. Design: Single-blind randomized controlled trial, parallel design (1:1 ratio) and intention-to-treat analysis. Setting: Virgen de las Nieves Hospital, Gra...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Clinical rehabilitation 2020-05, Vol.34 (5), p.595-606
Main Authors: Tapia-Haro, Rosa María, García-Ríos, Mª Carmen, Toledano-Moreno, Sonia, Casas-Barragán, Antonio, Castro-Sánchez, Adelaida Mª, Aguilar-Ferrándiz, María Encarnación
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adult
Analgesics
Blood flow
Catastrophic reactions
Clinical trials
Conservative Treatment
Disability
Electric Stimulation Therapy
Electrical stimulation
Female
Humans
Intervention
Male
Middle Aged
Oxygen
Pain
Raynaud disease
Raynaud Disease - physiopathology
Raynaud Disease - therapy
Recovery
Rehabilitation
Saturation
Sensitization
Single-Blind Method
Spain
Treatment Outcome
Vasodilation
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Objective: To analyze the effectiveness of an electrotherapy intervention with galvanic current on symptoms associated with Raynaud’s phenomenon. Design: Single-blind randomized controlled trial, parallel design (1:1 ratio) and intention-to-treat analysis. Setting: Virgen de las Nieves Hospital, Granada, Spain. Subjects: Thirty-four participants with Raynaud’s phenomenon, with a mean (SD) age of 43.43 (17.62) years. Interventions: The patients were randomly assigned to a control group with conservative treatment (anti-inflammatory, vasodilatory and analgesic drugs) or an intervention group that received conservative treatment and vasodilatory electrical stimulation during seven weeks, three times/week for a total of 20 sessions. Main measures: The primary outcome was the number of attacks. Secondary outcomes were pain, peripheral blow flow, oxygen saturation, upper limb disability, central sensitization, pain catastrophizing and temperature recovery. All outcomes were assessed at baseline, posttreatment and at two months of follow-up. Results: The galvanic current electrotherapy group showed significantly greater improvements in the number of attacks (mean difference = 26.3, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 14.4 to 38.3), pre-cold stress pain (95% CI = 0.6 to 2.4), radial artery blood flow (95% CI = −7.8 ⩾ x ⩽ 1.3), ulnar artery blood flow (95% CI = −8.63 to 0.60), oxygen saturation (95% CI = −1.7 ⩾ x ⩽ −0.29), upper limb disability (95% CI = 1.1 to 22.3), central sensitization (95% CI = 6.7 to 18.2) and temperature recovery (95% CI = −5.7 ⩾ x ⩽ −0.32) than the conservative treatment group. Conclusion: This study suggests that a complementary treatment with galvanic current in combination to conservative approach is superior to conservative applied as isolate, in reducing the clinical manifestations and disability in Raynaud’s phenomenon.
ISSN:0269-2155
1477-0873
DOI:10.1177/0269215520907652