IMT demonstrates beneficial effects on systolic and diastolic blood pressure as well as autonomic cardiovascular control in hypertensive patients.

Treatment with CPAP promoted significantly but small reductions in blood pressure in individuals with OSA. Further studies should be performed to evaluate the effects of long-term CPAP and the impact on cardiovascular risk.

Functional electrical stimulation (FES) produces beneficial effects in the treatment of patients with chronic heart failure (CHF), but studies carried out in these patients show small sample sizes and conflicting results. The aim of this meta-analysis was to systematically review the effect of treatment with FES compared with conventional aerobic exercise training (CA) or control group in patients with CHF. The search strategy included MEDLINE, LILACS, Physiotherapy Evidence Database and Cochrane Library. Randomized trials comparing FES versus CA or control group in the treatment of patients with CHF were included. Two reviewers independently extracted the data. Main analysis used a fixed-effects model. The search retrieved 794 articles, from which seven studies were included. Treatment with FES provided a smaller gain in peak VO2 compared with CA {-0.74 ml/kg per min [95% confidence interval (CI): -1.38 to -0.10]}. There was no difference in the muscle strength [-0.33 Nm (95% CI: -4.56 to 3.90)] and in the distance of the 6-min walk test [2.73 m (95% CI: -15.39 to 20.85)] on comparing FES with CA. An increase in peak VO2 of 2.78 ml/kg per min (95% CI: 1.44-4.13) was observed in FES versus the control group. Treatment with FES provides a similar gain in the distance of the 6-min walk test and in the muscle strength when compared with CA, but a small gain in the peak VO2. An increase in the peak VO2 can be obtained with FES as compared with the control group. Thus, FES may be an alternative in relation with CA for patients with CHF and with those who are unable to perform this kind of exercise.

BACKGROUND: Inspiratory muscle training (IMT) produces beneficial effects in COPD subjects, but the effects of expiratory muscle training (EMT) and EMT plus IMT in ventilatory training are still unclear. The aim of this study was to systematically review the effects of EMT and EMT plus IMT compared to control groups of COPD subjects. METHODS: This study is a systematic review and meta-analysis. The search strategy included MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, PEDro, and Cochrane CENTRAL and also manual search of references in published studies on the subject. Randomized trials comparing EMT and EMT plus IMT versus control groups of subjects with COPD were included. The outcomes analyzed were respiratory muscle strength and functional capacity. Two reviewers independently extracted the data. RESULTS: The search retrieved 609 articles. Five studies were included. We observed that EMT provided higher gain in maximum expiratory pressure (P E max 21.49 cm H 2 O, 95% CI 13.39 -29.59) and maximum inspiratory pressure (P I max 7.68 cm H 2 O, 95% CI 0.90 -14.45) compared to control groups. There was no significant difference in the 6-min walk test distance (29.01 m, 95% CI ؊39.62 to 97.65) and dyspnea (0.15, 95% CI ؊0.77 to 1.08). In relation to EMT plus IMT, we observed that P E max (31.98 cm H 2 O, 95% CI 26.93-37.03) and P I max (27.98 cm H 2 O, 95% CI 20.10 -35.85) presented higher values compared to control groups. CONCLUSIONS: EMT and EMT plus IMT improve respiratory muscle strength and can be used as part of the treatment during pulmonary rehabilitation of subjects with severe to very severe COPD.

Sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous system imbalance has been strongly associated to sudden cardiac death. Among the non-pharmacological treatment, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) represents a possible therapeutic intervention to reduce sympathetic excitation and improve the sympatho-vagal balance in different clinical conditions. We aimed to verify acute effects of high and low transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) frequencies by the evaluation of heart rate variability. Seven healthy volunteers received an application of low frequency (10-Hz) and high frequency (100-Hz) TENS. After 10-Hz, there was decrease of LF normalized units (n.u.) component (32.7±5.9 vs 18.3±3.4, p<0.002) and increase of HF n.u. (60.9±4.3 vs 72.6±8.9, p<0.016). In contrast, after 100-Hz there was increase of LF n.u. (31.5±16.1 vs 41.6±12.2, p<0.019) and reduction of HF n.u. (63.9±15.3 vs 53.7±12.3, p<0.031). In conclusion, TENS modulates sympathetic and parasympathetic activity in a frequency dependent manner.

NCT01954199. [Ferreira G, Stieven F, Araujo F, Wiebusch M, Rosa C, Plentz R, et al. (2016) Neurodynamic treatment did not improve pain and disability at two weeks in patients with chronic nerve-related leg pain: a randomised trial.Journal of Physiotherapy62: 197-202].

| Background: Painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN) is a common complication of diabetes mellitus, and pharmacological therapies are ineffective in many patients. Therefore, other treatment modalities should be considered, including electrical stimulation and electromagnetic fields. Objectives: The research objective was to evaluate the effect of treatment with electrical stimulation and electromagnetic fields on pain and sensitivity in patients with painful diabetic neuropathy compared with placebo or another intervention. Method: We searched the following electronic databases (from inception to April 2012): MEDLINE (accessed by PubMed), LILACS, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), EMBASE and Cochrane CENTRAL. We included randomized trials that compared electrical stimulation or electromagnetic fields with control groups in which the objective was to assess pain and sensitivity in patients with PDN. Two reviewers independently extracted the data. A random-effects model was used for the main analysis. Results: The search retrieved 1336 articles, of which 12 studies were included. Reductions in the mean pain score were significantly greater in the TENS (transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation) group than in the placebo group [-0.44 (95% CI: -0.79 to -0.09; I2: 0%)]. There was no improvement in pain relief when electromagnetic fields were compared with the control group [-0.69 (95% CI: -1.86 to 0.48; I2: 63%)]. Conclusions: We found that TENS improved pain relief in patients with diabetic neuropathy, while no such improvement was observed with the use of electromagnetic field treatment. Due to the methodological differences between the studies, a meta-analysis for the outcome of sensitivity could not be performed.Keywords: physical therapy; diabetic neuropathies; electrical stimulation; electromagnetic fields; pain; review. HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE

No abstract