Functional electrical stimulation combined with voluntary cycling accentuates VO2 response in people with severe multiple sclerosis: A pilot study

Abstract

BackgroundLower limb muscle weakness and reduced balance due to disease progression in multiple sclerosis (MS) may make robust aerobic exercise difficult. Functional electrical stimulation (FES) cycling combined with voluntary cycling may allow people with severe MS to enhance the intensity of aerobic exercise. The aim of this study was to investigate the cardiorespiratory, power, and participant-reported perceptions during acute bouts of FES cycling, voluntary cycling, and FES cycling combined with voluntary cycling (FES assist cycling). MethodsParticipants with severe MS (Expanded Disability Status Scale [EDSS] ≥ 6.0) undertook three exercise trials on a leg cycle ergometer. Trial 1 involved 30 min of FES cycling; Trial 2 involved two 10-minute bouts of voluntary cycling separated by 10 min rest; and Trial 3 was a combination of trials 1 and 2 (FES assist cycling). Outcome measures included VO2 (volume of oxygen consumption), cycle power output, heart rate, RPE, and post-exercise perceptions of pain and fatigue. ResultsTen people with severe MS participated (9 female; age 52.4 ± 9.98 y; EDSS 7.1 ± 0.6). The average VO2 during the 30-minute trials was significantly higher for FES assist cycling compared to voluntary cycling (429.7 ± 111.0 vs 388.5 ± 101.0 mL/min, 95% CI 23.4 to 113.0 mL/min, p = 0.01), with a large effect size (Hedges' g = 1.04). Participants reported similar rates of perceived exertion at the end of FES cycling (13 ± 2), voluntary cycling (14 ± 2), and FES assist cycling (15 ± 1); p = 0.14. Self-reported pain was higher during both FES cycling (5.4 vs 0.3; 95% CI 3.4 to 6.7, p = 0.01, Hedges’ g = 2.07) and FES assist cycling (4.2 vs. 0.3; 95% CI 2.3 to 5.5, p = 0.01, Hedges’ g = 1.71) than voluntary cycling, both with large effect sizes. There was no difference in self-reported fatigue at the end of each trial (p = 0.21). ConclusionThis study found FES assist cycling produced significantly higher VO2 values than voluntary cycling, although the clinical significance of these differences is unknown. Participants performed FES assist cycling at a self-reported RPE consistent with moderate to vigorous intensity, however it was considered light-intensity exercise when expressed by METS. FES assist cycling was no more fatiguing post-exercise than the other modes.