Sternal interferential current stimulation after sternotomy: A randomized, sham-controlled trial on pain and wound healing.
Nils Schulz, Gian Vo, Pascal Van Wijnen and 4 others
PMID 40833250WHAT IT FOUND
Adding sternal interferential current stimulation to standard cardiac rehabilitation reduced pain more than sham treatment over 21 days.
It also lowered painkiller use and inflammation markers, but did not improve breathing capacity or quality of life beyond the rehabilitation programme itself.
Key findings
01The intervention group had a statistically significant greater reduction in pain intensity compared to the sham group, with an adjusted mean difference of -8.3 points on the Visual Analogue Scale.
02Patients receiving active stimulation had significantly higher odds of reducing or stopping analgesic medication compared to the sham group (Odds Ratio 5.9).
03Active stimulation led to significantly greater reductions in inflammatory cytokines TNF-alpha and IL-6 compared to sham treatment.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The study was conducted at a single centre, which may limit how widely the results apply to other settings. There was no follow-up after the 21-day rehabilitation period, so long-term effects are unknown. The study may have been underpowered to detect smaller differences in secondary outcomes like lung function and quality of life. All patients had sternal wires, which is generally a contraindication for electrical stimulation, though no adverse events were reported in this specific context.
Declared interests
The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not interpret the lack of adverse events in the intervention group as proof that interferential current stimulation is safe for all patients with sternal wires. The study excluded patients with implanted electronic devices like pacemakers and active wound infections, so its safety findings do not extend to those populations.