Physical rehabilitation in the intensive care unit: past, present, and future

Early Mobilization Dose Reporting in Randomized Clinical Trials With Patients Who Were Mechanically Ventilated: A Scoping Review

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this scoping review was to investigate the mobilization dose reporting in the randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of patients receiving mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit.

METHODS

In this scoping review, RCTs published from inception to December 2022 were searched in relevant electronic databases. Trials that involved adults receiving mechanical ventilation (>48 hours) and any early mobilization modality were analyzed. Two independent authors screened, selected, and extracted data. The mobilization doses of the intervention groups (IGs) and the comparator groups (CGs) were assessed as the proportion of reported items/total applicable from the main items of the Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template (CERT).

RESULTS

Twenty-three RCTs comprising 2707 patients (1358 from IG and 1349 from CG) were included, involving studies on neuromuscular electrical stimulation (n = 7), progressive mobility (n = 6), leg cycling (n = 3), tilt table (n = 1), and multicomponent (n = 6) mobilization. The pooled reporting of CERT items was 68% (86% for IG and 50% for CG). The most reported CERT items were type of exercise (100%) and weekly frequency (100%) for IG, whereas the least reported were intensity (4%) and individualization (22%) for CG. Regardless of the group, individualization, progression, and intensity of mobilization were the least reported items. Eight IGs (35%) reported all CERT items, whereas no CGs reported all of them.

CONCLUSIONS

Deficits in mobilization dose reporting of intensive care unit RCTs were identified, especially for exercise intensity in adults receiving mechanical ventilation. One-third of IG reported all exercise dosing items, whereas no CG reported all of them. Future studies should investigate the details of optimal dosage reporting, particularly for CG.

IMPACT

The lack of dose reporting may partially explain the inconsistency in the meta-analysis results of early mobilization trials, thus limiting the interpretation for clinical practice in the intensive care unit.

Association of active mobilisation variables with adverse events and mortality in patients requiring mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Mobilisation during critical illness is now included in multiple clinical practice guidelines. However, a large, randomised trial and systematic review have recently identified an increased probability of adverse events and mortality in patients who received early active mobilisation in the intensive care unit (ICU). We aimed to determine the effects of mobilisation compared with usual care on adverse events and mortality in an acute ICU setting. In subgroup analyses, we specifically aimed to investigate possible sources of harm, including the timing and duration of mobilisation achieved, ventilation status, and admission diagnosis.

METHODS

In this systematic review with frequentist and Bayesian analyses, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and PEDro electronic databases, as well as clinical trial registries (ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov), from inception to March 16, 2023, without language restrictions. Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials that examined active mobilisation compared with either no mobilisation or mobilisation commencing later, or at a lower frequency or intensity, in adults who were critically ill during or after a period of mechanical ventilation in an acute ICU setting. Two authors independently screened reports, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (version 1). The primary outcome was the number of adverse events that occurred during the implementation of mobilisation, with the effect of mobilisation on mortality being the secondary outcome. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% CIs were calculated in R (version 4.0.3) using random-effects modelling, with Bayesian analysis completed to calculate the probability of treatment harm (ie, RR >1). Subgroup analyses were completed to investigate the association of various factors of mobilisation on adverse events and mortality: duration of mobilisation (longer [≥20 min per day] vs shorter [<20 min per day]), timing of commencement (early [≤72 h from ICU admission] vs late [>72 h from ICU admission]), ventilation status at commencement (all patients mechanically ventilated vs all patients extubated), and ICU admission diagnosis (surgical vs medical). This study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42022369272.

FINDINGS

After title and abstract screening of 14 440 studies and review of 466 full texts, 67 trials with 7004 participants met inclusion criteria, with 59 trials contributing to the meta-analysis. Of the 67 included studies, 15 (22%) did not mention adverse events and 13 (19%) reported no adverse events occurring across the trial period. Overall, we found no effect of mobilisation compared with usual care on the occurrence of adverse events (RR 1·09 [95% CI 0·69-1·74], p=0·71; I2 91%; 32 731 events, 20 studies; very low certainty), with a 2·96% occurrence rate (693 events in 23 395 intervention sessions; 25 studies). Mobilisation did not have any effect on mortality (RR 0·98 [95% CI 0·87-1·12], p=0·81; I2 0%; n=6218, 58 studies; moderate certainty). Subgroup analysis was hindered by the large amount of data that could not be allocated and analysed, making the results hypothesis generating only.

INTERPRETATION

Implementation of mobilisation in the ICU was associated with a less than 3% chance of an adverse event occurring and was not found to increase adverse events or mortality overall, providing reassurance for clinicians about the safety of performing this intervention. Subgroup analyses did not clearly identify any specific variable of mobilisation implementation that increased harm.

FUNDING

None.

Treatment Fidelity in 94 Randomized Controlled Trials of Physical Rehabilitation in the ICU: A Scoping Review

OBJECTIVES

Recent reviews demonstrated discordant effects of ICU-based physical rehabilitation on physical function. These inconsistencies may be related to differences in treatment fidelity-the extent to which a protocol is delivered as planned. Before evaluating the association of fidelity with outcomes, we must first understand the extent of treatment fidelity reporting in ICU-based physical rehabilitation randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

DATA SOURCES

Six electronic databases from inception to December 2022.

STUDY SELECTION

We included RCTs enrolling adults or children admitted to the ICU, if greater than or equal to 50% were invasively mechanically ventilated greater than 24 hours, and underwent an ICU-based physical rehabilitation intervention, with no limitation to comparators or outcomes.

DATA EXTRACTION

We screened and extracted data independently and in duplicate, with a third reviewer as needed. Extracted data included study characteristics, treatment descriptions, and the presence of National Institutes of Health Behaviour Change Consortium (NIH-BCC) treatment fidelity tool components. Treatment fidelity scores were calculated as the proportion of reported (numerator) out of total NIH-BCC components (denominator). We calculated scores across studies and by treatment group (intervention vs. comparator). We used linear regression to assess for a time trend in study treatment fidelity scores.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Of 20,433 citations, 94 studies met inclusion criteria. Authors reported a median (first-third quartiles) of 19% (14-26%) of treatment fidelity components across studies. Intervention group scores were higher than comparator groups (24% [19-33%] vs. 14% [5-24%], p < 0.01). We found a mean increase in study treatment fidelity scores by 0.7% (0.3 points) per year.

CONCLUSIONS

Only 19% of treatment fidelity components were reported across studies, with comparator groups more poorly reported. Future research could investigate ways to optimize treatment fidelity reporting and determine characteristics associated with treatment fidelity conduct in ICU-based physical rehabilitation RCTs.

Assessing the safety of physical rehabilitation in critically ill patients: a Delphi study

BACKGROUND

Physical rehabilitation of critically ill patients is implemented to improve physical outcomes from an intensive care stay. However, before rehabilitation is implemented, a risk assessment is essential, based on robust safety data. To develop this information, a uniform definition of relevant adverse events is required. The assessment of cardiovascular stability is particularly relevant before physical activity as there is uncertainty over when it is safe to start rehabilitation with patients receiving vasoactive drugs.

METHODS

A three-stage Delphi study was carried out to (a) define adverse events for a general ICU cohort, and (b) to define which risks should be assessed before physical rehabilitation of patients receiving vasoactive drugs. An international group of intensive care clinicians and clinician researchers took part. Former ICU patients and their family members/carers were involved in generating consensus for the definition of adverse events. Round one was an open round where participants gave their suggestions of what to include. In round two, participants rated their agreements with these suggestions using a five-point Likert scale; a 70% consensus agreement threshold was used. Round three was used to re-rate suggestions that had not reached consensus, whilst viewing anonymous feedback of participant ratings from round two.

RESULTS

Twenty-four multi-professional ICU clinicians and clinician researchers from 10 countries across five continents were recruited. Average duration of ICU experience was 18 years (standard deviation 8) and 61% had publications related to ICU rehabilitation. For the adverse event definition, five former ICU patients and one patient relative were recruited. The Delphi process had a 97% response rate. Firstly, 54 adverse events reached consensus; an adverse event tool was created and informed by these events. Secondly, 50 risk factors requiring assessment before physical rehabilitation of patients receiving vasoactive drugs reached consensus. A second tool was created, informed by these suggestions.

CONCLUSIONS

The adverse event tool can be used in studies of physical rehabilitation to ensure uniform measurement of safety. The risk assessment tool can be used to inform clinical practise when risk assessing when to start rehabilitation with patients receiving vasoactive drugs. Trial registration This study protocol was retrospectively registered on https://www.researchregistry.com/ (researchregistry2991).

From bedside to recovery: exercise therapy for prevention of post-intensive care syndrome

BACKGROUND

As advancements in critical care medicine continue to improve Intensive Care Unit (ICU) survival rates, clinical and research attention is urgently shifting toward improving the quality of survival. Post-Intensive Care Syndrome (PICS) is a complex constellation of physical, cognitive, and mental dysfunctions that severely impact patients' lives after hospital discharge. This review provides a comprehensive and multi-dimensional summary of the current evidence and practice of exercise therapy (ET) during and after an ICU admission to prevent and manage the various domains of PICS. The review aims to elucidate the evidence of the mechanisms and effects of ET in ICU rehabilitation and highlight that suboptimal clinical and functional outcomes of ICU patients is a growing public health concern that needs to be urgently addressed.

MAIN BODY

This review commences with a brief overview of the current relationship between PICS and ET, describing the latest research on this topic. It subsequently summarises the use of ET in ICU, hospital wards, and post-hospital discharge, illuminating the problematic transition between these settings. The following chapters focus on the effects of ET on physical, cognitive, and mental function, detailing the multi-faceted biological and pathophysiological mechanisms of dysfunctions and the benefits of ET in all three domains. This is followed by a chapter focusing on co-interventions and how to maximise and enhance the effect of ET, outlining practical strategies for how to optimise the effectiveness of ET. The review next describes several emerging technologies that have been introduced/suggested to augment and support the provision of ET during and after ICU admission. Lastly, the review discusses future research directions.

CONCLUSION

PICS is a growing global healthcare concern. This review aims to guide clinicians, researchers, policymakers, and healthcare providers in utilising ET as a therapeutic and preventive measure for patients during and after an ICU admission to address this problem. An improved understanding of the effectiveness of ET and the clinical and research gaps that needs to be urgently addressed will greatly assist clinicians in their efforts to rehabilitate ICU survivors, improving patients' quality of survival and helping them return to their normal lives after hospital discharge.

Physical rehabilitation, mobilization and patient-centred outcomes: what is new?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Physical rehabilitation and mobilization interventions aim to reduce the incidence of intensive care unit (ICU)-acquired weakness and subsequently reduce morbidity in critically ill patients. This chapter will explore the evidence for physical rehabilitation and mobilization with an emphasis on patient-centred outcomes selected in randomized controlled trials. This is particularly pertinent at a time when clinicians are deciding how to implement physical rehabilitation and mobilization into the treatment of critically ill patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

Multiple trials of physical rehabilitation and mobilization were published in 2022 and 2023 with conflicting results. Analysing the complexities of physical rehabilitation research provides an insight into these results and will aid in the interpretation of trials of physical rehabilitation and mobilization.

SUMMARY

Patient-centred outcomes are often utilized in physical rehabilitation and mobilization research, but this does not automatically correspond to an increase in research quality. Improving consistency in trials of physical rehabilitation will aid in the interpretation and translation of physical rehabilitation research.