Electric Muscle Stimulation for Weaning from Mechanical Ventilation in Elder Patients with Severe Sepsis and Acute Respiratory Failure – A Pilot Study

Clinical effect of pulmonary rehabilitation in patients with mechanical ventilation: A meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To systematically evaluate the clinical efficacy of pulmonary rehabilitation in patients with mechanical ventilation in an intensive care unit (ICU).

METHODS

Relevant studies were identified in the PubMed, Web of Science, National Library of Medicine, China National Knowledge Infrastructure and Wanfang databases. A meta-analysis was performed after screening based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, data extraction and literature quality evaluation.

RESULTS

In total, 19 studies involving 2181 participants were included. The results of the meta-analysis revealed that compared with patients with conventional rehabilitation measures, patients with pulmonary rehabilitation measures had a higher offline success rate (relative risk (RR) = 1.16; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.09, 1.24; p < 0.00001) and higher arterial oxygen partial pressure levels (mean difference (MD) = 8.96; 95%CI: 5.98, 11.94; p < 0.0001) and these measures significantly shortened the duration of mechanical ventilation (standardised MD (SMD) = -1.08; 95%CI: -1.58, -0.59; p < 0.0001) and ICU stay (SMD = -1.41; 95%CI: -1.94, -0.88; p < 0.0001). Aspiration significantly reduced the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia (RR = 0.35; 95%CI: 0.24, 0.51; p < 0.00001) and deep vein thrombosis (RR = 0.32; 95%CI: 0.13, 0.76; p = 0.01) in ICU patients with mechanical ventilation.

CONCLUSION

Pulmonary rehabilitation measures can improve the success rate of weaning from mechanical ventilation in ICU patients, shorten the time of mechanical ventilation and ICU hospitalisation and reduce the incidence of related adverse reactions, but the impact on mortality requires further study.

Effect of neuromuscular electrical stimulation in critically ill adults with mechanical ventilation: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) is widely used as a rehabilitation methods to restore muscle mass and function in prolonged immobilization individuals. However, its effect in mechanically ventilated patients to improve clinical outcomes remains unclear.

METHODS

A comprehensive search was conducted using PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, PEDro, and the Cochrane Library from their inception until December 24th, 2023. The search targeted randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing NMES with physical therapy (PT) or usual ICU care (CG), for improving clinical outcomes in mechanically ventilated patients. We performed a network meta-analysis utilizing Stata version 14.0 and R 4.3.1.

RESULTS

We included 23 RCTs comprising 1312 mechanically ventilated adults. The treatments analyzed were NMES, PT, NMES combined with PT (NMES+PT), and CG. Network meta-analyses revealed that NMES or NMES+PT significantly improved extubation success rate compared to CG, with ORs of 1.85 (95% CI: 1.11, 3.08) and 5.89 (95% CI: 1.77, 19.65), respectively. Additionally, NMES exhibited a slight decrease in extubation success rate compared with NMES+PT, with OR of 0.31 (95% CI: 0.11, 0.93). Nevertheless, neither NMES nor NMES+PT showed any significant improvement in ICU length of stay (LOS), ventilation duration, or mortality when compared with PT or CG. NMES+PT emerged as the most effective strategy for all considered clinical outcomes according to the ranking probabilities. The evidence quality ranged from "low" to "very low" in this network meta-analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

NMES appears to be a straightforward and safe modality for critically ill, mechanically ventilated patients. When combined with PT, it significantly improved the extubation success rate against standard ICU care and NMES alone, and showed a better ranking over PT or NMES alone for clinical outcomes. Therefore, NMES combined with PT may be a superior rehabilitation strategy for this patient group.

Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Rehabilitation in Critically Ill Patients 2023 (J-ReCIP 2023)

Providing standardized, high-quality rehabilitation for critically ill patients is a crucial issue. In 2017, the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine (JSICM) promulgated the "Evidence-Based Expert Consensus for Early Rehabilitation in the Intensive Care Unit" to advocate for the early initiation of rehabilitations in Japanese intensive care settings. Building upon this seminal work, JSICM has recently conducted a rigorous systematic review utilizing the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. This endeavor resulted in the formulation of Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs), designed to elucidate best practices in early ICU rehabilitation. The primary objective of this guideline is to augment clinical understanding and thereby facilitate evidence-based decision-making, ultimately contributing to the enhancement of patient outcomes in critical care settings. No previous CPGs in the world has focused specifically on rehabilitation of critically ill patients, using the GRADE approach. Multidisciplinary collaboration is extremely important in rehabilitation. Thus, the CPGs were developed by 73 members of a Guideline Development Group consisting of a working group, a systematic review group, and an academic guideline promotion group, with the Committee for the Clinical Practice Guidelines of Early Mobilization and Rehabilitation in Intensive Care of the JSICM at its core. Many members contributed to the development of the guideline, including physicians and healthcare professionals with multiple and diverse specialties, as well as a person who had been patients in ICU. Based on discussions among the group members, eight important clinical areas of focus for this CPG were identified. Fourteen important clinical questions (CQs) were then developed for each area. The public was invited to comment twice, and the answers to the CQs were presented in the form of 10 GRADE recommendations and commentary on the four background questions. In addition, information for each CQ has been created as a visual clinical flow to ensure that the positioning of each CQ can be easily understood. We hope that the CPGs will be a useful tool in the rehabilitation of critically ill patients for multiple professions.

Effect of Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation in Patients With Critical Illness: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVES

Neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) is used in the rehabilitation of patients with critical illness. However, it is unclear whether NMES prevents ICU-acquired weakness (ICU-AW). For this purpose, we conducted an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

We searched the MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Igaku Chuo Zasshi databases from April 2019 to November 2022 to identify new randomized controlled trials to the previous meta-analysis.

STUDY SELECTION

We systematically searched the literature for all randomized controlled trials on the effect of NMES in patients with critical illness.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two authors independently selected the studies and extracted data. They calculated the pooled effect estimates associated with the occurrence of ICU-AW and adverse events as primary outcomes and muscle mass change, muscle strength, length of ICU stay, mortality, and quality of life as secondary outcomes. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Overall, eight studies were added to the previous 10 studies. Evidence suggests that the use of NMES reduces the occurrence of ICU-AW (six trials; risk ratio [RR], 0.48; 95% CI, 0.32-0.72); however, NMES may have little to no effect on pricking sensation in patients (eight trials; RR, 6.87; 95% CI, 0.84-56.50). NMES is likely to reduce the change in muscle mass (four trials; mean difference, -10.01; 95% CI, -15.54 to -4.48) and may increase muscle strength (six trials; standardized mean difference, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.19-0.68). Further, NMES may result in little to no difference in the length of ICU stay, and the evidence is uncertain about the effect on mortality and quality of life.

CONCLUSIONS

This updated meta-analysis revealed that the use of NMES may result in a lower occurrence of ICU-AW in patients with critical illness, but its use may have little to no effect on pricking sensation in patients.

Rehabilitation for patients with sepsis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

The objective of this systematic review was to determine whether rehabilitation impacts clinically relevant outcomes among adult patients with sepsis. Randomized controlled trials from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PEDro, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Platform Search Portal, as well as conference proceedings and reference lists of relevant articles were collected. Two reviewers independently identified randomized controlled trials on the rehabilitation of patients with sepsis, and the two reviewers independently abstracted trial level data including population characteristics, interventions, comparisons, and clinical outcomes. Our primary outcomes were quality of life (QOL), activity of daily living (ADL), and mortality. Our secondary outcomes were length of stay, return to work, muscle strength, delirium, and all adverse events. The quality of evidence was determined using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. We included two trials enrolling 75 patients. The mean difference (95% confidence interval [CI]) of physical function and physical role in QOL measured by SF-36 were 21.10 (95% CI: 6.57–35.63) and 44.40 (95% CI: 22.55–66.05), respectively. Rehabilitation did not significantly decrease intensive care unit (ICU) mortality (risk ratio, 2.02 [95% CI: 0.46–8.91], I² = 0%; n = 75). ICU length of stay and hospital length of stay and muscle strength were not statistically significantly different and no adverse events were reported in both studies. The certainty of the evidence for these outcomes was “very low.” Data on ADL, return to work, and delirium were not available in any of the trials. Rehabilitation of patients with sepsis might not decrease ICU mortality, but might improve QOL. Further, well-designed trials measuring important outcomes will be needed to determine the benefit and harm of rehabilitation among patients with sepsis.