Impact of Pain, Agitation, and Delirium Bundle on Delirium and Cognitive Function

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.

Clinical Impact of the Implementation Strategies Used to Apply the 2013 Pain, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium or 2018 Pain, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium, Immobility, Sleep Disruption Guideline Recommendations: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVES

To summarize the effectiveness of implementation strategies for ICU execution of recommendations from the 2013 Pain, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium (PAD) or 2018 PAD, Immobility, Sleep Disruption (PADIS) guidelines.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched from January 2012 to August 2023. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020175268).

STUDY SELECTION

Articles were included if: 1) design was randomized or cohort, 2) adult population evaluated, 3) employed recommendations from greater than or equal to two PAD/PADIS domains, and 4) evaluated greater than or equal to 1 of the following outcome(s): short-term mortality, delirium occurrence, mechanical ventilation (MV) duration, or ICU length of stay (LOS).

DATA EXTRACTION

Two authors independently reviewed articles for eligibility, number of PAD/PADIS domains, quality according to National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute assessment tools, implementation strategy use (including Assess, prevent, and manage pain; Both SAT and SBT; Choice of analgesia and sedation; Delirium: assess, prevent, and manage; Early mobility and exercise; Family engagement and empowerment [ABCDEF] bundle) by Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care (EPOC) category, and clinical outcomes. Certainty of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Among the 25 of 243 (10.3%) full-text articles included ( n = 23,215 patients), risk of bias was high in 13 (52%). Most studies were cohort ( n = 22, 88%). A median of 5 (interquartile range [IQR] 4-7) EPOC strategies were used to implement recommendations from two (IQR 2-3) PAD/PADIS domains. Cohort and randomized studies were pooled separately. In the cohort studies, use of EPOC strategies was not associated with a change in mortality (risk ratio [RR] 1.01; 95% CI, 0.9-1.12), or delirium (RR 0.92; 95% CI, 0.82-1.03), but was associated with a reduction in MV duration (weighted mean difference [WMD] -0.84 d; 95% CI, -1.25 to -0.43) and ICU LOS (WMD -0.77 d; 95% CI, -1.51 to 0.04). For randomized studies, EPOC strategy use was associated with reduced mortality and MV duration but not delirium or ICU LOS.

CONCLUSIONS

Using multiple implementation strategies to adopt PAD/PADIS guideline recommendations may reduce mortality, duration of MV, and ICU LOS. Further prospective, controlled studies are needed to identify the most effective strategies to implement PAD/PADIS recommendations.

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.