Extra Physiotherapy in Critical Care (EPICC) Trial Protocol: a randomised controlled trial of intensive versus standard physical rehabilitation therapy in the critically ill

Multidisciplinary Approach to Sedation and Early Mobility of Intubated Critically Ill Neurologic Patients Improves Mobility at Discharge

Background and Purpose

Over-sedation may confound neurologic assessment in critically ill neurologic patients and prolong duration of mechanical ventilation (MV). Decreased sedative use may facilitate early functional independence when combined with early mobility. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of a stepwise, multidisciplinary analgesia-first sedation pathway and early mobility protocol on medication use and mobility in the neuroscience intensive care unit (ICU).

Methods

We performed a single-center prospective cohort study with adult patients admitted to a neuroscience ICU between March and June 2016-2018 who required MV for greater than 48 hours. Patients were included from three separate phases of the study: Phase I - historical controls (2016); Phase II - analgesia-first pathway (2017); Phase III - early mobility protocol (2018). Primary outcomes included propofol requirements during MV, total rehabilitation therapy provided, and functional mobility during ICU admission.

Results

156 patients were included in the analysis. Decreasing propofol exposure was observed during Phase I, II, and III (median 2243.7 mg/day vs 2065.6 mg/day vs 1360.8 mg/day, respectively; P = .04 between Phase I and III). Early mobility was provided in 59.7%, 40%, and 81.6% of patients while admitted to the ICU in Phase I, II, and III, respectively (P < .01). An increased proportion of patients in Phase III were walking or ambulating at ICU discharge (26.7%; 8/30) compared to Phase I (7.9%, 3/38, P = .05).

Conclusions

An interdisciplinary approach with an analgesia-first sedation pathway with early mobility protocol was associated with less sedative use, increased rehabilitation therapy, and improved functional mobility status at ICU discharge.

Interventions for preventing intensive care unit delirium in adults

BACKGROUND

Delirium is defined as a disturbance in attention, awareness and cognition with reduced ability to direct, focus, sustain and shift attention, and reduced orientation to the environment. Critically ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) frequently develop ICU delirium. It can profoundly affect both them and their families because it is associated with increased mortality, longer duration of mechanical ventilation, longer hospital and ICU stay and long-term cognitive impairment. It also results in increased costs for society.

OBJECTIVES

To assess existing evidence for the effect of preventive interventions on ICU delirium, in-hospital mortality, the number of delirium- and coma-free days, ventilator-free days, length of stay in the ICU and cognitive impairment.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, BIOSIS, International Web of Science, Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, CINAHL from 1980 to 11 April 2018 without any language limits. We adapted the MEDLINE search for searching the other databases. Furthermore, we checked references, searched citations and contacted study authors to identify additional studies. We also checked the following trial registries: Current Controlled Trials; ClinicalTrials.gov; and CenterWatch.com (all on 24 April 2018).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of adult medical or surgical ICU patients receiving any intervention for preventing ICU delirium. The control could be standard ICU care, placebo or both. We assessed the quality of evidence with GRADE.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We checked titles and abstracts to exclude obviously irrelevant studies and obtained full reports on potentially relevant ones. Two review authors independently extracted data. If possible we conducted meta-analyses, otherwise we synthesized data narratively.

MAIN RESULTS

The electronic search yielded 8746 records. We included 12 RCTs (3885 participants) comparing usual care with the following interventions: commonly used drugs (four studies); sedation regimens (four studies); physical therapy or cognitive therapy, or both (one study); environmental interventions (two studies); and preventive nursing care (one study). We found 15 ongoing studies and five studies awaiting classification. The participants were 48 to 70 years old; 48% to 74% were male; the mean acute physiology and chronic health evaluation (APACHE II) score was 14 to 28 (range 0 to 71; higher scores correspond to more severe disease and a higher risk of death). With the exception of one study, all participants were mechanically ventilated in medical or surgical ICUs or mixed. The studies were overall at low risk of bias. Six studies were at high risk of detection bias due to lack of blinding of outcome assessors. We report results for the two most commonly explored approaches to delirium prevention: pharmacologic and a non-pharmacologic intervention.Haloperidol versus placebo (two RCTs, 1580 participants)The event rate of ICU delirium was measured in one study including 1439 participants. No difference was identified between groups, (risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87 to 1.17) (moderate-quality evidence). Haloperidol versus placebo neither reduced or increased in-hospital mortality, (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.22; 2 studies; 1580 participants (moderate-quality evidence)); the number of delirium- and coma-free days, (mean difference (MD) -0.60, 95% CI -1.37 to 0.17; 2 studies, 1580 participants (moderate-quality of evidence)); number of ventilator-free days (mean 23.8 (MD -0.30, 95% CI -0.93 to 0.33) 1 study; 1439 participants, (high-quality evidence)); length of ICU stay, (MD 0.18, 95% CI -0.60 to 0.97); 2 studies, 1580 participants; high-quality evidence). None of the studies measured cognitive impairment. In one study there were three serious adverse events in the intervention group and five in the placebo group; in the other there were five serious adverse events and three patients died, one in each group. None of the serious adverse events were judged to be related to interventions received (moderate-quality evidence).Physical and cognitive therapy interventions (one study, 65 participants)The study did not measure the event rate of ICU delirium. A physical and cognitive therapy intervention versus standard care neither reduced nor increased in-hospital mortality, (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.40 to 2.20, I² = 0; 1 study, 65 participants; very low-quality evidence); the number of delirium- and coma-free days, (MD -2.8, 95% CI -10.1 to 4.6, I² = 0; 1 study, 65 participants; very low-quality evidence); the number of ventilator-free days (within the first 28/30 days) was median 27.4 (IQR 0 to 29.2) and 25 (IQR 0 to 28.9); 1 study, 65 participants; very low-quality evidence, length of ICU stay, (MD 1.23, 95% CI -0.68 to 3.14, I² = 0; 1 study, 65 participants; very low-quality evidence); cognitive impairment measured by the MMSE: Mini-Mental State Examination with higher scores indicating better function, (MD 0.97, 95% CI -0.19 to 2.13, I² = 0; 1 study, 30 participants; very low-quality evidence); or measured by the Dysexecutive questionnaire (DEX) with lower scores indicating better function (MD -8.76, 95% CI -19.06 to 1.54, I² = 0; 1 study, 30 participants; very low-quality evidence). One patient experienced acute back pain accompanied by hypotensive urgency during physical therapy.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is probably little or no difference between haloperidol and placebo for preventing ICU delirium but further studies are needed to increase our confidence in the findings. There is insufficient evidence to determine the effects of physical and cognitive intervention on delirium. The effects of other pharmacological interventions, sedation, environmental, and preventive nursing interventions are unclear and warrant further investigation in large multicentre studies. Five studies are awaiting classification and we identified 15 ongoing studies, evaluating pharmacological interventions, sedation regimens, physical and occupational therapy combined or separately, and environmental interventions, that may alter the conclusions of the review in future.

Early physical therapy intervention in gynaecological surgery: "Case series"

PURPOSE

To implement a physical therapy intervention protocol targeting patients admitted for gynaecological surgery to the gynaecological ward of XXXX Hospital.

METHOD

A prospective, cross-sectional and observational study was conducted with women admitted to the gynaecology ward, from June 2014 through June 2015. The study was divided into three phases with data on admissions to the gynaecology ward. A total of 565 women were included, corresponding to phases I (197), II (178) and III (190). The physical therapy staff implemented an early ambulation protocol as well as a mobility assessment.

RESULTS

The physical therapy protocol was implemented, and the rate of adherence was 100%. All participants received preoperative instruction on the importance of early mobilisation. On postoperative day 1, the participants in phase I walked a mean of 77.4 m. Following implementation of the physical therapy protocol, the walked distance increased to 292.6 m in phase II, followed by a slight decrease to a mean of 233 m in phase III.

CONCLUSIONS

The physical therapy protocol could be implemented, and the patients' adherence was satisfactory. Early ambulation can be optimised, and the participants began ambulation starting at 13 h after surgery.

Intensive versus standard physical rehabilitation therapy in the critically ill (EPICC): a multicentre, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial

Background

Early physical rehabilitation in the intensive care unit (ICU) has been shown to improve short-term clinical outcomes but long-term benefit has not been proven and the optimum intensity of rehabilitation is not known.

Methods

We conducted a randomised, parallel-group, allocation-concealed, assessor-blinded, controlled trial in patients who had received at least 48 hours of invasive or non-invasive ventilation. Participants were randomised in a 1:1 ratio, stratified by admitting ICU, admission type and level of independence. The intervention group had a target of 90 min physical rehabilitation per day, the control group a target of 30 min per day (both Monday to Friday). The primary outcome was the Physical Component Summary (PCS) measure of SF-36 at 6 months.

Results

We recruited 308 participants over 34 months: 150 assigned to the intervention and 158 to the control group. The intervention group received a median (IQR) of 161 (67–273) min of physical rehabilitation on ICU compared with 86 (31–139) min in the control group. At 6 months, 62 participants in the intervention group and 54 participants in the control group contributed primary outcome data. In the intervention group, 43 had died, 11 had withdrawn and 34 were lost to follow-up, while in the control group, 56 had died, 5 had withdrawn and 43 were lost to follow-up. There was no difference in the primary outcome at 6 months, mean (SD) PCS 37 (12.2) in the intervention group and 37 (11.3) in the control group.

Conclusions

In this study, ICU-based physical rehabilitation did not appear to improve physical outcomes at 6 months compared with standard physical rehabilitation.

Trial registration number

ISRCTN 20436833.

Fitness and mobility training in patients with Intensive Care Unit-acquired muscle weakness (FITonICU): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Critical illness myopathy (CIM) and polyneuropathy (CIP) are a common complication of critical illness. Both cause intensive-care-unit-acquired (ICU-acquired) muscle weakness (ICUAW) which increases morbidity and delays rehabilitation and recovery of activities of daily living such as walking ability. Focused physical rehabilitation of people with ICUAW is, therefore, of great importance at both an individual and a societal level. A recent systematic Cochrane review found no randomised controlled trials (RCT), and thus no supporting evidence, for physical rehabilitation interventions for people with defined CIP and CIM to improve activities of daily living. Therefore, the aim of our study is to compare the effects of an additional physiotherapy programme with systematically augmented levels of mobilisation with additional in-bed cycling (as the parallel group) on walking and other activities of daily living.

METHODS/DESIGN

We will conduct a prospective, rater-masked RCT of people with ICUAW with a defined diagnosis of CIM and/or CIP in our post-acute hospital. We will randomly assign patients to one of two parallel groups in a 1:1 ratio and will use a concealed allocation. One intervention group will receive, in addition to standard ICU treatment, physiotherapy with systematically augmented levels of mobilisation (five times per week, over 2 weeks; 20 min each session; with a total of 10 additional sessions). The other intervention group will receive, in addition to standard ICU treatment, in-bed cycle sessions (same number, frequency and treatment time as the intervention group). Standard ICU treatment includes sitting balance exercise, stretching, positioning, and sit-to-stand training, and transfer training to get out of bed, strengthening exercise (in and out of bed), and stepping and assistive standing exercises. Primary efficacy endpoints will be walking ability (defined as a Functional Ambulation Category (FAC) level of ≥3) and the sum score of the Functional Status Score for the Intensive Care Unit (FSS-ICU) (range 0-22 points) assessed by a blinded tester immediately after 2 weeks of additional therapy. Secondary outcomes will include assessment of sit-to-stand recovery, overall limb strength (Medical Research Council, MRC) and grip strength, the Physical Function for the Intensive Care Unit Test-Scored (PFIT-S), the EuroQol 5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaire and the Reintegration to Normal Living Index (RNL-Index) assessed by a blinded tester. We will measure primary and secondary outcomes with blinded assessors at baseline, immediately after 2 weeks of additional therapy, and at 3 weeks and 6 months and 12 months after the end of the additional therapy intervention. Based on our sample size calculation 108 patients will be recruited from our post-acute ICU in the next 3 to 4 years.

DISCUSSION

This will be the first RCT comparing the effects of two physical rehabilitation interventions for people with ICUAW due to defined CIP and/or CIM to improve walking and other activities of daily living. The results of this trial will provide robust evidence for physical rehabilitation of people with CIP and/or CIP who often require long-term care.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

We registered the study on 6 April 2016 before enrolling the first patient in the trial at the German Clinical Trials Register ( www.germanctr.de ) with the identifier DRKS00010269 . This is the first version of the protocol (FITonICU study protocol).