Randomized, controlled pilot study of early rehabilitation strategies in acute respiratory failure

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.

Patients Surviving Critical COVID-19 have Impairments in Dual-task Performance Related to Post-intensive Care Syndrome

Objective

The purpose was to examine Dual Task (DT) performance in patients surviving severe and critical COVID-19 compared to patients with chronic lung disease (CLD). Secondarily, we aimed to determine the psychometric properties of the Timed Up and Go (TUG) test in patients surviving COVID-19.

Design

Prospective, cross-sectional, observational study.

Setting

Academic medical center within United States.

Patients

Ninety-two patients including 36 survivors of critical COVID-19 that required mechanical ventilation (critical-COVID), 20 patients recovering from COVID-19 that required supplemental oxygen with hospitalization (severe-COVID), and 36 patients with CLD serving as a control group.

Measurements and Main Results

Patients completed the TUG, DT-TUG, Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB), and Six Minute Walk Test (6MWT) 1-month after hospital discharge. A subset of patients returned at 3-months and repeated testing to determine the minimal detectable change (MDC). Critical-COVID group (16.8 ± 7.3) performed the DT-TUG in significantly slower than CLD group (13.9 ± 4.8 s; P = .024) and Severe-COVID group (13.1 ± 5.1 s; P = .025). Within-subject difference between TUG and DT-TUG was also significantly worse in critical-COVID group (−21%) compared to CLD (−10%; P = .012), even despite CLD patients having a higher comorbid burden (P < .003) and older age (P < .001). TUG and DT-TUG demonstrated strong to excellent construct validity to the chair rise test, gait speed, and 6MWT for both COVID-19 groups (r = −0.84to 0.73, P < .05). One- and 3-months after hospital discharge there was a floor effect of 14% (n = 5/36) and 5.2% (n = 1/19), respectively for patients in the critical-COVID group. Ceiling effects were noted in four (11%) critical-COVID, six (30%) severe-COVID patients for the TUG and DT-TUG at 1-month.

Conclusion

The ability to maintain mobility performance in the presence of a cognitive DT is grossly impaired in patients surviving critical COVID-19. DT performance may subserve the understanding of impairments related to Post-intensive care syndrome (PICS) for survivors of critical illness.

Early intervention (mobilization or active exercise) for critically ill adults in the intensive care unit

BACKGROUND

Survivors of critical illness often experience a multitude of problems that begin in the intensive care unit (ICU) or present and continue after discharge. These can include muscle weakness, cognitive impairments, psychological difficulties, reduced physical function such as in activities of daily living (ADLs), and decreased quality of life. Early interventions such as mobilizations or active exercise, or both, may diminish the impact of the sequelae of critical illness.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of early intervention (mobilization or active exercise), commenced in the ICU, provided to critically ill adults either during or after the mechanical ventilation period, compared with delayed exercise or usual care, on improving physical function or performance, muscle strength and health-related quality of life.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL. We searched conference proceedings, reference lists of retrieved articles, databases of trial registries and contacted experts in the field on 31 August 2017. We did not impose restrictions on language or location of publications.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs that compared early intervention (mobilization or active exercise, or both), delivered in the ICU, with delayed exercise or usual care delivered to critically ill adults either during or after the mechanical ventilation period in the ICU.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two researchers independently screened titles and abstracts and assessed full-text articles against the inclusion criteria of this review. We resolved any disagreement through discussion with a third review author as required. We presented data descriptively using mean differences or medians, risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals. A meta-analysis was not possible due to the heterogeneity of the included studies. We assessed the quality of evidence with GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four RCTs (a total of 690 participants), in this review. Participants were adults who were mechanically ventilated in a general, medical or surgical ICU, with mean or median age in the studies ranging from 56 to 62 years. Admitting diagnoses in three of the four studies were indicative of critical illness, while participants in the fourth study had undergone cardiac surgery. Three studies included range-of-motion exercises, bed mobility activities, transfers and ambulation. The fourth study involved only upper limb exercises. Included studies were at high risk of performance bias, as they were not blinded to participants and personnel, and two of four did not blind outcome assessors. Three of four studies reported only on those participants who completed the study, with high rates of dropout. The description of intervention type, dose, intensity and frequency in the standard care control group was poor in two of four studies.Three studies (a total of 454 participants) reported at least one measure of physical function. One study (104 participants) reported low-quality evidence of beneficial effects in the intervention group on return to independent functional status at hospital discharge (59% versus 35%, risk ratio (RR) 1.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.11 to 2.64); the absolute effect is that 246 more people (95% CI 38 to 567) per 1000 would attain independent functional status when provided with early mobilization. The effects on physical functioning are uncertain for a range measures: Barthel Index scores (early mobilization: median 75 control: versus 55, low quality evidence), number of ADLs achieved at ICU (median of 3 versus 0, low quality evidence) or at hospital discharge (median of 6 versus 4, low quality evidence). The effects of early mobilization on physical function measured at ICU discharge are uncertain, as measured by the Acute Care Index of Function (ACIF) (early mobilization mean: 61.1 versus control: 55, mean difference (MD) 6.10, 95% CI -11.85 to 24.05, low quality evidence) and the Physical Function ICU Test (PFIT) score (5.6 versus 5.4, MD 0.20, 95% CI -0.98 to 1.38, low quality evidence). There is low quality evidence that early mobilization may have little or no effect on physical function measured by the Short Physical Performance Battery score at ICU discharge from one study of 184 participants (mean 1.6 in the intervention group versus 1.9 in usual care, MD -0.30, 95% CI -1.10 to 0.50), or at hospital discharge (MD 0, 95% CI -1.00 to 0.90). The fourth study, which examined postoperative cardiac surgery patients did not measure physical function as an outcome.Adverse effects were reported across the four studies but we could not combine the data. Our certainty in the risk of adverse events with either mobilization strategy is low due to the low rate of events. One study reported that in the intervention group one out of 49 participants (2%) experienced oxygen desaturation less than 80% and one of 49 (2%) had accidental dislodgement of the radial catheter. This study also found cessation of therapy due to participant instability occurred in 19 of 498 (4%) of the intervention sessions. In another study five of 101 (5%) participants in the intervention group and five of 109 (4.6%) participants in the control group had postoperative pulmonary complications deemed to be unrelated to intervention. A third study found one of 150 participants in the intervention group had an episode of asymptomatic bradycardia, but completed the exercise session. The fourth study reported no adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence on the effect of early mobilization of critically ill people in the ICU on physical function or performance, adverse events, muscle strength and health-related quality of life at this time. The four studies awaiting classification, and the three ongoing studies may alter the conclusions of the review once these results are available. We assessed that there is currently low-quality evidence for the effect of early mobilization of critically ill adults in the ICU due to small sample sizes, lack of blinding of participants and personnel, variation in the interventions and outcomes used to measure their effect and inadequate descriptions of the interventions delivered as usual care in the studies included in this Cochrane Review.

Describing and measuring recovery and rehabilitation after critical illness

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Rehabilitation is the cornerstone of management of postcritical illness morbidity. Selection of appropriate tools to measure response to rehabilitation therapy is vital to accurately document trajectory of change across the recovery continuum. In the context of physical-based strategies to redress critical illness associated muscle wasting and dysfunction, this review will discuss a framework to guide assessment of physical recovery in the critical illness population, clinimetric measurement properties for instruments and evidence for their implementation, and recent interventional trial data.

RECENT FINDINGS

The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) model is a useful framework to guide selection of outcome measures representing physical function at the level of impairment, activity limitation and participation restriction. Clinimetric data are emerging to support a number of physical function outcome measures in the ICU, albeit further research is required to corroborate tools used beyond ICU discharge. Factors associated with outcome measure selection have contributed to interpreting findings from recent interventional trials of physical rehabilitation.

SUMMARY

Determining the future design, conduct and impact of physical therapy interventions for critically ill patients will rely on further development of clinimetrically robust metrics to capture individual patient response spanning the recovery pathway. This approach should be similarly applied to rehabilitation interventions addressing other postintensive care syndrome domains.

Functional outcomes in ICU – what should we be using? – an observational study

Introduction

With growing awareness of the importance of rehabilitation, new measures are being developed specifically for use in the intensive care unit (ICU). There are currently 26 measures reported to assess function in ICU survivors. The Physical Function in Intensive care Test scored (PFIT-s) has established clinimetric properties. It is unknown how other functional measures perform in comparison to the PFIT-s or which functional measure may be the most clinically applicable for use within the ICU. The aims of this study were to determine (1) the criterion validity of the Functional Status Score for the ICU (FSS-ICU), ICU Mobility Scale (IMS) and Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) against the PFIT-s; (2) the construct validity of these tests against muscle strength; (3) predictive utility of these tests to predict discharge to home; and (4) the clinical applicability. This was a nested study within an ongoing controlled study and an observational study.

Methods

Sixty-six individuals were assessed at awakening and ICU discharge. Measures included: PFIT-s, FSS-ICU, IMS and SPPB. Bivariate relationships (Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient) and predictive validity (logistic regression) were determined. Responsiveness (effect sizes); floor and ceiling effects; and minimal important differences were calculated.

Results

Mean ± SD PFIT-s at awakening was 4.7 ± 2.3 out of 10. On awakening a large positive relationship existed between PFIT-s and the other functional measures: FSS-ICU (rho = 0.87, p < 0.005), IMS (rho = 0.81, p < 0.005) and SPPB (rho = 0.70, p < 0.005). The PFIT-s had excellent construct validity (rho = 0.8, p < 0.005) and FSS-ICU (rho = 0.69, p < 0.005) and IMS (rho = 0.57, p < 0.005) had moderate construct validity with muscle strength. The PFIT-s and FSS-ICU had small floor/ceiling effects <11% at awakening and ICU discharge. The SPPB had a large floor effect at awakening (78%) and ICU discharge (56%). All tests demonstrated responsiveness; however highest effect size was seen in the PFIT-s (Cohen’s d = 0.71).

Conclusions

There is high criterion validity for other functional measures against the PFIT-s. The PFIT-s and FSS-ICU are promising functional measures and are recommended to measure function within the ICU.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02214823. Registered 7 August 2014).

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13054-015-0829-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Interventions for preventing critical illness polyneuropathy and critical illness myopathy

BACKGROUND

Critical illness polyneuropathy or myopathy (CIP/CIM) is a frequent complication in the intensive care unit (ICU) and is associated with prolonged mechanical ventilation, longer ICU stay and increased mortality. This is an interim update of a review first published in 2009 (Hermans 2009). It has been updated to October 2011, with further potentially eligible studies from a December 2013 search characterised as awaiting assessment.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review the evidence from RCTs concerning the ability of any intervention to reduce the incidence of CIP or CIM in critically ill individuals.

SEARCH METHODS

On 4 October 2011, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE. We checked the bibliographies of identified trials and contacted trial authors and experts in the field. We carried out an additional search of these databases on 6 December 2013 to identify recent studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs), examining the effect of any intervention on the incidence of CIP/CIM in people admitted to adult medical or surgical ICUs. The primary outcome was the incidence of CIP/CIM in ICU, based on electrophysiological or clinical examination. Secondary outcomes included duration of mechanical ventilation, duration of ICU stay, death at 30 and 180 days after ICU admission and serious adverse events from the treatment regimens.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias in included studies.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified five trials that met our inclusion criteria. Two trials compared intensive insulin therapy (IIT) to conventional insulin therapy (CIT). IIT significantly reduced CIP/CIM in the screened (n = 825; risk ratio (RR) 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55 to 0.77) and total (n = 2748; RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.82) population randomised. IIT reduced duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU stay and 180-day mortality, but not 30-day mortality compared with CIT. Hypoglycaemia increased with IIT but did not cause early deaths.One trial compared corticosteroids with placebo (n = 180). The trial found no effect of treatment on CIP/CIM (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.77 to 2.08), 180-day mortality, new infections, glycaemia at day seven, or episodes of pneumonia, but did show a reduction of new shock events.In the fourth trial, early physical therapy reduced CIP/CIM in 82/104 evaluable participants in ICU (RR 0.62. 95% CI 0.39 to 0.96). Statistical significance was lost when we performed a full intention-to-treat analysis (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.08). Duration of mechanical ventilation but not ICU stay was significantly shorter in the intervention group. Hospital mortality was not affected but 30- and 180-day mortality results were not available. No adverse effects were noticed.The last trial found a reduced incidence of CIP/CIM in 52 evaluable participants out of a total of 140 who were randomised to electrical muscle stimulation (EMS) versus no stimulation (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.01). These data were prone to bias due to imbalances between treatment groups in this subgroup of participants. After we imputed missing data and performed an intention-to-treat analysis, there was still no significant effect (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.15). The investigators found no effect on duration of mechanical ventilation and noted no difference in ICU mortality, but did not report 30- and 180-day mortality.We updated the searches in December 2013 and identified nine potentially eligible studies that will be assessed for inclusion in the next update of the review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate quality evidence from two large trials that intensive insulin therapy reduces CIP/CIM, and high quality evidence that it reduces duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU stay and 180-day mortality, at the expense of hypoglycaemia. Consequences and prevention of hypoglycaemia need further study. There is moderate quality evidence which suggests no effect of corticosteroids on CIP/CIM and high quality evidence that steroids do not affect secondary outcomes, except for fewer new shock episodes. Moderate quality evidence suggests a potential benefit of early rehabilitation on CIP/CIM which is accompanied by a shorter duration of mechanical ventilation but without an effect on ICU stay. Very low quality evidence suggests no effect of EMS, although data are prone to bias. Strict diagnostic criteria for CIP/CIM are urgently needed for research purposes. Large RCTs need to be conducted to further explore the role of early rehabilitation and EMS and to develop new preventive strategies.