PURPOSE: Intensive Care Unit (ICU) survivors experience muscle weakness leading to restrictions in functional ability. Neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) has been an alternative to exercise in critically ill patients. The aim of our study was to investigate its effects along with individualized rehabilitation on muscle strength of ICU survivors.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Following ICU discharge, 128 patients (age: 53±16years) were randomly assigned to daily NMES sessions and individualized rehabilitation (NMES group) or to control group. Muscle strength was assessed by the Medical Research Council (MRC) score and hand grip at hospital discharge. Secondary outcomes were functional ability and hospital length of stay.
RESULTS: MRC, handgrip, functional status and hospital length of stay did not differ at hospital discharge between groups (p>0.05). ΔMRC% one and two weeks after ICU discharge tended to be higher in NMES group, while it was significant higher in NMES group of patients with ICU-acquired weakness at two weeks (p=0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: NMES and personalized physiotherapy in ICU survivors did not result in greater improvement of muscle strength and functional status at hospital discharge. However, in patients with ICU-aw NMES may be effective. The potential benefits of rehabilitation strategies should be explored in larger number of patients in future studies.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: www.Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01717833.
<b>Importance: </b>Physical rehabilitation in the intensive care unit (ICU) may improve the outcomes of patients with acute respiratory failure.<b>OBJECTIVE: </b>To compare standardized rehabilitation therapy (SRT) to usual ICU care in acute respiratory failure.<b>Design, Setting, and Participants: </b>Single-center, randomized clinical trial at Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center, North Carolina. Adult patients (mean age, 58 years; women, 55%) admitted to the ICU with acute respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation were randomized to SRT (n=150) or usual care (n=150) from October 2009 through May 2014 with 6-month follow-up.<b>INTERVENTIONS: </b>Patients in the SRT group received daily therapy until hospital discharge, consisting of passive range of motion, physical therapy, and progressive resistance exercise. The usual care group received weekday physical therapy when ordered by the clinical team. For the SRT group, the median (interquartile range [IQR]) days of delivery of therapy were 8.0 (5.0-14.0) for passive range of motion, 5.0 (3.0-8.0) for physical therapy, and 3.0 (1.0-5.0) for progressive resistance exercise. The median days of delivery of physical therapy for the usual care group was 1.0 (IQR, 0.0-8.0).<b>Main Outcomes and Measures: </b>Both groups underwent assessor-blinded testing at ICU and hospital discharge and at 2, 4, and 6 months. The primary outcome was hospital length of stay (LOS). Secondary outcomes were ventilator days, ICU days, Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) score, 36-item Short-Form Health Surveys (SF-36) for physical and mental health and physical function scale score, Functional Performance Inventory (FPI) score, Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score, and handgrip and handheld dynamometer strength.<b>RESULTS: </b>Among 300 randomized patients, the median hospital LOS was 10 days (IQR, 6 to 17) for the SRT group and 10 days (IQR, 7 to 16) for the usual care group (median difference, 0 [95% CI, -1.5 to 3], P = .41). There was no difference in duration of ventilation or ICU care. There was no effect at 6 months for handgrip (difference, 2.0 kg [95% CI, -1.3 to 5.4], P = .23) and handheld dynamometer strength (difference, 0.4 lb [95% CI, -2.9 to 3.7], P = .82), SF-36 physical health score (difference, 3.4 [95% CI, -0.02 to 7.0], P = .05), SF-36 mental health score (difference, 2.4 [95% CI, -1.2 to 6.0], P = .19), or MMSE score (difference, 0.6 [95% CI, -0.2 to 1.4], P = .17). There were higher scores at 6 months in the SRT group for the SPPB score (difference, 1.1 [95% CI, 0.04 to 2.1, P = .04), SF-36 physical function scale score (difference, 12.2 [95% CI, 3.8 to 20.7], P = .001), and the FPI score (difference, 0.2 [95% CI, 0.04 to 0.4], P = .02).<b>Conclusions and Relevance: </b>Among patients hospitalized with acute respiratory failure, SRT compared with usual care did not decrease hospital LOS.<b>Trial Registration: </b>clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00976833.
<b>OBJECTIVES: </b>To determine if the early goal-directed mobilization intervention could be delivered to patients receiving mechanical ventilation with increased maximal levels of activity compared with standard care.<b>DESIGN: </b>A pilot randomized controlled trial.<b>SETTING: </b>Five ICUs in Australia and New Zealand.<b>Participants: </b>Fifty critically ill adults mechanically ventilated for greater than 24 hours.<b>Intervention: </b>Patients were randomly assigned to either early goal-directed mobilization (intervention) or to standard care (control). Early goal-directed mobilization comprised functional rehabilitation treatment conducted at the highest level of activity possible for that patient assessed by the ICU mobility scale while receiving mechanical ventilation.<b>MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: </b>The ICU mobility scale, strength, ventilation duration, ICU and hospital length of stay, and total inpatient (acute and rehabilitation) stay as well as 6-month post-ICU discharge health-related quality of life, activities of daily living, and anxiety and depression were recorded. The mean age was 61 years and 60% were men. The highest level of activity (ICU mobility scale) recorded during the ICU stay between the intervention and control groups was mean (95% CI) 7.3 (6.3-8.3) versus 5.9 (4.9-6.9), p = 0.05. The proportion of patients who walked in ICU was almost doubled with early goal-directed mobilization (intervention n = 19 [66%] vs control n = 8 [38%]; p = 0.05). There was no difference in total inpatient stay (d) between the intervention versus control groups (20 [15-35] vs 34 [18-43]; p = 0.37). There were no adverse events.<b>CONCLUSIONS: </b>Key Practice Points: Delivery of early goal-directed mobilization within a randomized controlled trial was feasible, safe and resulted in increased duration and level of active exercises.
RATIONALE: Survivors of sepsis syndromes have poor outcomes for physical and cognitive function. No investigations of early physical rehabilitation in the intensive care unit have specifically targeted patients with sepsis syndromes.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether early physical rehabilitation improves physical function and associated outcomes in patients with sepsis syndromes.
METHODS: Fifty critically ill adults admitted to a general intensive care unit with sepsis syndromes were recruited into a prospective double-blinded randomised controlled trial investigating early physical rehabilitation.
MEASUREMENTS: Primary outcomes of physical function (acute care index of function) and self-reported health-related quality of life were recorded at ICU discharge and 6 months post-hospital discharge, respectively. Secondary measures included inflammatory biomarkers; Interleukin-6, Interleukin-10 and tumour necrosis factor-α, blood lactate, fat-free muscle mass, exercise capacity, muscle strength and anxiety.
MAIN RESULTS: A significant increase in patient self-reported physical function (81.8 ± 22.2 vs. 60.0 ± 29.4), p = 0.04) and physical role (61.4 ± 43.8 vs. 17.1 ± 34.4, p = 0.005) for the SF-36 at 6 months was found in the exercise group. Physical function scores were not significantly different between groups. Muscle strength scores were (51.9 ± 10.5 vs. 47.3 ± 13.6, p = 0.24) with the standard care mean Medical Research Council Muscle Score (MRC) <48/60. The mean change of Interleukin-10 increased and was significantly higher in the exercise group (1.8 pg/ml, 180 % vs. 0.9 pg/ml, 90 %, p = 0.04). There was no significant difference between groups for lactate, Interleukin-6, tumour necrosis factor-α, muscle strength, exercise capacity, fat-free mass or hospital anxiety.
CONCLUSION: Implementation of early physical rehabilitation can improve self-reported physical function and induce systemic anti-inflammatory effects.
PURPOSE: Patients recovering from critical illness may be left with significant muscle mass loss. This study aimed to evaluate whether a 6-week program of enhanced physiotherapy and structured exercise (PEPSE) and an essential amino acid supplement drink (glutamine and essential amino acid mixture [GEAA]) improves physical and psychological recovery.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Intensive care patients aged 45 years or older, with a combined intensive care unit stay/pre-intensive care unit stay of 5 days or more were recruited to a randomized controlled trial examining the effect of PEPSE and GEAA on recovery. The 2 factors were tested in a 2 × 2 factorial design: (1) GEAA drink twice daily for 3 months and (2) 6-week PEPSE in first 3 months. Primary efficacy outcome was an improvement in the 6-minute walking test at 3 months.
RESULTS: A total of 93 patients were randomized to the study. Patients receiving the PEPSE and GEA had the biggest gains in distance walked in 6-minute walking test (P < .0001). There were also significant reductions in rates of anxiety in study groups control supplement/PEPSE (P = .047) and GEAA supplement/PEPSE (P = .036) and for GEAA supplement/PEPSE in depression (P = .0009).
CONCLUSION: Enhanced rehabilitation combined with GEAA supplement may enhance physical recovery and reduce anxiety and depression.
Fully sedated patients, being treated in the intensive care unit (ICU), experience substantial skeletal muscle loss. Consequently, survival rate is reduced and full recovery after awakening is compromised. Neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) represents an effective method to stimulate muscle protein synthesis and alleviate muscle disuse atrophy in healthy subjects. We investigated the efficacy of twice-daily NMES to alleviate muscle loss in six fully sedated ICU patients admitted for acute critical illness [n=3 males, n=3 females; age 63 ± 6 y; APACHE II (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II) disease-severity-score: 29 ± 2]. One leg was subjected to twice-daily NMES of the quadriceps muscle for a period of 7 ± 1 day whereas the other leg acted as a non-stimulated control (CON). Directly before the first and on the morning after the final NMES session, quadriceps muscle biopsies were collected from both legs to assess muscle fibre-type-specific cross-sectional area (CSA). Furthermore, phosphorylation status of the key proteins involved in the regulation of muscle protein synthesis was assessed and mRNA expression of selected genes was measured. In the CON leg, type 1 and type 2 muscle-fibre-CSA decreased by 16 ± 9% and 24 ± 7% respectively (P<0.05). No muscle atrophy was observed in the stimulated leg. NMES increased mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) phosphorylation by 19 ± 5% when compared with baseline (P<0.05), with no changes in the CON leg. Furthermore, mRNA expression of key genes involved in muscle protein breakdown either declined [forkhead box protein O1 (FOXO1); P<0.05] or remained unchanged [muscle atrophy F-box (MAFBx) and muscle RING-finger protein-1 (MuRF1)], with no differences between the legs. In conclusion, NMES represents an effective and feasible interventional strategy to prevent skeletal muscle atrophy in critically ill comatose patients.
Intensive Care Unit (ICU) survivors experience muscle weakness leading to restrictions in functional ability. Neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) has been an alternative to exercise in critically ill patients. The aim of our study was to investigate its effects along with individualized rehabilitation on muscle strength of ICU survivors.
MATERIAL AND METHODS:
Following ICU discharge, 128 patients (age: 53±16years) were randomly assigned to daily NMES sessions and individualized rehabilitation (NMES group) or to control group. Muscle strength was assessed by the Medical Research Council (MRC) score and hand grip at hospital discharge. Secondary outcomes were functional ability and hospital length of stay.
RESULTS:
MRC, handgrip, functional status and hospital length of stay did not differ at hospital discharge between groups (p>0.05). ΔMRC% one and two weeks after ICU discharge tended to be higher in NMES group, while it was significant higher in NMES group of patients with ICU-acquired weakness at two weeks (p=0.05).
CONCLUSIONS:
NMES and personalized physiotherapy in ICU survivors did not result in greater improvement of muscle strength and functional status at hospital discharge. However, in patients with ICU-aw NMES may be effective. The potential benefits of rehabilitation strategies should be explored in larger number of patients in future studies.
