<b>Importance: </b>Early in-bed cycling and electrical muscle stimulation may improve the benefits of rehabilitation in patients in the intensive care unit (ICU).<b>OBJECTIVE: </b>To investigate whether early in-bed leg cycling plus electrical stimulation of the quadriceps muscles added to standardized early rehabilitation would result in greater muscle strength at discharge from the ICU.<b>Design, Setting, and Participants: </b>Single-center, randomized clinical trial enrolling critically ill adult patients at 1 ICU within an 1100-bed hospital in France. Enrollment lasted from July 2014 to June 2016 and there was a 6-month follow-up, which ended on November 24, 2016.<b>INTERVENTIONS: </b>Patients were randomized to early in-bed leg cycling plus electrical stimulation of the quadriceps muscles added to standardized early rehabilitation (n = 159) or standardized early rehabilitation alone (usual care) (n = 155).<b>Main Outcomes and Measures: </b>The primary outcome was muscle strength at discharge from the ICU assessed by physiotherapists blinded to treatment group using the Medical Research Council grading system (score range, 0-60 points; a higher score reflects better muscle strength; minimal clinically important difference of 4 points). Secondary outcomes at ICU discharge included the number of ventilator-free days and ICU Mobility Scale score (range, 0-10; a higher score reflects better walking capability). Functional autonomy and health-related quality of life were assessed at 6 months.<b>RESULTS: </b>Among 314 randomized patients, 312 (mean age, 66 years; women, 36%; receiving mechanical ventilation at study inclusion, 78%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The median global Medical Research Council score at ICU discharge was 48 (interquartile range [IQR], 29 to 58) in the intervention group and 51 (IQR, 37 to 58) in the usual care group (median difference, -3.0 [95% CI, -7.0 to 2.8]; P = .28). The ICU Mobility Scale score at ICU discharge was 6 (IQR, 3 to 9) in both groups (median difference, 0 [95% CI, -1 to 2]; P = .52). The median number of ventilator-free days at day 28 was 21 (IQR, 6 to 25) in the intervention group and 22 (IQR, 10 to 25) in the usual care group (median difference, 1 [95% CI, -2 to 3]; P = .24). Clinically significant events occurred during mobilization sessions in 7 patients (4.4%) in the intervention group and in 9 patients (5.8%) in the usual care group. There were no significant between-group differences in the outcomes assessed at 6 months.<b>Conclusions and Relevance: </b>In this single-center randomized clinical trial involving patients admitted to the ICU, adding early in-bed leg cycling exercises and electrical stimulation of the quadriceps muscles to a standardized early rehabilitation program did not improve global muscle strength at discharge from the ICU.<b>Trial Registration: </b>ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02185989.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate if an early rehabilitation program for survivors of critical illness improves functional recovery, reduces length of stay, and reduces hospital costs.
DESIGN: This was a prospective randomized controlled trial. Fifty-three consecutive survivors of critical illness were included in the study. After discharge from the intensive care unit, the intervention group received an early rehabilitation program, and the standard-care group received physical therapy as ordered by the primary care team. Length of stay at the general ward after transfer from the intensive care unit was recorded. In addition, Early Rehabilitation Barthel Index, visual analog scale for pain, 3-minute walk test, Beck Depression Inventory, State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, and Medical Research Council scale were used.
RESULTS: In the per-protocol analysis, length of stay at the general ward was a median 14 days (interquartile range [IQR], 12-20 days) in the early rehabilitation and 21 days [IQR, 13-34 days) in the standard-care group. This significant result could not be confirmed by the intention-to-treat analysis (16 days [IQR, 13-23 days] vs. 21 days [IQR, 13-34 days]). Secondary outcomes were similar between the groups. Hospital costs were lower in the intervention group. No adverse effects were detected.
CONCLUSIONS: An early rehabilitation program in survivors of critical illness led to an earlier discharge from the hospital, improved functional recovery, and was also cost-effective and safe.
TO CLAIM CME CREDITS: Complete the self-assessment activity and evaluation online at http://www.physiatry.org/JournalCME CME OBJECTIVES: Upon completion of this article, the reader should be able to (1) delineate the benefits of early rehabilitation on a general medicine ward after an intensive care unit stay, (2) recognize the safety of appropriately implemented early rehabilitation, and (3) incorporate early rehabilitation on the general medical ward as applicable.
LEVEL: Advanced ACCREDITATION: The Association of Academic Physiatrists is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians.The Association of Academic Physiatrists designates this Journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 0.5 AMA PRA Category 1 Credit(s)™. Physicians should only claim credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity.
RATIONALE: Early physical therapy (PT) interventions may benefit patients with acute respiratory failure by preventing or attenuating neuromuscular weakness. However, the optimal dosage of these interventions is currently unknown.
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether an intensive PT program significantly improves long-term physical functional performance compared with a standard-of-care PT program.
METHODS: Patients who required mechanical ventilation for at least 4 days were eligible. Enrolled patients were randomized to receive PT for up to 4 weeks delivered in an intensive or standard-of-care manner. Physical functional performance was assessed at 1, 3, and 6 months in survivors who were not currently in an acute or long-term care facility. The primary outcome was the Continuous Scale Physical Functional Performance Test short form (CS-PFP-10) score at 1 month.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 120 patients were enrolled from five hospitals. Patients in the intensive PT group received 12.4 ± 6.5 sessions for a total of 408 ± 261 minutes compared with only 6.1 ± 3.8 sessions for 86 ± 63 minutes in the standard-of-care group (P < 0.001 for both analyses). Physical function assessments were available for 86% of patients at 1 month, for 76% at 3 months, and for 60% at 6 months. In both groups, physical function was reduced yet significantly improved over time between 1, 3, and 6 months. When we compared the two interventions, we found no differences in the total CS-PFP-10 scores at all three time points (P = 0.73, 0.29, and 0.43, respectively) or in the total CS-PFP-10 score trajectory (P = 0.71).
CONCLUSIONS: An intensive PT program did not improve long-term physical functional performance compared with a standard-of-care program. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01058421).
<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.
<b>BACKGROUND: </b>Immobilisation predicts adverse outcomes in patients in the surgical intensive care unit (SICU). Attempts to mobilise critically ill patients early after surgery are frequently restricted, but we tested whether early mobilisation leads to improved mobility, decreased SICU length of stay, and increased functional independence of patients at hospital discharge.<b>METHODS: </b>We did a multicentre, international, parallel-group, assessor-blinded, randomised controlled trial in SICUs of five university hospitals in Austria (n=1), Germany (n=1), and the USA (n=3). Eligible patients (aged 18 years or older, who had been mechanically ventilated for <48 h, and were expected to require mechanical ventilation for ≥24 h) were randomly assigned (1:1) by use of a stratified block randomisation via restricted web platform to standard of care (control) or early, goal-directed mobilisation using an inter-professional approach of closed-loop communication and the SICU optimal mobilisation score (SOMS) algorithm (intervention), which describes patients' mobilisation capacity on a numerical rating scale ranging from 0 (no mobilisation) to 4 (ambulation). We had three main outcomes hierarchically tested in a prespecified order: the mean SOMS level patients achieved during their SICU stay (primary outcome), and patient's length of stay on SICU and the mini-modified functional independence measure score (mmFIM) at hospital discharge (both secondary outcomes). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01363102).<b>FINDINGS: </b>Between July 1, 2011, and Nov 4, 2015, we randomly assigned 200 patients to receive standard treatment (control; n=96) or intervention (n=104). Intention-to-treat analysis showed that the intervention improved the mobilisation level (mean achieved SOMS 2·2 [SD 1·0] in intervention group vs 1·5 [0·8] in control group, p<0·0001), decreased SICU length of stay (mean 7 days [SD 5-12] in intervention group vs 10 days [6-15] in control group, p=0·0054), and improved functional mobility at hospital discharge (mmFIM score 8 [4-8] in intervention group vs 5 [2-8] in control group, p=0·0002). More adverse events were reported in the intervention group (25 cases [2·8%]) than in the control group (ten cases [0·8%]); no serious adverse events were observed. Before hospital discharge 25 patients died (17 [16%] in the intervention group, eight [8%] in the control group). 3 months after hospital discharge 36 patients died (21 [22%] in the intervention group, 15 [17%] in the control group).<b>INTERPRETATION: </b>Early, goal-directed mobilisation improved patient mobilisation throughout SICU admission, shortened patient length of stay in the SICU, and improved patients' functional mobility at hospital discharge.<b>Funding: </b>Jeffrey and Judy Buzen.
