BACKGROUND: The aim of this meta-analysis was to assess if early mobilization and rehabilitation in the intensive care unit (ICU) could reduce ICU-acquired weakness (ICU-AW), improve functional recovery, improve muscle strength, shorten the length of ICU and hospital stays, and reduce the mortality rate.
METHODS: A comprehensive literature search in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, SinoMed (Chinese BioMedical Literature Service System, China), and National Knowledge Infrastructure, China (CNKI) was performed. Results were expressed as a risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) or weight mean difference (WMD) with 95% CIs. Pooled estimates were calculated using a fixed-effects or random-effects model according to the heterogeneity among studies.
RESULTS: Fifteen randomized controlled trials involving a total of 1941 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Pooled estimates suggested that early mobilization significantly reduced the incidence of ICU-AW (RR = 0.49, 95% CI: 0.26, 0.91; P = .025), shortened the length of ICU (WMD = -1.82 days, 95% CI: -2.88, -0.76; P = .001) and hospital (WMD = -3.90 days, 95% CI: -5.94, -1.85; P < .001) stays, and improved the Medical Research Council score (WMD = 4.47, 95% CI: 1.43, 7.52; P = .004) and Barthel Index score at hospital discharge (WMD = 21.44, 95% CI: 10.97, 31.91; P < .001). Moreover, early mobilization also decreased complications such as deep vein thrombosis (RR = 0.16, 95% CI: 0.04, 0.59; P = .006), ventilator-associated pneumonia (RR = 0.26, 95% CI: 0.11, 0.63; P = .003), and pressure sores (RR = 0.14, 95% CI: 0.04, 0.44; P = .001). However, early mobilization did not reduce the ICU mortality rate (RR = 1.31, 95% CI: 0.97, 1.76; P = .074), improve the handgrip strength (WMD = 4.03 kg, 95% CI: -0.68, 8.74; P = .094), and shorten the duration of mechanical ventilation (WMD = 0.20 days, 95% CI: -0.10, 0.50; P = .194).
CONCLUSION: This study indicated that early mobilization was effective in preventing the occurrence of ICU-AW, shortening the length of ICU and hospital stay, and improving the functional mobility. However, it had no effect on the ICU mortality rate and ventilator-free days.
RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: ICU-AW is a common neuromuscular complication of critical illness, and it is predictive of adverse outcomes. Early mobilization of critically ill patients is a candidate intervention to reduce the incidence and severity of ICU-AW. Some clinical studies have demonstrated this, whereas others found opposite results. The aim of our study is to assess if early mobilization and rehabilitation in the ICU could reduce the ICU-AW, improve functional recovery, improve muscle strength, shorten length of ICU and hospital stay, and reduce the mortality rate.
PURPOSE: In the critically ill, sarcopenia is associated with a variety of adverse outcomes however there is no consensus regarding its management. This study aimed to systematically review the evidence for interventions for the management and prevention of sarcopenia in critically ill patients.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Bibliographic databases were searched according to pre-specified criteria (PROSPERO-CRD42018086271). Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating interventions to preserve muscle mass and/or function in critically ill patients were included. Two independent authors selected the articles and assessed bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool.
RESULTS: Twenty-two eligible RCTs were identified comprising 2792 patients. Three main groups of interventions were implemented in these trials: neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES), exercise-based and nutritional. Both the interventions and outcomes measured varied significantly between studies. NMES was most frequently studied as an intervention to preserve muscle mass whilst exercise-based treatments were evaluated as interventions to preserve muscle function. There was significant variation in the efficacy of the interventions on sarcopenia markers and secondary outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: NMES and exercise-based interventions may preserve muscle mass and function in patients with critical illness. There is a lack of consistency seen in the effects of these interventions. Further, large, high quality RCTs are required.
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.
PURPOSE: Early active mobilisation and rehabilitation in the intensive care unit (ICU) is being used to prevent the long-term functional consequences of critical illness. This review aimed to determine the effect of active mobilisation and rehabilitation in the ICU on mortality, function, mobility, muscle strength, quality of life, days alive and out of hospital to 180 days, ICU and hospital lengths of stay, duration of mechanical ventilation and discharge destination, linking outcomes with the World Health Organization International Classification of Function Framework.
METHODS: A PRISMA checklist-guided systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised and controlled clinical trials.
RESULTS: Fourteen studies of varying quality including a total of 1753 patients were reviewed. Active mobilisation and rehabilitation had no impact on short- or long-term mortality (p > 0.05). Meta-analysis showed that active mobilisation and rehabilitation led to greater muscle strength (body function) at ICU discharge as measured using the Medical Research Council Sum Score (mean difference 8.62 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.39-15.86), greater probability of walking without assistance (activity limitation) at hospital discharge (odds ratio 2.13, 95% CI 1.19-3.83), and more days alive and out of hospital to day 180 (participation restriction) (mean difference 9.69, 95% CI 1.7-17.66). There were no consistent effects on function, quality of life, ICU or hospital length of stay, duration of mechanical ventilation or discharge destination.
CONCLUSION: Active mobilisation and rehabilitation in the ICU has no impact on short- and long-term mortality, but may improve mobility status, muscle strength and days alive and out of hospital to 180 days.
REGISTRATION OF PROTOCOL NUMBER: CRD42015029836.
Objective: To evaluate the literature on the impact of walking and early mobilization in critically ill patients in ICUs admitting mechanically ventilated or not. Methods: The electronic databases Cochrane, Pubmed, PEDro, and Science Director SciELO limited to the last 10 years were surveyed, were included randomized controlled trials, prospective and retrospective analyzes and prospective controlled studies. The Downs and Black scale and adapted Downs and Black were used to assess the methodological quality of the articles. Results: Twelve studies were reviewed. Eleven articles used passive and / or active mobilization programs, active exercises, sit on the bed, chair, stand and walk. One article used an abdominal flat before start walking, six assessed impact on morbidity and mortality of a protocol focusing on early ambulation. Four studies evaluated the safety of early mobilization, two investigated the impact in the respiratory strength, and one investigated the interruption of sedation associated with early mobilization in ICU patients. Conclusion: Ambulation positive impact on length of hospital stays in ICU and mechanical ventilation in critically ill patients.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review is to examine the effectiveness, implementation, and costs of multifaceted care approaches, including care bundles, for the prevention and mitigation of delirium in patients hospitalized in intensive care units (ICUs).
DATA SOURCES: A systematic search using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines was conducted utilizing PubMed, EMBASE, and CINAHL. Searches were limited to studies published in English from January 1, 1988, to March 31, 2014. Randomized controlled trials and comparative studies of multifaceted care approaches with the reduction of delirium in ICU patients as an outcome and evaluations of the implementation or cost-effectiveness of these interventions were included.
DATA EXTRACTION: Data on study methods including design, cohort size, interventions, and outcomes were abstracted, reviewed, and summarized. Given the variability in study design, populations, and interventions, a qualitative review of findings was conducted.
DATA SYNTHESIS: In all, 14 studies met our inclusion criteria: 6 examined outcomes, 5 examined implementation, 2 examined outcomes and implementation, and 1 examined cost-effectiveness. The majority of studies indicated that multifaceted care approaches were associated with improved patient outcomes including reduced incidence and duration of delirium. Additionally, improvements in functional status and reductions in coma and ventilator days, hospital length of stay, and/or mortality rates were observed. Implementation strategies included structured quality improvement approaches with ongoing audit and feedback, multidisciplinary care teams, intensive training, electronic reporting systems, and local support teams. The cost-effectiveness analysis indicated an average reduction of $1000 in hospital costs for patients treated with a multifaceted care approach.
CONCLUSION: Although multifaceted care approaches may reduce delirium and improve patient outcomes, greater improvements may be achieved by deploying a comprehensive bundle of care practices including awakening and breathing trials, delirium monitoring and treatment, and early mobility. Further research to address this knowledge gap is essential to providing best care for ICU patients.
INTRODUCTION: Practice guidelines recommend early physical therapy in intensive care units (ICU). Feasibility, safety and efficacy are confirmed by growing evidence-based data.
PURPOSE: To perform a qualitative systematic literature review on early exercise in ICUs, focused on the subject areas of "how to do", "for which patients" and " for what benefits".
METHODS: Articles were obtained from the PubMed, Google Scholar, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL, Cochrane and ReeDOC databases. The full texts of references selected according to title and abstract were read. Data extraction and PEDro scoring were performed. Consort recommendations were used for the drafting of the systematic review, which was declared on the Prospero website.
RESULTS: We confirm the feasibility and safety of early exercise in the ICU. Convergent evidence-based data are in favour of the efficacy of early exercise programs in ICUs. But, the potential benefit of earlier program initiation has not been clearly demonstrated. Our analysis reveals tools and practical modalities that could serve to standardize these programs. The scientific literature mainly emphasizes the heterogeneity of targeted populations and lack of precision concerning multiple criteria for early exercise programs.
CONCLUSION: Changes in the professional culture of multidisciplinary-ICU teams are necessary as concerns early exercise. Physical therapists must be involved and their essential role in the ICU is clearly justified. Although technical difficulties and questions remain, the results of the present qualitative review should encourage the early and progressive implementation of exercise programs in the ICU.
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Critically ill survivors may have functional impairments even five years after hospital discharge. To date there are four systematic reviews suggesting a beneficial impact for mobilisation in mechanically ventilated and intensive care unit (ICU) patients, however there is limited information about the influence of timing, frequency and duration of sessions. Earlier mobilisation during ICU stay may lead to greater benefits. This study aims to determine the effect of early rehabilitation for functional status in ICU/high-dependency unit (HDU) patients.
DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINALH, PEDro, Cochrane Library, AMED, ISI web of science, Scielo, LILACS and several clinical trial registries were searched for randomised and non-randomised clinical trials of rehabilitation compared to usual care in adult patients admitted to an ICU/HDU. Results were screened by two independent reviewers. Primary outcome was functional status. Secondary outcomes were walking ability, muscle strength, quality of life, and healthcare utilisation. Data extraction and methodological quality assessment using the PEDro scale was performed by primary reviewer and checked by two other reviewers. The authors of relevant studies were contacted to obtain missing data.
RESULTS: 5733 records were screened. Seven articles were included in the narrative synthesis and six in the meta-analysis. Early rehabilitation had no significant effect on functional status, muscle strength, quality of life, or healthcare utilisation. However, early rehabilitation led to significantly more patients walking without assistance at hospital discharge (risk ratio 1.42; 95% CI 1.17-1.72). There was a non-significant effect favouring intervention for walking distance and incidence of ICU-acquired weakness.
CONCLUSIONS: Early rehabilitation during ICU stay was not associated with improvements in functional status, muscle strength, quality of life or healthcare utilisation outcomes, although it seems to improve walking ability compared to usual care. Results from ongoing studies may provide more data on the potential benefits of early rehabilitation in critically ill patients.
INTRODUCTION: Despite recommendations from professional societies and patient safety organizations, the majority of ICU patients worldwide are not routinely monitored for delirium, thus preventing timely prevention and management. The purpose of this systematic review is to summarize what types of implementation strategies have been tested to improve ICU clinicians' ability to effectively assess, prevent and treat delirium and to evaluate the effect of these strategies on clinical outcomes.
METHOD: We searched PubMed, Embase, PsychINFO, Cochrane and CINAHL (January 2000 and April 2014) for studies on implementation strategies that included delirium-oriented interventions in adult ICU patients. Studies were suitable for inclusion if implementation strategies' efficacy, in terms of a clinical outcome, or process outcome was described.
RESULTS: We included 21 studies, all including process measures, while 9 reported both process measures and clinical outcomes. Some individual strategies such as "audit and feedback" and "tailored interventions" may be important to establish clinical outcome improvements, but otherwise robust data on effectiveness of specific implementation strategies were scarce. Successful implementation interventions were frequently reported to change process measures, such as improvements in adherence to delirium screening with up to 92%, but relating process measures to outcome changes was generally not possible. In meta-analyses, reduced mortality and ICU length of stay reduction were statistically more likely with implementation programs that employed more (six or more) rather than less implementation strategies and when a framework was used that either integrated current evidence on pain, agitation and delirium management (PAD) or when a strategy of early awakening, breathing, delirium screening and early exercise (ABCDE bundle) was employed. Using implementation strategies aimed at organizational change, next to behavioural change ,was also associated with reduced mortality.
CONCLUSION: Our findings may indicate that multi-component implementation programs with a higher number of strategies targeting ICU delirium assessment, prevention and treatment and integrated within PAD or ABCDE bundle have the potential to improve clinical outcomes. However, prospective confirmation of these findings is needed to inform the most effective implementation practice with regard to integrated delirium management and such research should clearly delineate effective practice change from improvements in clinical outcomes.
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To review current research evidence on the outcomes of mobilising hospitalised adults.
BACKGROUND: Although immobility is known to cause functional decline or complications, inpatient ambulation emerged as the most often missed element of nursing care. This study is designed to review research studies that give evidence as to the consequences of mobilising or not mobilising hospitalised adult patients.
DESIGN: A literature review of published peer-reviewed empirical research was undertaken.
METHODS: The electronic databases of MEDLINE (Ovid), CINAHL, and PubMed were accessed to search for relevant empirical articles, supplemented by a search of reference lists contained in retrieved articles and citation tracking.
RESULTS: Thirty-six studies were identified for inclusion in the review. Four areas (study design, sample size, measurement and statistical analysis) were evaluated for methodological quality, and most studies showed strong quality. A synthesis of the findings generated four themes of the effects of inpatient mobilisation: (1) physical outcomes included pain, deep vein thrombosis, fatigue, etc.; (2) psychological outcomes included anxiety, depressive mood, distress, comfort and satisfaction; (3) social outcomes included quality of life and independence; and (4) organisational outcomes included length of stay, mortality and cost.
CONCLUSION: Mobilising hospitalised adults brings benefits for not only physical functioning, but also their emotional and social well-being. Moreover, ambulation yields important organisational benefits. These benefits of mobilisation on four areas required viewing the patient in a holistic manner. Even though each study approached different types of patients, illnesses and procedures, this review showed that most inpatients would benefit from mobilisation and would experience optimal functions.
RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: The importance of mobilisation for positive patient outcomes highlights the need to develop methods to ensure that this nursing action is completed on a systematic basis.
The aim of this meta-analysis was to assess if early mobilization and rehabilitation in the intensive care unit (ICU) could reduce ICU-acquired weakness (ICU-AW), improve functional recovery, improve muscle strength, shorten the length of ICU and hospital stays, and reduce the mortality rate.
METHODS:
A comprehensive literature search in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, SinoMed (Chinese BioMedical Literature Service System, China), and National Knowledge Infrastructure, China (CNKI) was performed. Results were expressed as a risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) or weight mean difference (WMD) with 95% CIs. Pooled estimates were calculated using a fixed-effects or random-effects model according to the heterogeneity among studies.
RESULTS:
Fifteen randomized controlled trials involving a total of 1941 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Pooled estimates suggested that early mobilization significantly reduced the incidence of ICU-AW (RR = 0.49, 95% CI.: 0.26, 0.91; P = .025), shortened the length of ICU (WMD = -1.82 days, 95% CI.: -2.88, -0.76; P = .001) and hospital (WMD = -3.90 days, 95% CI.: -5.94, -1.85; P < .001) stays, and improved the Medical Research Council score (WMD = 4.47, 95% CI.: 1.43, 7.52; P = .004) and Barthel Index score at hospital discharge (WMD = 21.44, 95% CI.: 10.97, 31.91; P < .001). Moreover, early mobilization also decreased complications such as deep vein thrombosis (RR = 0.16, 95% CI.: 0.04, 0.59; P = .006), ventilator-associated pneumonia (RR = 0.26, 95% CI.: 0.11, 0.63; P = .003), and pressure sores (RR = 0.14, 95% CI.: 0.04, 0.44; P = .001). However, early mobilization did not reduce the ICU mortality rate (RR = 1.31, 95% CI.: 0.97, 1.76; P = .074), improve the handgrip strength (WMD = 4.03 kg, 95% CI.: -0.68, 8.74; P = .094), and shorten the duration of mechanical ventilation (WMD = 0.20 days, 95% CI.: -0.10, 0.50; P = .194).
CONCLUSION:
This study indicated that early mobilization was effective in preventing the occurrence of ICU-AW, shortening the length of ICU and hospital stay, and improving the functional mobility. However, it had no effect on the ICU mortality rate and ventilator-free days.
RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE:
ICU-AW is a common neuromuscular complication of critical illness, and it is predictive of adverse outcomes. Early mobilization of critically ill patients is a candidate intervention to reduce the incidence and severity of ICU-AW. Some clinical studies have demonstrated this, whereas others found opposite results. The aim of our study is to assess if early mobilization and rehabilitation in the ICU could reduce the ICU-AW, improve functional recovery, improve muscle strength, shorten length of ICU and hospital stay, and reduce the mortality rate.
Systematic Review Question»Systematic review of interventions
