| Literature DB >> 31215603 |
Taila Cristina Piva1, Renata Salatti Ferrari2, Camila Wohlgemuth Schaan2.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the existing early mobilization protocols in pediatric intensive care units.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31215603 PMCID: PMC6649221 DOI: 10.5935/0103-507X.20190038
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Rev Bras Ter Intensiva ISSN: 0103-507X
Figure 1Flowchart of the studies included in the systematic review.
Characteristics of the included studies
| Author | Drawing of a sample | Age (years) | Sample characteristics | Objective |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Abdulsatar et al.( | Quasi-experimental | 11 (3 - 16) | Children and adolescents (3 - 18 years) in
the pediatric ICU with expected length of stay > 48 hours. PRISM
III 9.5 (0 - 21) | Assess the viability and safety of exercise with virtual reality games in critically ill children |
| Choong et al.( | Quasi-experimental | 11 (6 -14) | Patients (3 - 17 years) with expected
length of stay in the pediatric ICU > 24 hours. PRISM III 6 (0 -
8) | Evaluate the viability and safety of the implementation of 2 rehabilitation methods based on passive and active in-bed mobilization in critically ill children |
| Wieczorek et al.( | Prospective | 7.7 ± 5.4 | Children and adolescents (< 17 years)
admitted to the pediatric ICU for ≥ 3 days PRISM 5,4
(4,5) | Determine the safety and feasibility of an early mobilization program in the pediatric ICU |
| Choong et al.( | Pilot RCT | 8 (5 - 14) | Children and adolescents (3 - 17 years)
with expected length of stay in the pediatric ICU > 48
hours | Determine the feasibility of a study on the efficacy of early mobilization with a cycle ergometer combined with physical therapy in the functional recovery of critically ill pediatric patients |
| Tsuboi et al.( | Prospective | 1.1 (0.58 - 6.16) | Pediatric patients (< 16 years) after
liver transplantation. | Assess the impact of an early mobilization program in the pediatric ICU after liver transplantation |
| Betters et al.( | Retrospective | 4.4 (1.8 - 12.8) | Patients under MV, cooperative and alert. Sedation level > 2 according to scale used | Describe the creation and implementation of an early mobilization protocol for pediatric patients under MV |
ICU - intensive care unit; PRISM - Pediatric Risk of Mortality; PCPC - Pediatric Cerebral Performance Category; POPC - Pediatric Overall Performance; RCT - randomized controlled trial; PIM2 - Pediatric Index of Mortality; PELD - Pediatric End-Stage Liver Disease; MV - mechanical ventilation.
Median (minimum-maximum);
median (interquartile range 25-75);
mean ± standard deviation.
Characteristics of early mobilization protocols in pediatric patients
| Author | Beginning | Contraindications | Early mobilization protocol | Main results |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Abdulsatar et al.( | 9.5 (1 - 56) | Hemodynamic instability; deep sedation; contraindication for mobilization (e.g., surgery in ULs); severe cognitive or functional disability (POPC and PCPC ≥ 4); on life support | Interactive videogame | Increased movement of the ULs versus the
remainder of the day (p = 0.049) |
| Choong et al.( | 4 (2 -10) | Hemodynamic and ventilatory instability;
active patients or at their baseline level of functionality;
imminent risk of death; on life support; cerebral edema, elevated
intracranial pressure, unstable spinal cord injuries;
musculoskeletal injuries, surgical contraindications and
deformities | Interactive videogame for cooperative and
conscious patients. | Passive mobilization with cycle ergometer
increased the activity of the LLs (p <0.001) |
| Wieczorek et al.( | First 72 hours after admission | ECMO; unstable fracture; thorax or abdomen
exposed; medical orientation | LEVEL 1 (MV FiO2> 0.6 or
PEEP> 8, difficult intubation, recent TQT, acute neurological
event, vasopressor, sedation or SBS -3 and -2): | Increase in the number of physical therapy
and occupational therapy consultations with the implementation of
the early mobilization program |
| Choong et al.( | 2 (1 - 4) | Hemodynamic, ventilatory and/or
neurological instability; surgical contraindications | Intervention: standard treatment + cycle
ergometer | Early mobilization is safe and
viable |
| Tsuboi et al.( | From the 1st PO day | Hemodynamic instability; PO immediately after thoracic or abdominal surgery; intracranial hypertension; cervical spinal instability | Daily planning of the level of
mobilization for each patient with the team: range-of-motion
exercises; sitting on the bed; transfer to a chair; orthostasis;
ambulation | Increase in the proportion of patients who
received physical therapy after the implementation of the early
mobilization program (p < 0.001) |
| Betters et al.( | Daily assessment of patients under MV | Absolute: high-frequency oscillatory
ventilation; neuromuscular blocking agent; difficult airway;
unstable TBI | Active mobilization of patients under
MV | Significant difference in the
professionals’ perception about mobilization |
ULs - upper limbs; POPC - Pediatric Overall Performance Category; PCPC - Pediatric Cerebral Performance Category; ICU - intensive care unit; SpO2 - peripheral oxygen saturation; LLs - lower limbs; ECMO - extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; HR - heart rate; BP - blood pressure; RR - respiratory rate; FiO2 - inspired fraction of oxygen; ETCO2: end-tidal carbon dioxide; OTT - orotracheal tube; TQT - tracheostomy; EVD - external ventricular drain; MV - mechanical ventilation; PEEP - positive end-expiratory pressure; SBS - State Behavioral Scale; NIV - noninvasive ventilation; PO - postoperative; TBI - traumatic brain injury.
Median (minimum-maximum);
median (interquartile range);
http://links.lww.com/pcc/a529;
patients under MV: range-of-motion exercises.
Assessment of the risk of bias of the included studies
| Wieczorek et al.( | *** | ** | ** | 7 | |||||
| Tsuboi et al.( | *** | ** | ** | 7 | |||||
| Betters et al.( | * | NA | * | 2 | |||||
| Abdulsatar et al.( | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 12 |
| Choong et al.( | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 12 |
| Choong et al.( | Yes | Uncertain bias | Not applicable | Yes | Yes | ||||
the categories group selection and evaluation of outcome/exposure can receive a maximum of 1 star (*) for each item evaluated corresponding to 4 and 3 points, respectively. The category comparability between groups can receive a maximum of 2 stars for the evaluated item. When the criterion was considered not applicable to the study, no score was assigned;
zero: unreported; 1: reported and inadequate; or 2: reported and adequate, totaling 16 points. NOS - Newcastle-Ottawa Scale; MINORS - Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies.
Search strategy used in PubMed®
| #1 | |
| #2 | |
| #3 | |
| #4 | #1 |