Petr Waldauf1, Kateřina Jiroutková1, Adéla Krajčová1, Zudin Puthucheary2, František Duška1. 1. Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Charles University, 3 Faculty of Medicine and FNKV University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic. 2. William Harvey Research Institute, Barts and The London School of Medicine & Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of rehabilitation in ICU on clinical outcomes. DATA SOURCES: Secondary data analysis of randomized controlled trials published between 1998 and October 2019 was performed in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. STUDY SELECTION: We have selected trials investigating neuromuscular electrical stimulation or cycling exercises or protocolized physical rehabilitation as compared to standard of care in critically ill adults. DATA EXTRACTION: Mortality, length of stay in ICU and at hospital, days on mechanical ventilator, and adverse events. DATA SYNTHESIS: We found 43 randomized controlled trials (nine on cycling, 14 on neuromuscular electrical stimulation alone and 20 on protocolized physical rehabilitation) into which 3,548 patients were randomized and none of whom experienced an intervention-related serious adverse event. The exercise interventions had no influence on mortality (odds ratio 0.94 [0.79-1.12], n = 38 randomized controlled trials) but reduced duration of mechanical ventilation (mean difference, -1.7 d [-2.5 to -0.8 d], n = 32, length of stay in ICU (-1.2 d [-2.5 to 0.0 d], n = 32) but not at hospital (-1.6 [-4.3 to 1.2 d], n = 23). The effects on the length of mechanical ventilation and ICU stay were only significant for the protocolized physical rehabilitation subgroup and enhanced in patients with longer ICU stay and lower Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores. There was no benefit of early start of the intervention. It is likely that the dose of rehabilitation delivered was much lower than dictated by the protocol in many randomized controlled trials and negative results may reflect the failure to implement the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Rehabilitation interventions in critically ill patients do not influence mortality and are safe. Protocolized physical rehabilitation significantly shortens time spent on mechanical ventilation and in ICU, but this does not consistently translate into long-term functional benefit. Stable patients with lower Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II at admission (<20) and prone to protracted ICU stay may benefit most from rehabilitation interventions.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of rehabilitation in ICU on clinical outcomes. DATA SOURCES: Secondary data analysis of randomized controlled trials published between 1998 and October 2019 was performed in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. STUDY SELECTION: We have selected trials investigating neuromuscular electrical stimulation or cycling exercises or protocolized physical rehabilitation as compared to standard of care in critically ill adults. DATA EXTRACTION: Mortality, length of stay in ICU and at hospital, days on mechanical ventilator, and adverse events. DATA SYNTHESIS: We found 43 randomized controlled trials (nine on cycling, 14 on neuromuscular electrical stimulation alone and 20 on protocolized physical rehabilitation) into which 3,548 patients were randomized and none of whom experienced an intervention-related serious adverse event. The exercise interventions had no influence on mortality (odds ratio 0.94 [0.79-1.12], n = 38 randomized controlled trials) but reduced duration of mechanical ventilation (mean difference, -1.7 d [-2.5 to -0.8 d], n = 32, length of stay in ICU (-1.2 d [-2.5 to 0.0 d], n = 32) but not at hospital (-1.6 [-4.3 to 1.2 d], n = 23). The effects on the length of mechanical ventilation and ICU stay were only significant for the protocolized physical rehabilitation subgroup and enhanced in patients with longer ICU stay and lower Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores. There was no benefit of early start of the intervention. It is likely that the dose of rehabilitation delivered was much lower than dictated by the protocol in many randomized controlled trials and negative results may reflect the failure to implement the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Rehabilitation interventions in critically illpatients do not influence mortality and are safe. Protocolized physical rehabilitation significantly shortens time spent on mechanical ventilation and in ICU, but this does not consistently translate into long-term functional benefit. Stable patients with lower Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II at admission (<20) and prone to protracted ICU stay may benefit most from rehabilitation interventions.
Authors: Lucas Huebner; Ines Schroeder; Eduard Kraft; Marcus Gutmann; Johanna Biebl; Amrei Christin Klamt; Jana Frey; Angelika Warmbein; Ivanka Rathgeber; Inge Eberl; Uli Fischer; Christina Scharf; Stefan J Schaller; Michael Zoller Journal: Anaesthesiologie Date: 2022-06-15
Authors: Rebecca Cusack; Andrew Bates; Kay Mitchell; Zoe van Willigen; Linda Denehy; Nicholas Hart; Ahilanandan Dushianthan; Isabel Reading; Maria Chorozoglou; Gordon Sturmey; Iain Davey; Michael Grocott Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-04-15 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: Lioudmila V Karnatovskaia; Jason M Schultz; Alexander S Niven; Amanda J Steele; Brittany A Baker; Kemuel L Philbrick; Kathryn T Del Valle; Kimberly R Johnson; Ognjen Gajic; Katalin Varga Journal: Crit Care Explor Date: 2021-04-26
Authors: Kirby P Mayer; Melissa L Thompson Bastin; Ashley A Montgomery-Yates; Amy M Pastva; Esther E Dupont-Versteegden; Selina M Parry; Peter E Morris Journal: Crit Care Date: 2020-11-04 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Michelle E Kho; Oleksa G Rewa; J Gordon Boyd; Karen Choong; Graeme C H Stewart; Margaret S Herridge Journal: Can J Anaesth Date: 2022-01-31 Impact factor: 6.713