Dominik Menges1, Bianca Seiler2, Yuki Tomonaga3, Matthias Schwenkglenks3,4, Milo A Puhan3, Henock G Yebyo3. 1. Department of Epidemiology, Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Prevention Institute (EBPI), University of Zurich, Hirschengraben 84, 8001, Zurich, Switzerland. dominik.menges@uzh.ch. 2. Faculty of Medicine (MeF), University of Zurich, Pestalozzistrasse 3, 8091, Zurich, Switzerland. 3. Department of Epidemiology, Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Prevention Institute (EBPI), University of Zurich, Hirschengraben 84, 8001, Zurich, Switzerland. 4. Institute of Pharmaceutical Medicine (ECPM), University of Basel, Klingelbergstrasse 61, 4056, Basel, Switzerland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the effectiveness of systematic early mobilization in improving muscle strength and physical function in mechanically ventilated intensive care unit (ICU) patients. METHODS: We conducted a two-stage systematic literature search in MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library until January 2019 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining the effects of early mobilization initiated within 7 days after ICU admission compared with late mobilization, standard early mobilization or no mobilization. Priority outcomes were Medical Research Council Sum Score (MRC-SS), incidence of ICU-acquired weakness (ICUAW), 6-min walk test (6MWT), proportion of patients reaching independence, time needed until walking, SF-36 Physical Function Domain Score (PFS) and SF-36 Physical Health Component Score (PCS). Meta-analysis was conducted where sufficient comparable evidence was available. We evaluated the certainty of evidence according to the GRADE approach. RESULTS: We identified 12 eligible RCTs contributing data from 1304 participants. Two RCTs were categorized as comparing systematic early with late mobilization, nine with standard early mobilization and one with no mobilization. We found evidence for a benefit of systematic early mobilization compared to late mobilization for SF-36 PFS (MD 12.3; 95% CI 3.9-20.8) and PCS (MD 3.4; 95% CI 0.01-6.8), as well as on the proportion of patients reaching independence and the time needed to walking, but not for incidence of ICUAW (RR 0.62; 95% CI 0.38-1.03) or MRC-SS. For systematic early compared to standard early mobilization, we found no statistically significant benefit on MRC-SS (MD 5.8; 95% CI - 1.4 to 13.0), incidence of ICUAW (RR 0.90; 95% CI 0.63-1.27), SF-36 PFS (MD 8.1; 95% CI - 15.3 to 31.4) or PCS (MD - 2.4; 95% CI - 6.1 to 1.3) or other priority outcomes except for change in 6MWT from baseline. Generally, effects appeared stronger for systematic early compared to late mobilization than to standard early mobilization. We judged the certainty of evidence for all outcomes as very low to low. CONCLUSION: The evidence regarding a benefit of systematic early mobilization remained inconclusive. However, our findings indicate that the larger the difference in the timing between the intervention and the comparator, the more likely an RCT is to find a benefit for early mobilization. STUDY REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42019122555).
BACKGROUND: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the effectiveness of systematic early mobilization in improving muscle strength and physical function in mechanically ventilated intensive care unit (ICU) patients. METHODS: We conducted a two-stage systematic literature search in MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library until January 2019 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining the effects of early mobilization initiated within 7 days after ICU admission compared with late mobilization, standard early mobilization or no mobilization. Priority outcomes were Medical Research Council Sum Score (MRC-SS), incidence of ICU-acquired weakness (ICUAW), 6-min walk test (6MWT), proportion of patients reaching independence, time needed until walking, SF-36 Physical Function Domain Score (PFS) and SF-36 Physical Health Component Score (PCS). Meta-analysis was conducted where sufficient comparable evidence was available. We evaluated the certainty of evidence according to the GRADE approach. RESULTS: We identified 12 eligible RCTs contributing data from 1304 participants. Two RCTs were categorized as comparing systematic early with late mobilization, nine with standard early mobilization and one with no mobilization. We found evidence for a benefit of systematic early mobilization compared to late mobilization for SF-36 PFS (MD 12.3; 95% CI 3.9-20.8) and PCS (MD 3.4; 95% CI 0.01-6.8), as well as on the proportion of patients reaching independence and the time needed to walking, but not for incidence of ICUAW (RR 0.62; 95% CI 0.38-1.03) or MRC-SS. For systematic early compared to standard early mobilization, we found no statistically significant benefit on MRC-SS (MD 5.8; 95% CI - 1.4 to 13.0), incidence of ICUAW (RR 0.90; 95% CI 0.63-1.27), SF-36 PFS (MD 8.1; 95% CI - 15.3 to 31.4) or PCS (MD - 2.4; 95% CI - 6.1 to 1.3) or other priority outcomes except for change in 6MWT from baseline. Generally, effects appeared stronger for systematic early compared to late mobilization than to standard early mobilization. We judged the certainty of evidence for all outcomes as very low to low. CONCLUSION: The evidence regarding a benefit of systematic early mobilization remained inconclusive. However, our findings indicate that the larger the difference in the timing between the intervention and the comparator, the more likely an RCT is to find a benefit for early mobilization. STUDY REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42019122555).
Authors: Claire J Tipping; Meg Harrold; Anne Holland; Lorena Romero; Travis Nisbet; Carol L Hodgson Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2016-11-18 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: John W Devlin; Yoanna Skrobik; Céline Gélinas; Dale M Needham; Arjen J C Slooter; Pratik P Pandharipande; Paula L Watson; Gerald L Weinhouse; Mark E Nunnally; Bram Rochwerg; Michele C Balas; Mark van den Boogaard; Karen J Bosma; Nathaniel E Brummel; Gerald Chanques; Linda Denehy; Xavier Drouot; Gilles L Fraser; Jocelyn E Harris; Aaron M Joffe; Michelle E Kho; John P Kress; Julie A Lanphere; Sharon McKinley; Karin J Neufeld; Margaret A Pisani; Jean-Francois Payen; Brenda T Pun; Kathleen A Puntillo; Richard R Riker; Bryce R H Robinson; Yahya Shehabi; Paul M Szumita; Chris Winkelman; John E Centofanti; Carrie Price; Sina Nikayin; Cheryl J Misak; Pamela D Flood; Ken Kiedrowski; Waleed Alhazzani Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2018-09 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Pierre Maffei; Sandrine Wiramus; Laurent Bensoussan; Laurence Bienvenu; Eric Haddad; Sophie Morange; Mohamed Fathallah; Jean Hardwigsen; Jean-Michel Viton; Y Patrice Le Treut; Jacques Albanese; Emilie Gregoire Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2017-03-06 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: William D Schweickert; Mark C Pohlman; Anne S Pohlman; Celerina Nigos; Amy J Pawlik; Cheryl L Esbrook; Linda Spears; Megan Miller; Mietka Franczyk; Deanna Deprizio; Gregory A Schmidt; Amy Bowman; Rhonda Barr; Kathryn E McCallister; Jesse B Hall; John P Kress Journal: Lancet Date: 2009-05-14 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Peter E Morris; Michael J Berry; D Clark Files; J Clifton Thompson; Jordan Hauser; Lori Flores; Sanjay Dhar; Elizabeth Chmelo; James Lovato; L Douglas Case; Rita N Bakhru; Aarti Sarwal; Selina M Parry; Pamela Campbell; Arthur Mote; Chris Winkelman; Robert D Hite; Barbara Nicklas; Arjun Chatterjee; Michael P Young Journal: JAMA Date: 2016-06-28 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Beverley J Shea; Barnaby C Reeves; George Wells; Micere Thuku; Candyce Hamel; Julian Moran; David Moher; Peter Tugwell; Vivian Welch; Elizabeth Kristjansson; David A Henry Journal: BMJ Date: 2017-09-21
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: David M Maslove; Stephanie Sibley; J Gordon Boyd; Ewan C Goligher; Laveena Munshi; Isaac I Bogoch; Bram Rochwerg Journal: Chest Date: 2021-10-13 Impact factor: 10.262
Authors: Rahel Vollenweider; Anastasios I Manettas; Nathalie Häni; Eling D de Bruin; Ruud H Knols Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-05-12 Impact factor: 3.752
Authors: Laptin Ho; Joe Hin Cheung Tsang; Emmanuel Cheung; Wing Yan Chan; Ka Wai Lee; Sweetie R Lui; Chung Yau Lee; Alfred Lok Hang Lee; Philip Koon Ngai Lam Journal: Acute Crit Care Date: 2022-06-29