Search

Background: Mobilisation during critical illness is now included in multiple clinical practice guidelines. However, a large, randomised trial and systematic review have recently identified an increased probability of adverse events and mortality in patients who received early active mobilisation in the intensive care unit (ICU). We aimed to determine the effects of mobilisation compared with usual care on adverse events and mortality in an acute ICU setting. In subgroup analyses, we specifically aimed to investigate possible sources of harm, including the timing and duration of mobilisation achieved, ventilation status, and admission diagnosis., Methods: In this systematic review with frequentist and Bayesian analyses, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and PEDro electronic databases, as well as clinical trial registries (ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov), from inception to March 16, 2023, without language restrictions. Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials that examined active mobilisation compared with either no mobilisation or mobilisation commencing later, or at a lower frequency or intensity, in adults who were critically ill during or after a period of mechanical ventilation in an acute ICU setting. Two authors independently screened reports, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (version 1). The primary outcome was the number of adverse events that occurred during the implementation of mobilisation, with the effect of mobilisation on mortality being the secondary outcome. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% CIs were calculated in R (version 4.0.3) using random-effects modelling, with Bayesian analysis completed to calculate the probability of treatment harm (ie, RR >1). Subgroup analyses were completed to investigate the association of various factors of mobilisation on adverse events and mortality: duration of mobilisation (longer [≥20 min per day] vs shorter [<20 min per day]), timing of commencement (early [≤72 h from ICU admission] vs late [>72 h from ICU admission]), ventilation status at commencement (all patients mechanically ventilated vs all patients extubated), and ICU admission diagnosis (surgical vs medical). This study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42022369272., Findings: After title and abstract screening of 14 440 studies and review of 466 full texts, 67 trials with 7004 participants met inclusion criteria, with 59 trials contributing to the meta-analysis. Of the 67 included studies, 15 (22%) did not mention adverse events and 13 (19%) reported no adverse events occurring across the trial period. Overall, we found no effect of mobilisation compared with usual care on the occurrence of adverse events (RR 1·09 [95% CI 0·69-1·74], p=0·71; I 2 91%; 32 731 events, 20 studies; very low certainty), with a 2·96% occurrence rate (693 events in 23 395 intervention sessions; 25 studies). Mobilisation did not have any effect on mortality (RR 0·98 [95% CI 0·87-1·12], p=0·81; I 2 0%; n=6218, 58 studies; moderate certainty). Subgroup analysis was hindered by the large amount of data that could not be allocated and analysed, making the results hypothesis generating only., Interpretation: Implementation of mobilisation in the ICU was associated with a less than 3% chance of an adverse event occurring and was not found to increase adverse events or mortality overall, providing reassurance for clinicians about the safety of performing this intervention. Subgroup analyses did not clearly identify any specific variable of mobilisation implementation that increased harm., Funding: None., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests CLH declares grants obtained for works included in this systematic review and meta-analysis and accommodation reimbursement for talks on early mobilisation. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Early progressive mobilization is usually considered as an effective method for intensive care unit-acquired weakness (ICU-AW), but the controversies on this topic remain debatable, especially in initiation time, safety profile, and other implementation details. So, more studies should be performed to solve these disputes. A set of critically ill patients underwent mechanical ventilation in intensive care unit (ICU) of our hospital from March 2018 to September 2020 were included as study object. Patients received early progressive mobilization were included into the intervention group (n = 160), and another patients matched with the intervention group by gender, age, and APACHE II score, and these patients received routine intervention were included into the control group (n = 160). Then, indexes involving muscle strength, Barthel index, functional independence, incidence rates of ICU-AW and other complications were comparatively analyzed between the 2 groups. The Medical Research Council score and Barthel index score in the intervention group were significantly higher than those in the control group (all P < .05). The percentages of patients who were able to complete taking a shower, wearing clothes, eating, grooming, moving from bed to chair and using the toilet by alone in the intervention group were significantly higher than those in the control group (69.38% vs 49.38%, 73.13% vs 51.88%, 81.25% vs 55.63%, 74.38% vs 48.75%, 82.50% vs 65.63%, 78.13% vs 63.13%, respectively, all P < .05). The incidence rate of ICU-AW and overall incidence rate of complications in the intervention group were significantly lower than those in the control group (6.88% vs 28.13% and 23.13% vs 48.13%, both P < .05). Early progressive mobilization can effectively increase muscle strength and daily basic motion ability, improve functional status, and decrease risk of ICU-AW in critically ill patients underwent mechanical ventilation, and it has an attractive application value in clinic., Competing Interests: The authors have no funding and conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2022 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Background: Extubation failure can lead to a longer intensive care unit (ICU) stay, higher mortality rate, and higher risk of requiring tracheostomy. Chest physiotherapy (CPT) can help patients in reducing the accumulation of airway secretion, preventing collapsed lung, improving lung compliance, and reducing comorbidities. Much research has investigated the correlation between CPT and respiratory system clearance. However, few studies have investigated the correlation between CPT and failed ventilator extubation. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the use of CPT for reducing the rate of failed removal from mechanical ventilators., Methods: This study was an intervention study with mechanical control. Subjects were divided into two groups. The control group, which received routine nursing chest care, was selected from a retrospective chart review. The intervention group was prospectively taken into the chest physiotherapy program. The chest physiotherapy treatment protocol consisted of inspiratory muscle training, manual hyperinflation, chest wall mobilization, secretion removal, cough function training, and early mobilization., Results: A total of 439 subjects were enrolled in the intervention and control groups, with a mean age of 69 years. APACHE II score (P = .09) and GCS scores (P = .54) were similar between the two groups. Compared to the control group, patients in the intervention group had a significantly lower reintubation rate (8% vs 16%; P = .01)., Conclusions: The results indicate that intensive chest physiotherapy could decrease extubation failure in mechanically ventilated patients in the ICU. In addition, chest physiotherapy could also significantly improve the rapid shallow breathing index score., (© 2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Mobilisation of intensive care (ICU) patients attenuates ICU-acquired weakness, but the prevalence is low (12-54%). Better understanding of barriers and enablers may inform practice., Objectives: To identify barriers to mobilisation and factors associated with successful mobilisation in our medical /surgical /trauma ICU where mobilisation is well-established., Methods: 4-week prospective study of frequency and intensity of mobilisation, clinical factors and barriers (extracted from electronic database). Generalized linear mixed models were used to describe associations between demographics, clinical factors and successful mobilisation., Results: 202 patients accounted for 742 patient days. Patients mobilised on 51% of patient days. Most frequent barriers were drowsiness (18%), haemodynamic/respiratory contraindications (17%), and medical orders (14%). Predictors of successful mobilisation included high Glasgow Coma Score (OR = 1.44, 95%CI=[1.29-1.60]), and male sex (OR = 2.29, 95%CI=[1.40-3.75]) but not age (OR = 1.05, 95%CI=[1.01-1.08])., Conclusions: Our major barriers (drowsiness, haemodynamic/respiratory contraindications) may be unavoidable, indicating an upper limit of feasible mobilisation therapy in ICU., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Mobilization is safe and associated with improved outcomes in critically ill adults, but little is known about mobilization of critically ill children., Objective: To implement a standardized mobilization therapy protocol in a pediatric intensive care unit and improve mobilization of patients., Methods: A goal-directed mobilization protocol was instituted as a quality improvement project in a 20-bed cardiac and medical-surgical pediatric intensive care unit within an academic tertiary care center. The mobilization goal was based on age and severity of illness. Data on severity of illness, ordered activity limitations, baseline functioning, mobilization level, complications of mobilization, and mobilization barriers were collected. Goal mobilization was defined as a ratio of mobilization level to severity of illness of 1 or greater., Results: In 9 months, 567 patient encounters were analyzed, 294 (52%) of which achieved goal mobilization. The mean ratio of mobilization level to severity of illness improved slightly but nonsignificantly. Encounters that met mobilization goals were in younger ( P = .04) and more ill ( P < .001) patients and were less likely to have barriers ( P < .001) than encounters not meeting the goals. Complication rate was 2.5%, with no difference between groups ( P = .18). No serious adverse events occurred., Conclusions: A multidisciplinary, multiprofessional, goal-directed mobilization protocol achieved goal mobilization in more than 50% of patients in this pediatric intensive care unit. Undermobilized patients were older, less ill, and more likely to have mobilization barriers at the patient and provider level., (© 2018 American Association of Critical-Care Nurses.)

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.

Objectives: 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., Design: A pilot randomized controlled trial., Setting: Five ICUs in Australia and New Zealand., Participants: Fifty critically ill adults mechanically ventilated for greater than 24 hours., Intervention: 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., Measurements and Main Results: 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., Conclusions: 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.

Objective: To identify physiologic variables that could be measured in response to mobilisation interventions in critically ill adults., Background: Physical activity may mitigate muscle damage from critical illness, but critically ill patients may have limited activity tolerance. Physiologic measures may be most useful in identifying safety and efficacy of mobilisation in this population., Methods: A comprehensive literature search of electronic databases was conducted from 1990 to present, including CINAHL, MEDLINE the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and PubMed. Search terms used were mobilisation, exercise, activity and critical illness. Seventeen articles were identified for review. Physiologic measurement approaches were reviewed for precision and accuracy., Results: Cardiopulmonary measures comprised the majority of physiologic variables identified, and multiple measures were used. Physiologic measures were primarily used as indicators of safety, although several efficacy measures were identified. Only one standardised tool was found that could be suitable as a safety measure, the Borg Rating of Perceived Exertion. The Medical Research Council Muscle Strength Grading Scale could be used as a physiologic outcome measure. Inflammatory biomarkers may be used as a novel measure of physiologic response. Descriptions of approaches to assure precision and accuracy of physiologic response measures were extremely limited., Conclusions: Multiple physiologic variables should be measured when considering response to mobilisation in critically ill patients. Attention should be paid to procedures to assure accuracy and precision in measurement. Future studies including physiologic measures should include inflammatory biomarkers, and other measures of physiologic function, such as pain assessment., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Mobilization is often used by physiotherapists for managing critically ill patients with the aim of treatment including improving respiratory function, level of consciousness, functional ability, and psychological well being, and reducing the adverse effects of immobility. In addition, mobilization may decrease the duration of mechanical ventilation and length of ICU or hospital stay. This article provides ICU practitioners with comprehensive guidelines that can be used to assess the safety of mobilizing critically ill patients. The main safety factors that should be addressed include intrinsic factors related to the patient (eg, medical background, cardiovascular and respiratory reserve, and hematological considerations) and factors extrinsic to the patient (eg, patient attachments, environment, and staffing).

Diagnosis and resuscitation for critically ill patients have improved in the last 25 years, and survival has also increased. With improvements in mortality, the field of critical care has seen increased opportunities to improve posthospital quality of life for survivors of critical illness. This article focuses particularly on how mobilization may improve quality of life for patients.