Search

Purpose: Gastrointestinal (GI) dysfunction is common in critically ill patients and associated with poor outcomes. There is a lack of standardised methods for daily monitoring of GI function. COSMOGI aimed to develop a Core Outcome Set (COS) for daily monitoring of GI function to improve consistency and comparability in future studies in critically ill patients., Methods: A modified Delphi consensus process engaging healthcare providers, clinical researchers, and patient representatives was performed. A systematic review identified existing parameters to monitor GI function, informing the development of potential outcomes. In Stage 1, participants rated outcomes (i.e., variables used for daily monitoring). In Stage 2, they refined and agreed on the definitions for the selected outcomes. The COS was ratified through consensus meetings., Results: 368 individuals registered for the Delphi process. 285 participants (77.4%) completed Stage 1, and 181 participants (63.5%) completed Stage 2. From 77 potential outcomes, 13 essential outcomes for daily monitoring of GI function in studies, each with an agreed-upon definition, were established: abdominal distension, bowel dilatation, intra-abdominal pressure, abdominal pain, stool passage, vomiting, GI bleeding (upper and lower), use of parenteral nutrition due to intolerance of enteral nutrition, prokinetics, postpyloric feeding due to gastroparesis, lower GI paralysis, gastroparesis, intolerance to enteral nutrition., Conclusions: Using a modified Delphi consensus process, COSMOGI established a COS for monitoring GI function in critically ill patients in research. This COS and definitions provide a framework to guide future research, enabling comparability across studies and allowing for future definitions of GI dysfunction., Trial Registration: This project was registered at ( www.comet-initiative.org ) on 27.03.2023 (number 2609) and was an ESICM-endorsed research project., Competing Interests: Declarations. Ethics approval and consent to participate: Not applicable, no ethical approval was needed for this study. Participants were invited and informed via participant information sheets available at https://cosmogi.site/documents . Consent for publication: All participants were informed about the aims of this study and the intent to publish. Participants who chose to be listed personally can be found in the online supplement. Competing interests: Varsha Asrani: No conflict of interest. Kaspar Felix Bachmann: No conflict of interest. Danielle E. Bear: Consulting fees from Baxter Healthcare, Fresenius Kabi, and Nestle Health Science. Giuliano Bolondi: No conflict of interest. Sabrina Boraso: No conflict of interest. Michael Casaer: Supported by the Research Foundation—Flanders, Belgium through a senior clinical investigator fellowship (1832822N). Zhigang Chang: No conflict of interest. Craig M. Coopersmith: Supported by the National Institutes of Health (R35GM148217). Antonella Cotoia: No conflict of interest. Thomas Davies: No conflict of interest. Angelique De Man: No conflict of interest. Gunnar Elke: No conflict of interest. Kursat Gundogan: No conflict of interest. Jan Gunst: Supported by the Research Foundation—Flanders, Belgium through a senior clinical investigator fellowship (1842724N). Bethan Jenkins: No conflict of interest. Slavica Kvolik: No conflict of interest. Marcus Laube: No conflict of interest. Matthias Lindner: No conflict of interest. Juan Carlos Lopez-Delgado: No conflict of interest. Cecilia Loudet: No conflict of interest. Ram Matsa: No conflict of interest. Emmanuel Pardo: EP received a research grant from Nestle Health Science. Simone Piva: No conflict of interest. Zudin Puthucheary: ZP has received honoraria for consultancy from Fresenius Kabi and Nutricia. Annika Reintam Blaser: ARB received speaker fee from Nutricia, consultancy fees from Fresenius Kabi and Nestle Health Science. Todd Rice: TWR has received consultancy fees from Nestle, Baxter, Abbott, and Fresenius Kabi. Sergio Ruiz-Santana: No conflict of interest. Stefan J. Schaller: SJS received grants and non-financial support from Baxter, Fresenius, and Nutricia. Joel Starkopf: No conflict of interest. Christian Stoppe: No conflict of interest. Arthur Van Zanten: ARHvZ reported receiving honoraria for advisory board membership from Baxter, Nutricia, and Fresenius Kabi, and research funding from Baxter., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: While gastrointestinal (GI) dysfunction is commonly encountered among critically ill patients, a uniform prospectively validated scoring system is lacking. The present study aims to validate the recently developed Gastrointestinal Dysfunction Score (GIDS) in a multicenter, prospective cohort of consecutive adult patients admitted to intensive care units (ICU)., Methods: GUTPHOS is a prospective, multicenter, non-interventional cohort study in which at least 1400 consecutive adult patients (age ≥18 years) admitted to the ICU will be monitored daily for abdominal signs and symptoms of GI dysfunction. The previously developed GIDS constructed from these signs and symptoms will be tested in relation to mortality and duration of ICU dependency and parenteral nutrition (PN) dependency. Between January and June 2024, each participating clinical site will include 50-120 consecutive patients over an eight-week period. Study data will be collected in three phases: baseline data upon ICU admission, daily observations throughout a maximum of 7 days in ICU or until discharge, and a follow-up period of 90 days. The primary outcomes are 28- and 90-day all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes include ICU and hospital mortality, ICU and hospital length of stay, days alive and free of ICU by day 28 and day 90, days alive and free of hospital by day 28 and day 90, and days alive and free of organ support and PN dependency by day 28., Discussion: The GUTPHOS study will be the first worldwide, multicenter, prospective, observational cohort study to validate the GIDS in adult patients admitted to ICUs against 28- and 90-day mortality. The availability of a validated tool will allow its use in interventional studies that are currently hindered by the lack of a validated measurement tool for GI dysfunction., Clinical Trial Registry: NCT05909722., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest IWKK received a Veni Fellowship (2024–2028) through the Dutch Research Council (NWO Talent Program). SJS received grants and non-financial support from Reactive Robotics GmbH (Munich, Germany), ASP GmbH (Attendorn, Germany), STIMIT AG (Biel, Switzerland), ESICM (Geneva, Switzerland), grants, personal fees, and non-financial support from Fresenius Kabi Deutschland GmbH (Bad Homburg, Germany), grants from the Innovationsfond of The Federal Joint Committee (G-BA), personal fees from Springer Verlag GmbH (Vienna, Austria) for educational purposes and Advanz Pharma GmbH (Bielefeld, Germany), non-financial support from national and international societies (and their congress organizers) in the field of anesthesiology and intensive care medicine, outside the submitted work. SJS holds stocks in small amounts from Alphabet Inc., Bayer AG, and Siemens AG; these holdings have not affected any decisions regarding his research or this study. ARHvZ reported receiving honoraria for advisory board meetings, lectures, research, and travel expenses from Abbott, AOP Pharma, Baxter, Cardinal Health, Danone-Nutricia, Fresenius Kabi, GE Healthcare, Medcaptain, Nestlé, PAION, and Rousselot. ARB received speaker or consulting fees from Nutricia and VIPUN Medical. JG is granted a senior clinical investigator fellowship by Research Foundation – Flanders (1842724N) and has obtained research funding through grants from KU Leuven (STG/23/032) and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (Fundamental Research Award 2022). MPC has obtained research funding by grants from Research Foundation Flanders, KU Leuven and Department for Innovation of the Flanders Government, and reported receiving consulting fees from Baxter and VIPUN. MLNGM reported receiving honoraria for advisory board meetings, lectures, research, and travel expenses from Getinge, Serenno Medical, Potrero Medical, Sentinel Medical, Baxter, BBraun, Becton Dickinson, ConvaTec, Spiegelberg, Medtronic, MedCaptain, and Holtech Medical, and PeerVoice. He holds stock options for Sentinel, Serenno and Potrero. The other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Electromagnetic stimulation of the phrenic nerve induces diaphragm contractions, but no coils for clinical use have been available. We recently demonstrated the feasibility of ventilation using bilateral transcutaneous noninvasive electromagnetic phrenic nerve stimulation (NEPNS) before surgery in lung-healthy patients with healthy weight in a dose-dependent manner., Research Question: Is NEPNS feasible in critically ill patients in an ICU setting?, Study Design and Methods: This feasibility nonrandomized controlled study aimed to enroll patients within 36 h of intubation who were expected to remain ventilated for ≥ 72 h. The intervention group received 15-min bilateral transcutaneous NEPNS bid, whereas the control group received standard care. If sufficient, NEPNS was used without pressure support to ventilate the patient; pressure support was added if necessary to ventilate the patient adequately. The primary outcome was feasibility, measured as time to find the optimal stimulation position. Further end points were sessions performed according to the protocol or allowing a next-day catch-up session and tidal volume achieved with stimulation reaching only 3 to 6 mL/kg ideal body weight (IBW). A secondary end point was expiratory diaphragm thickness measured with ultrasound from days 1 to 10 (or extubation)., Results: The revised European Union regulation mandated reapproval of medical devices, prematurely halting the study. Eleven patients (five in the intervention group, six in the control group) were enrolled. The median time to find an adequate stimulation position was 23 s (interquartile range, 12-62 s). The intervention bid was executed in 87% of patients, and 92% of patients including a next-day catch-up session. Ventilation with 3 to 6 mL/kg IBW was achieved in 732 of 1,701 stimulations (43.0%) with stimulation only and in 2,511 of 4,036 stimulations (62.2%) with additional pressure support. A decrease in diaphragm thickness was prevented by bilateral NEPNS (P = .034) until day 10., Interpretation: Bilateral transcutaneous NEPNS was feasible in the ICU setting with the potential benefit of preventing diaphragm atrophy during mechanical ventilation. NEPNS ventilation effectiveness needs further assessment., Trial Registry: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT05238753; URL: www., Clinicaltrials: gov., Competing Interests: Financial/Nonfinancial Disclosures The authors have reported to CHEST the following: S. J. S. reports grants and nonfinancial support from STIMIT AG for this work, grants and nonfinancial support from Reactive Robotics GmbH, ASP GmbH, and ESICM; grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from Fresenius Kabi Deutschland GmbH; grants from the Innovationsfond of The Federal Joint Committee (G-BA); personal fees from Springer Verlag GmbH for educational purposes and Advanz Pharma GmbH; and nonfinancial support from national and international societies (and their congress organizers) in the field of anesthesiology and intensive care medicine, outside the submitted work; holds stocks in small amounts from Alphabeth, Inc., Bayer AG, and Siemens AG; these holdings have not affected any decisions regarding his research or this study. A. P. holds stocks in small amounts from BioNTech SE, Taiwan Semiconductor, Sony, Pfizer, Arcutis Biotherapeutics, Inc., Sangamo Therapeutics, NIO, and Ke Holdings; these holdings have not affected any decisions regarding his research or this study. L. B. has received research grants from STIMIT, Medtronic, and Draeger and equipment from Sentec, Philips, and Fisher Paykel. None declared (A. M. G., S. K., M. A. V., B. U., J. J. G., H. G. B., N. M. C., T. N., S. W.-C.)., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The current S3 guideline, "Positioning Therapy and Mobilization of Critically Ill Patients in Intensive Care Units", introduces methodological changes and substantive updates compared to the previous version. Additionally, new evidence-based insights with specified PICO questions have been integrated, aiming for a more precise application of recommendations in clinical practice and thus enhancing the care of critically ill patients.A notable aspect is the more nuanced approach to early mobilization, which is recommended to commence within the first 72 hours of ICU admission. A staged concept and score-based mobilization schema facilitate improved patient rehabilitation. Mobilization should be standard of care, i.e., immobilization should be ordered by the physician. The guideline provides suggestions for the duration and additional mobilization measures to ensure patients stand, transfer actively from bed to chair, or walk as frequently as possible. These recommendations apply even during ECMO therapy, highlighting the importance of early mobilization.Further updates include semi-recumbent positions of at least 40° in intubated patients, with careful consideration of potential side effects. Continuous lateral rotation therapy (CLRT) is not advised due to the progress in intensive care therapy, shifting from deep sedation toward responsive patient management.Prone positioning (PP) involves rotating the patient 180° onto the ventral side. It is recommended as a therapeutic option for invasively ventilated patients with ARDS and impaired arterial oxygenation (PaO 2 /FiO 2 <150mmHg), with a recommended minimum duration of 12 hours, ideally 16 hours. Special recommendations apply, for example, to COVID-19 patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, where awake proning should be considered.Additionally, new chapters have been introduced focusing on assistive devices and neuromuscular electrical stimulation., Competing Interests: C. Hermes: VG Wort Lizenzgebühren. Bezahlung oder Honorare für Vorträge, Präsentationen, oder Bildungsveranstaltungen: Atmos, Getinge, Arjo, TapMed. Reisekostenerstattung für wissenschaftliche Vorträge durch DIVI; DGIIN; DBfK; GFO. Mitglied: DGIIN (Vorstand), DGF, DBfK, DIVI, DGP, Pflegekammer NRW (Vorstand). Peter Nydahl gibt an das es keinen COI im Zusammenhang mit dem Manuskript gibt. Julius J. Grunow gibt an das es keinen COI im Zusammenhang mit dem Manuskript gibt. Stefan J Schaller gibt an: erhielt Fördermittel und nicht-finanzielle Unterstützung von Reactive Robotics GmbH (München, Deutschland), ASP GmbH (Attendorn, Deutschland), STIMIT AG (Biel, Schweiz), ESICM (Genf, Schweiz), Fördermittel, persönliche Honorare und nicht-finanzielle Unterstützung von Fresenius Kabi Deutschland GmbH (Bad Homburg, Deutschland), Fördermittel aus dem Innovationsfond des Gemeinsamen Bundesausschusses (G-BA), persönliche Honorare der Springer Verlag GmbH (Wien, Österreich) für Fortbildungszwecke und der Advanz Pharma GmbH (Bielefeld, Deutschland), nicht-finanzielle Unterstützung von nationalen und internationalen Gesellschaften (und deren Kongressveranstaltern) auf dem Gebiet der Anästhesiologie und Intensivmedizin, außerhalb der eingereichten Arbeit. Dr. Schaller hält in geringem Umfang Aktien von Alphabet Inc., der Bayer AG und der Siemens AG; diese Beteiligungen haben keine Entscheidungen bezüglich seiner Forschung oder dieser Arbeit beeinflusst., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

A scientific panel was created consisting of 23 interdisciplinary and interprofessional experts in intensive care medicine, physiotherapy, nursing care, surgery, rehabilitative medicine, and pneumology delegated from scientific societies together with a patient representative and a delegate from the Association of the Scientific Medical Societies who advised methodological implementation. The guideline was created according to the German Association of the Scientific Medical Societies (AWMF), based on The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II. The topics of (early) mobilisation, neuromuscular electrical stimulation, assist devices for mobilisation, and positioning, including prone positioning, were identified as areas to be addressed and assigned to specialist expert groups, taking conflicts of interest into account. The panel formulated PICO questions (addressing the population, intervention, comparison or control group as well as the resulting outcomes), conducted a systematic literature review with abstract screening and full-text analysis and created summary tables. This was followed by grading the evidence according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine 2011 Levels of Evidence and a risk of bias assessment. The recommendations were finalized according to GRADE and voted using an online Delphi process followed by a final hybrid consensus conference. The German long version of the guideline was approved by the professional associations. For this English version an update of the systematic review was conducted until April 2024 and recommendation adapted based on new evidence in systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials. In total, 46 recommendations were developed and research gaps addressed., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Introduction: Early mobilisation within 72 hours of intensive care unit admission counteracts complications caused by critical illness. The effect of different interventions on intensive care unit length of stay and other outcomes is unclear. We aimed to investigate the effectiveness of various early mobilisation interventions within 72 hours of admission to the intensive care unit on length of stay and other outcomes., Methods: A systematic review and (network) meta-analysis examining the effect of early mobilisation on length of stay in the intensive care unit and other outcomes, conducting searches in four databases. Randomised controlled trials were included from inception to 10/08/2022. Early mobilisation was defined as interventions that initiates and/or supports passive/active range-of-motion exercises within 72 hours of admission. In multi-arm studies, interventions used in other studies were declared as early intervention and were included in subgroup meta-analysis. Risk-of-bias was assessed using RoB2., Results: Of 29,680 studies screened, 18 studies with 1923 patients (three high, eleven some, four low risk-of-bias) and seven discriminable interventions of early mobilisation met inclusion criteria. Early mobilisation alone (WMD 0.78 days, 95 %CI [-1.38;-0.18], 11 studies, n = 1124) and early mobilisation with early nutrition (WMD -1.19 days, 95 %CI [-2.34;-0.03], 1 study, n = 100) were able to significantly shorten length of stay. Early mobilisation alone could also substantially shorten hospital length of stay (WMD -1.05 days, 95 %CI [-1.74;-0.36], 8 studies, n = 977). This effect in hospital length of stay was furthermore seen in the early intervention group compared with standard care (WMD -1.71 days, 95 %CI [-2.99;-0.43], 14 studies, n = 1587). Also, functionality and quality of life could significantly be improved by an early start of mobilisation., Conclusion: In the network meta-analysis, early mobilisation alone and early mobilisation with early nutrition demonstrated a significant effect on intensive care length of stay. Early mobilisation could also reduce hospital length of stay and positively influence functionality and quality of life., Implication for Clinical Practice: Early mobilisation and early mobilisation with early nutrition seemed to be beneficial compared to other interventions like cycling on intensive care length of stay., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Mechanical ventilation (MV) is a lifesaving procedure for critically ill patients. Diaphragm activation and stimulation may counteract side effects, such as ventilator-induced diaphragm dysfunction (VIDD). The effects of stimulation on diaphragm atrophy and patient outcomes are reported in this systematic review., Evidence Acquisition: Studies investigating diaphragmatic stimulation versus standard of care in critically ill patients and evaluating clinical outcomes were extracted from a Medline database last on January 23, 2023, after registration in Prospero (CRD42021259353). Selected studies included the investigation of diaphragmatic stimulation versus standard of care in critically ill patients, an evaluation of the clinical outcomes. These included muscle atrophy, VIDD, weaning failure, mortality, quality of life, ventilation time, diaphragmatic function, length of stay in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU), and length of hospital stay. All articles were independently evaluated by two reviewers according to their abstract and title and, secondly, a full texts evaluation by two independent reviewers was performed. To resolve diverging evaluations, a third reviewer was consulted to reach a final decision. Data were extracted by the reviewers following the Oxford 2011 levels of evidence guidelines and summarized accordingly., Evidence Synthesis: Seven studies were extracted and descriptively synthesized, since a metanalysis was not feasible. Patients undergoing diaphragm stimulation had moderate evidence of higher maximal inspiratory pressure (MIP), less atrophy, less mitochondrial respiratory dysfunction, less oxidative stress, less molecular atrophy, shorter MV time, shorter ICU length of stay, longer survival, and better SF-36 scores than control., Conclusions: Evidence of the molecular and histological benefits of diaphragmatic stimulation is limited. The results indicate positive clinical effects of diaphragm activation with a moderate level of evidence for MIP and a low level of evidence for other outcomes. Diaphragm activation could be a therapeutic solution to avoid diaphragm atrophy, accelerate weaning, shorten MV time, and counteract VIDD; however, better-powered studies are needed to increase the level of evidence.

Background: Muscle ultrasound represents a promising approach to aid diagnoses of neuromuscular diseases in critically ill patients. Unfortunately, standardization of ultrasound measurements in clinical research is lacking, making direct comparisons between studies difficult. Protocols are required to assess qualitative muscle changes during an ICU stay in patients at high risk for the development of neuromuscular acquired weakness (ICUAW)., Methods: We conducted a retrospective, observational analysis comprised of three prospective observational studies with the aim of diagnosing muscle changes by ultrasound measurement of the quadriceps muscle. Different protocols were used in each of the three studies. In total, 62 surgical, neurocritical care and trauma intensive care patients were serially assessed by different ultrasound protocols during the first week of critical illness. The relative change in ultrasound measurements was calculated for all possible locations, methods and sides. Comparison was obtained using mixed effect models with the location, the height and the side as influencing variables and patients as fixed effect. The relationship between variables and outcomes was assessed by multivariable regression analysis., Results: Ultrasound methods and measurement sites of the quadriceps muscles from all protocols were equally effective in detecting muscle changes. During the first week of an ICU stay, two groups were identified: patients with decreased muscle mass on ultrasound (n = 42) and a cohort with enlargement (n = 23). Hospital mortality was significantly increased in the cohort with muscle swelling (8 (19%) versus 12 (52%), p  = .013)., Conclusions: Different approaches of ultrasound measurement during critical-illness are equally able to detect muscle changes. While some patients have a decrease in muscle mass, others show swelling, which may result in a reduced probability of surviving the hospital stay. Causative reasons for these results still remain unclear.

Background: While early mobilization is commonly implemented in intensive care unit treatment guidelines to improve functional outcome, the characterization of the optimal individual dosage (frequency, level or duration) remains unclear. The aim of this study was to demonstrate that artificial intelligence-based clustering of a large ICU cohort can provide individualized mobilization recommendations that have a positive impact on the likelihood of being discharged home., Methods: This study is an analysis of a prospective observational database of two interdisciplinary intensive care units in Munich, Germany. Dosage of mobilization is determined by sessions per day, mean duration, early mobilization as well as average and maximum level achieved. A k-means cluster analysis was conducted including collected parameters at ICU admission to generate clinically definable clusters., Results: Between April 2017 and May 2019, 948 patients were included. Four different clusters were identified, comprising "Young Trauma," "Severely ill & Frail," "Old non-frail" and "Middle-aged" patients. Early mobilization (< 72 h) was the most important factor to be discharged home in "Young Trauma" patients (OR adj 10.0 [2.8 to 44.0], p < 0.001). In the cluster of "Middle-aged" patients, the likelihood to be discharged home increased with each mobilization level, to a maximum 24-fold increased likelihood for ambulating (OR adj 24.0 [7.4 to 86.1], p < 0.001). The likelihood increased significantly when standing or ambulating was achieved in the older, non-frail cluster (OR adj 4.7 [1.2 to 23.2], p = 0.035 and OR adj 8.1 [1.8 to 45.8], p = 0.010)., Conclusions: An artificial intelligence-based learning approach was able to divide a heterogeneous critical care cohort into four clusters, which differed significantly in their clinical characteristics and in their mobilization parameters. Depending on the cluster, different mobilization strategies supported the likelihood of being discharged home enabling an individualized and resource-optimized mobilization approach., Trial Registration: Clinical Trials NCT03666286, retrospectively registered 04 September 2018., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Patients with critical illness can lose more than 15% of muscle mass in one week, and this can have long-term detrimental effects. However, there is currently no synthesis of the data of intensive care unit (ICU) muscle wasting studies, so the true mean rate of muscle loss across all studies is unknown. The aim of this project was therefore to systematically synthetise data on the rate of muscle loss and to identify the methods used to measure muscle size and to synthetise data on the prevalence of ICU-acquired weakness in critically ill patients., Methods: We conducted a systematic literature search of MEDLINE, PubMed, AMED, BNI, CINAHL, and EMCARE until January 2022 (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews [PROSPERO] registration: CRD420222989540. We included studies with at least 20 adult critically ill patients where the investigators measured a muscle mass-related variable at two time points during the ICU stay. We followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and assessed the study quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale., Results: Fifty-two studies that included 3251 patients fulfilled the selection criteria. These studies investigated the rate of muscle wasting in 1773 (55%) patients and assessed ICU-acquired muscle weakness in 1478 (45%) patients. The methods used to assess muscle mass were ultrasound in 85% (n = 28/33) of the studies and computed tomography in the rest 15% (n = 5/33). During the first week of critical illness, patients lost every day -1.75% (95% CI -2.05, -1.45) of their rectus femoris thickness or -2.10% (95% CI -3.17, -1.02) of rectus femoris cross-sectional area. The overall prevalence of ICU-acquired weakness was 48% (95% CI 39%, 56%)., Conclusion: On average, critically ill patients lose nearly 2% of skeletal muscle per day during the first week of ICU admission., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Mobilisation and exercise intervention in general are safe and feasible in critically ill patients. For patients requiring catecholamines, however, doses of norepinephrine safe for mobilisation in the intensive care unit (ICU) are not defined. This study aimed to describe mobilisation practice in our hospital and identify doses of norepinephrine that allowed a safe mobilisation., Methods: We conducted a retrospective single-centre cohort study of 16 ICUs at a university hospital in Germany with patients admitted between March 2018 and November 2021. Data were collected from our patient data management system. We analysed the effect of norepinephrine on level (ICU Mobility Scale) and frequency (units per day) of mobilisation, early mobilisation (within 72 h of ICU admission), mortality, and rate of adverse events. Data were extracted from free-text mobilisation entries using supervised machine learning (support vector machine). Statistical analyses were done using (generalised) linear (mixed-effect) models, as well as chi-square tests and ANOVAs., Results: A total of 12,462 patients were analysed in this study. They received a total of 59,415 mobilisation units. Of these patients, 842 (6.8%) received mobilisation under continuous norepinephrine administration. Norepinephrine administration was negatively associated with the frequency of mobilisation (adjusted difference -0.07 mobilisations per day; 95% CI - 0.09, - 0.05; p ≤ 0.001) and early mobilisation (adjusted OR 0.83; 95% CI 0.76, 0.90; p ≤ 0.001), while a higher norepinephrine dose corresponded to a lower chance to be mobilised out-of-bed (adjusted OR 0.01; 95% CI 0.00, 0.04; p ≤ 0.001). Mobilisation with norepinephrine did not significantly affect mortality (p > 0.1). Higher compared to lower doses of norepinephrine did not lead to a significant increase in adverse events in our practice (p > 0.1). We identified that mobilisation was safe with up to 0.20 µg/kg/min norepinephrine for out-of-bed (IMS ≥ 2) and 0.33 µg/kg/min for in-bed (IMS 0-1) mobilisation., Conclusions: Mobilisation with norepinephrine can be done safely when considering the status of the patient and safety guidelines. We demonstrated that safe mobilisation was possible with norepinephrine doses up to 0.20 µg/kg/min for out-of-bed (IMS ≥ 2) and 0.33 µg/kg/min for in-bed (IMS 0-1) mobilisation., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Aim: The aim of this study was the translation, cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Family Confusion Assessment Method in critically ill patients., Background: Delirium is a frequently unrecognized disorder in critically ill patients. Visiting family members might be the first to notice subtle changes in a patient's cognition and behaviour. The Family Confusion Assessment Method was developed to detect delirium by family members, but has not been available for the German-speaking area yet., Design: A prospective validation study was conducted between January 2020 and October 2020., Methods: The Family Confusion Assessment Method was translated into German according to the Principles of Good Practice for the Translation and Cultural Adaptation Process for Patient-Reported Outcomes. Subsequently, we compared the Family Confusion Assessment Method with the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit in critically ill patients and their family members in a medical intensive care unit in Germany., Results: We included 50 dyads of critically ill patients and their family members. The prevalence of delirium measured by Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit was 44%. Cohen's kappa coefficient was 0.84. The German Family Confusion Assessment Method had a high sensitivity of 95.5% and specificity of 89.3%. The positive predictive value and negative predictive value were 87.5% and 96.2% respectively., Conclusions: These findings suggest that the German Family Confusion Assessment Method is an accurate assessment tool for delirium detection in the intensive care unit by family members. Furthermore, the results indicate that family members may identify delirium by the Family Confusion Assessment Method without prior training., Impact: Collaborating medical staff with patients' family members to detect delirium in the intensive care unit may lead to early recognition of delirium., (© 2022 The Authors. Journal of Advanced Nursing published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Purpose of Review: Impaired recovery following an intensive care unit (ICU) admission is thought related to muscle wasting. Nutrition and physical activity are considered potential avenues to attenuate muscle wasting. The aim of this review was to present evidence for these interventions in attenuating muscle loss or improving strength and function., Recent Findings: Randomised controlled trials on the impact of nutrition or physical activity interventions in critically ill adult patients on muscle mass, strength or function are presented. No nutrition intervention has shown an effect on strength or function, and the effect on muscle mass is conflicting. RCTs on the effect of physical activity demonstrate conflicting results; yet, there is a signal for improved strength and function with higher levels of physical activity, particularly when commenced early. Further research is needed to elucidate the impact of nutrition and physical activity on muscle mass, strength and function, particularly in combination., (© 2022. Crown.)

Background: The objective was to investigate the role of gene expression and plasma levels of the muscular protein myostatin in intensive care unit-acquired weakness (ICUAW). This was performed to evaluate a potential clinical and/or pathophysiological rationale of therapeutic myostatin inhibition., Methods: A retrospective analysis from pooled data of two prospective studies to assess the dynamics of myostatin plasma concentrations (day 4, 8 and 14) and myostatin gene (MSTN) expression levels in skeletal muscle (day 15) was performed. Associations of myostatin to clinical and electrophysiological outcomes, muscular metabolism and muscular atrophy pathways were investigated., Results: MSTN gene expression (median [IQR] fold change: 1.00 [0.68-1.54] vs. 0.26 [0.11-0.80]; p = 0.004) and myostatin plasma concentrations were significantly reduced in all critically ill patients when compared to healthy controls. In critically ill patients, myostatin plasma concentrations increased over time (median [IQR] fold change: day 4: 0.13 [0.08/0.21] vs. day 8: 0.23 [0.10/0.43] vs. day 14: 0.40 [0.26/0.61]; p < 0.001). Patients with ICUAW versus without ICUAW showed significantly lower MSTN gene expression levels (median [IQR] fold change: 0.17 [0.10/0.33] and 0.51 [0.20/0.86]; p = 0.047). Myostatin levels were directly correlated with muscle strength (correlation coefficient 0.339; p = 0.020) and insulin sensitivity index (correlation coefficient 0.357; p = 0.015). No association was observed between myostatin plasma concentrations as well as MSTN expression levels and levels of mobilization, electrophysiological variables, or markers of atrophy pathways., Conclusion: Muscular gene expression and systemic protein levels of myostatin are downregulated during critical illness. The previously proposed therapeutic inhibition of myostatin does therefore not seem to have a pathophysiological rationale to improve muscle quality in critically ill patients., Trial Registration: ISRCTN77569430 -13th of February 2008 and ISRCTN19392591 17th of February 2011., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Objectives: It is unclear whether early mobilization in the surgical ICU helps improve patients' functional recovery to a level that enables independent living. We assessed dose of mobilization (level + duration). We tested the research hypotheses that dose of mobilization predicts adverse discharge and that both duration of mobilization and maximum mobilization level predict adverse discharge., Design: International, prospective cohort study., Setting: Study conducted in five surgical ICUs at four different institutions., Patients: One hundred fifty patients who were functionally independent before admission (Barthel Index ≥ 70) and who were expected to stay in the ICU for greater than or equal to 72 hours., Interventions: None., Measurements and Main Results: Mobilization was quantified daily, and treatments from all healthcare providers were included. We developed and used the Mobilization Quantification Score that quantifies both level and duration of mobilization. We assessed the association between the dose of mobilization (level + duration; exposure) and adverse discharge disposition (loss of the ability to live independently; primary outcome). There was wide variability in the dose of mobilization across centers and patients, which could not be explained by patients' comorbidity or disease severity. Dose of mobilization was associated with reduced risk of adverse discharge (adjusted odds ratio, 0.21; 95%CI, 0.09-0.50; p < 0.001). Both level and duration explained variance of adverse discharge (adjusted odds ratio, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.12-0.65; p = 0.003; adjusted odds ratio, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.06-0.36; p < 0.001, respectively). Duration compared with the level of mobilization tended to explain more variance in adverse discharge (area under the curve duration 0.73; 95% CI, 0.64-0.82; area under the curve mobilization level 0.68; 95% CI, 0.58-0.77; p = 0.10)., Conclusions: We observed wide variability in dose of mobilization treatment applied, which could not be explained by patients' comorbidity or disease severity. High dose of mobilization is an independent predictor of patients' ability to live independently after discharge. Duration of mobilization sessions should be taken into account in future quality improvement and research projects., Competing Interests: Dr. Schaller’s institution received funding from Merck Sharp and Dohme (MSD, Haar, Germany), European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM, Brussels, Belgium), Fresenius (Germany), Liberate Medical LLC (Crestwood, KY), Stimit AG (Aktiengesellschaft, english: corporation, Nidau, Switzerland); he received funding from Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany, from national (e.g., Deutsche Gesellschaft für Anästhesiologie und Intensivmedizin) and international (e.g., ESICM) medical societies (or their congress organizers) in the field of anesthesiology and intensive care and Alphabeth, Rhön-Klinikum AG, and Siemens AG; and he received nonfinancial support from Bavarian Medical Association, all outside the submitted work. Dr. Blobner received funding from MSD, Grünenthal, and GE Healthcare. Dr. Eikermann’s institution received funding from Jeff and Judy Buzen, and he received support for article research from the National Institutes of Health. The remaining authors have disclosed that they do not have any potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All Rights Reserved.)

While medical nutrition therapy is an essential part of the care for critically ill patients, uncertainty exists about the right form, dosage, timing and route in relation to the phases of critical illness. As enteral nutrition (EN) is often withheld or interrupted during the intensive care unit (ICU) stay, combined EN and parenteral nutrition (PN) may represent an effective and safe option to achieve energy and protein goals as recommended by international guidelines. We hypothesise that critically ill patients at high nutritional risk may benefit from such a combined approach during their stay on the ICU. Therefore, we aim to test if an early combination of EN and high-protein PN (EN+PN) is effective in reaching energy and protein goals in patients at high nutritional risk, while avoiding overfeeding. This approach will be tested in the here-presented EFFORTcombo trial. Nutritionally high-risk ICU patients will be randomised to either high (≥2·2 g/kg per d) or low protein (≤1·2 g/kg per d). In the high protein group, the patients will receive EN+PN; in the low protein group, patients will be given EN alone. EN will be started in accordance with international guidelines in both groups. Efforts will be made to reach nutrition goals within 48-96 h. The efficacy of the proposed nutritional strategy will be tested as an innovative approach by functional outcomes at ICU and hospital discharge, as well as at a 6-month follow-up.

Purpose of Review: To examine the benefits of early mobilization and summarize the results of most recent clinical studies examining early mobilization in critically ill patients followed by a presentation of recent developments in the field., Recent Findings: Early mobilization of ICU patients, defined as mobilization within 72 h of ICU admission, is still uncommon. In medical and surgical critically ill patients, mobilization is well tolerated even in intubated patients. In neurocritical care, evidence to support early mobilization is either lacking (aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage), or the results are inconsistent (e.g. stroke). Successful implementation of early mobilization requires a cultural change; preferably based on an interprofessional approach with clearly defined responsibilities and including a mobilization scoring system. Although the evidence for the majority of the technical tools is still limited, the use of a bed cycle ergometer and a treadmill with strap system has been promising in smaller trials., Summary: Early mobilization is well tolerated and feasible, resulting in improved outcomes in surgical and medical ICU patients. Implementation of early mobilization can be challenging and may need a cultural change anchored in an interprofessional approach and integrated in a patient-centered bundle. Scoring systems should be integrated to define daily goals and used to verify patients' achievements or identify barriers immediately.

Purpose: Immobilization of critically ill patients leads to muscle weakness, which translates to increased costs of care and long-term functional disability. We tested the validity of a German Surgical Intensive Care Unit (ICU) Optimal Mobilization Score (SOMS) in 2 different cohorts (neurocritical and nonneurocritical care patients)., Materials and Methods: Physical therapists estimated the patients' mobilization capacity by using the German version of the SOMS the morning after admission. We tested the prognostic value of the prediction for ICU and hospital length of stay (LOS) as well as for mortality, and built a model to account for other known predictors of these outcomes in the 2 cohorts., Results: A total of 128 patients were included in the analysis, 48 of these were neurocritical care patients. The SOMS predicted mortality and ICU and hospital LOS. Neurocritical care patients stayed significantly longer in the ICU (median 12 vs 4 days, P < .001) and in the hospital (25 vs 17 days, P = .02). The SOMS predicted ICU and hospital LOS. It predicted mortality only in nonneurocritical patients., Conclusions: The German SOMS assessed by physical therapists on the day after ICU admission predicts ICU and hospital LOS, and mortality. Our data suggest that the association between early mobilization and mortality is more complex in neurocritical care patients., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Skeletal muscle mass depletion adversely affects critically ill patient outcomes. Standardized methods for assessing muscle mass in this population are limited, particularly regarding changes during ICU stays and their implications for risk stratification. Methods: In this secondary analysis of our prospective data registry of surgical ICU patients, we used a single slice extracted from a computed tomography scan to determine the patient's direction of absolute change in skeletal muscle mass between two different time points (−14 d to +0 d and +5 d to +21 d) during his or her critical illness. Results: In total, 98 surgical patients were included in the final analysis. A decrease in a patient's skeletal muscle mass is associated with prolonged mechanical ventilation compared to patients whose skeletal muscle mass remained the same or increased (415 vs. 42 h, p = 0.003). Patients losing skeletal muscle mass also needed to be ventilated more frequently (88.3% vs. 60.5%, p = 0.002), had a higher rate of tracheotomy (50.0% vs. 23.7%, p = 0.011), and had an increased ICU length of stay (22 vs. 13 days, p = 0.045). Conclusions: A decreased skeletal muscle index in early critical illness negatively impacts ventilation parameters, highlighting the importance of monitoring and managing muscle mass changes to optimize outcomes in ICU patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Phosphate is the main intracellular anion essential for numerous biological processes. Symptoms of hypophosphatemia are non-specific, yet potentially life-threatening. This systematic review process was initiated to gain a global insight into hypophosphatemia, associated morbidity and treatments. A systematic review was conducted (PROSPERO CRD42020163191). Nine clinically relevant questions were generated, seven for adult and two for pediatric critically ill patients, and prevalence of hypophosphatemia was assessed in both groups. We identified trials through systematic searches of Medline, EMBASE, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, and Web of Science. Quality assessment was performed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized controlled trials and the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale for observational studies. For all research questions, we identified 2727 titles in total, assessed 399 full texts, and retained 82 full texts for evidence synthesis, with 20 of them identified for several research questions. Only 3 randomized controlled trials were identified with two of them published only in abstract form, as well as 28 prospective and 31 retrospective studies, and 20 case reports. Relevant risk of bias regarding selection and comparability was identified for most of the studies. No meta-analysis could be performed. The prevalence of hypophosphatemia varied substantially in critically ill adults and children, but no study assessed consecutive admissions to intensive care. In both critically ill adults and children, several studies report that hypophosphatemia is associated with worse outcome (prolonged length of stay and the need for respiratory support, and higher mortality). However, there was insufficient evidence regarding the optimal threshold upon which hypophosphatemia becomes critical and requires treatment. We found no studies regarding the optimal frequency of phosphate measurements, and regarding the time window to correct hypophosphatemia. In adults, nutrient restriction on top of phosphate repletion in patients with refeeding syndrome may improve survival, although evidence is weak. Evidence on the definition, outcome and treatment of clinically relevant hypophosphatemia in critically ill adults and children is scarce and does not allow answering clinically relevant questions. High quality clinical research is crucial for the development of respective guidelines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic significantly impacted global healthcare systems, particularly in managing critically ill mechanically ventilated patients. This study aims to assess the feasibility of robotic-assisted mobilization in COVID-19 patients. DESIGN: Randomized controlled pilot study. SETTING: Four COVID-19 specialized ICUs at Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin (March 2021 to February 2022). PATIENTS: Twenty critically ill COVID-19 patients expected to require greater than 24 hours of ventilation. INTERVENTIONS: A 5-day intervention phase with bid robotic-assisted mobilization greater than or equal to 20 minutes and follow-up at day 180, compared with standard care. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Intervention sessions were conducted in 98.9% according to protocol, with one session missing due to staff shortage. Primary outcome was the mobilization level measured with the ICU Mobility Scale (IMS) and Surgical ICU Optimal Mobilization Score (SOMS), assessed until day 5 or extubation. Safety events were recorded during mobilization. The median IMS and SOMS were 0 (0–0.16) and 1 (1–1.03) in the intervention group, and 0 (0–0.15) (p = 0.77) and 0.8 (0.65–1.20) (p = 0.08) in the standard care group, respectively. Significant secondary outcomes included average number of mobilization sessions (intervention: 8.5 [7.75–10] vs. standard care: 4.5 [3.5–5]; p = 0.001), total mobilization time (intervention: 232.5 min [187.25–266.5 min] vs. standard care: 147.5 min [107.5–167.5 min]; p = 0.011), and healthcare providers per session (intervention: 2 [2–2] vs. standard care: 1 [1–1.4]; p = 0.001) during intervention. Four safety events (hypertension and agitation, n = 2 each) in the intervention group and none in the standard care group were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic-assisted mobilization in mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients appears to be safe and feasible. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]