Search

Rationale: Patients with diabetes represent almost 20% of all ICU admissions and might respond differently to high-dose early active mobilization. Objectives: To assess whether diabetes modified the relationship between the dose of early mobilization on clinical outcomes in the TEAM trial. Methods: All TEAM trial patients were included. The primary outcome was days alive and out of the hospital at Day 180. Secondary outcomes included 180-day mortality and long-term functional outcomes at Day 180. Logistic and median regression models were used to explore the effect of high-dose early mobilization on outcomes by diabetes status. Measurements and Main Results: All 741 patients from the original trial were included. Of these, 159 patients (21.4%) had diabetes. Patients with diabetes had fewer days alive and out of the hospital at Day 180 (124 [0-153] vs. 147 [82-164]; P  = 0.013) and higher 180-day mortality (30% vs. 18%; P  = 0.044). In patients receiving high-dose early mobilization, the number of days alive and out of the hospital at Day 180 was 73.0 (0.0-144.5) in patients with diabetes and 146.5 (95.8-163.0) in patients without diabetes ( P value for interaction = 0.108). However, in patients with diabetes, high-dose early mobilization increased the odds of mortality at 180 days (adjusted odds ratio, 3.47; 95% confidence interval, 1.67-7.61; P value for interaction = 0.001). Conclusions: In this secondary analysis of the TEAM trial, in patients with diabetes, a high-dose early mobilization strategy did not significantly decrease the number of days alive and out of the hospital at Day 180, but it increased 180-day mortality.

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).)

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.)

Background: Intensive care unit (ICU)-acquired weakness often develops in patients who are undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation. Early active mobilization may mitigate ICU-acquired weakness, increase survival, and reduce disability., Methods: We randomly assigned 750 adult patients in the ICU who were undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation to receive increased early mobilization (sedation minimization and daily physiotherapy) or usual care (the level of mobilization that was normally provided in each ICU). The primary outcome was the number of days that the patients were alive and out of the hospital at 180 days after randomization., Results: The median number of days that patients were alive and out of the hospital was 143 (interquartile range, 21 to 161) in the early-mobilization group and 145 days (interquartile range, 51 to 164) in the usual-care group (absolute difference, -2.0 days; 95% confidence interval [CI], -10 to 6; P = 0.62). The mean (±SD) daily duration of active mobilization was 20.8±14.6 minutes and 8.8±9.0 minutes in the two groups, respectively (difference, 12.0 minutes per day; 95% CI, 10.4 to 13.6). A total of 77% of the patients in both groups were able to stand by a median interval of 3 days and 5 days, respectively (difference, -2 days; 95% CI, -3.4 to -0.6). By day 180, death had occurred in 22.5% of the patients in the early-mobilization group and in 19.5% of those in the usual-care group (odds ratio, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.65). Among survivors, quality of life, activities of daily living, disability, cognitive function, and psychological function were similar in the two groups. Serious adverse events were reported in 7 patients in the early-mobilization group and in 1 patient in the usual-care group. Adverse events that were potentially due to mobilization (arrhythmias, altered blood pressure, and desaturation) were reported in 34 of 371 patients (9.2%) in the early-mobilization group and in 15 of 370 patients (4.1%) in the usual-care group (P = 0.005)., Conclusions: Among adults undergoing mechanical ventilation in the ICU, an increase in early active mobilization did not result in a significantly greater number of days that patients were alive and out of the hospital than did the usual level of mobilization in the ICU. The intervention was associated with increased adverse events. (Funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and the Health Research Council of New Zealand; TEAM ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03133377.)., (Copyright © 2022 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

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.)

Background: Mobilization of intensive care patients is a multi-professional task. Aim of this study was to explore how different professions working at Intensive Care Units (ICU) estimate the mobility capacity using the ICU Mobility Score in 10 different scenarios., Methods: Ten fictitious patient-scenarios and guideline-related knowledge were assessed using an online survey. Critical care team members in German-speaking countries were invited to participate. All datasets including professional data and at least one scenario were analyzed. Kruskal Wallis test was used for the individual scenarios, while a linear mixed-model was used over all responses., Results: In total, 515 of 788 (65%) participants could be evaluated. Physicians (p = 0.001) and nurses (p = 0.002) selected a lower ICU Mobility Score (-0.7 95% CI -1.1 to -0.3 and -0.4 95% CI -0.7 to -0.2, respectively) than physical therapists, while other specialists did not (p = 0.81). Participants who classified themselves as experts or could define early mobilization in accordance to the "S2e guideline: positioning and early mobilisation in prophylaxis or therapy of pulmonary disorders" correctly selected higher mobilization levels (0.2 95% CI 0.0 to 0.4, p = 0.049 and 0.3 95% CI 0.1 to 0.5, p = 0.002, respectively)., Conclusion: Different professions scored the mobilization capacity of patients differently, with nurses and physicians estimating significantly lower capacity than physical therapists. The exact knowledge of guidelines and recommendations, such as the definition of early mobilization, independently lead to a higher score. Interprofessional education, interprofessional rounds and mobilization activities could further enhance knowledge and practice of mobilization in the critical care team., Competing Interests: CH is self-employed and received honoraria for e.g. professional talks and consulting from different companies. For this Manuscript are no conflicts of interest to declare. PN reports no conflict of interest. MB received research support from MSD (Haar, Germany) not related to this manuscript, received honoraria from giving lectures from GE Healthcare (Helsinki, Finland), MSD (Haar, Germany), Grünenthal (Aachen, Germany). RD received honoraria for professional talks and consulting from different companies. For this Manuscript are no conflicts of interest to declare. SF reports no conflict of interest. AK received honoraria for professional talks and consulting from different companies. For this Manuscript are no conflicts of interest to declare. BU reports no conflict of interest. SJ Schaller reports grants and non-financial support from ESICM (Brussels, Belgium), Fresenius (Germany), Liberate Medical LLC (Crestwood, USA), STIMIT AG (Nidau, Switzerland), MSD (Haar, Germany) as well as from Technical University of Munich, Germany, from national (e.g. DGAI) and international (e.g. ESICM) medical societies (or their congress organizers) in the field of anesthesiology and intensive care, personal fees and non-financial support from Bavarian Medical Association, all outside the submitted work; SJS holds stocks in small amounts from Alphabeth Inc., Bayer AG, Rhön-Klinikum AG, and Siemens AG. These did not have any influence on this study. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Professional networks support health care providers in implementing evidence based knowledge. The German Network for Early Mobilization in Intensive Care Units (ICU) was founded in 2011 and serves for more than 300 critical care team members today. The mobilization network is connected to other professional networks and contributed to the development of national guidelines and quality indicators. Several research projects were conducted. Members of the mobilization network perceived benefits for themselves and their workplace. The network increased participants' knowledge and contributed to quality improvement projects on ICUs. Without having significant resources, this network development may serve as an example for other networks., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Early mobilization is defined as intervention within the first 72 h after intensive care unit (ICU) admission. According to the current state of relevant studies, evidence on early mobilization in critically ill patients is still inconsistent. This leads to insecurity in caretakers and subsequently to incomplete implementation in German ICUs., Objectives: What type of intervention is suitable for certain patient groups? Which issues remain unresolved?, Results: To obtain best possible outcomes, early mobilization should be initiated during the first 72 h after ICU admission. Implementation of early mobilization improves clinical outcome and should be integrated in a patient-centered bundle (such as ABCDEF). Mechanical ventilation is not a contraindication to intervention. Evidence in neurocritical care as well as functionally dependent patients is still low. Mode of intervention and dosage of early mobilisation remain unclear., Conclusion: Early mobilization is safe and feasible, resulting in improved outcomes in surgical and medical ICU patients. Further studies are necessary to evaluate the optimal dosage and duration of intervention, especially in neurocritical care patients.

Purpose: Early mobilization within 72 h of intensive care unit (ICU) admission improves functional status at hospital discharge. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of early, goal-directed mobilization in critically ill patients across a broad spectrum of initial consciousness levels., Methods: Post hoc analysis of the international, randomized, controlled, outcome-assessor blinded SOMS trial conducted 2011-2015. Randomization was stratified according to the immediate post-injury Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) (≤ 8 or > 8). Patients received either SOMS-guided mobility treatment with a facilitator or standard care. We used general linear models to test the hypothesis that immediate post-randomization GCS modulates the intervention effects on functional independence at hospital discharge., Results: Two hundred patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. The significant effect of early, goal-directed mobilization was consistent across levels of GCS without evidence of effect modification, for the primary outcome functional independence at hospital discharge (p = 0.53 for interaction), as well as average achieved mobility level during ICU stay (mean achieved SOMS level) and functional status at hospital discharge measured with the functional independence measure. In patients with low GCS, delay to first mobilization therapy was longer (0.7 ± 0.2 days vs. 0.2 ± 0.1 days, p = 0.008), but early, goal-directed mobilization compared with standard care significantly increased functional independence at hospital discharge in this subgroup of patients with immediate post-randomization GCS ≤ 8 (OR 3.67; 95% CI 1.02-13.14; p = 0.046)., Conclusion: This post hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial suggests that early, goal-directed mobilization in patients with an impaired initial conscious state (GCS ≤ 8) is not harmful but effective.

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.

Background: Immobilisation predicts adverse outcomes in patients in the surgical intensive care unit (SICU). Attempts to mobilise critically ill patients early after surgery are frequently restricted, but we tested whether early mobilisation leads to improved mobility, decreased SICU length of stay, and increased functional independence of patients at hospital discharge., Methods: We did a multicentre, international, parallel-group, assessor-blinded, randomised controlled trial in SICUs of five university hospitals in Austria (n=1), Germany (n=1), and the USA (n=3). Eligible patients (aged 18 years or older, who had been mechanically ventilated for <48 h, and were expected to require mechanical ventilation for ≥24 h) were randomly assigned (1:1) by use of a stratified block randomisation via restricted web platform to standard of care (control) or early, goal-directed mobilisation using an inter-professional approach of closed-loop communication and the SICU optimal mobilisation score (SOMS) algorithm (intervention), which describes patients' mobilisation capacity on a numerical rating scale ranging from 0 (no mobilisation) to 4 (ambulation). We had three main outcomes hierarchically tested in a prespecified order: the mean SOMS level patients achieved during their SICU stay (primary outcome), and patient's length of stay on SICU and the mini-modified functional independence measure score (mmFIM) at hospital discharge (both secondary outcomes). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01363102)., Findings: Between July 1, 2011, and Nov 4, 2015, we randomly assigned 200 patients to receive standard treatment (control; n=96) or intervention (n=104). Intention-to-treat analysis showed that the intervention improved the mobilisation level (mean achieved SOMS 2·2 [SD 1·0] in intervention group vs 1·5 [0·8] in control group, p<0·0001), decreased SICU length of stay (mean 7 days [SD 5-12] in intervention group vs 10 days [6-15] in control group, p=0·0054), and improved functional mobility at hospital discharge (mmFIM score 8 [4-8] in intervention group vs 5 [2-8] in control group, p=0·0002). More adverse events were reported in the intervention group (25 cases [2·8%]) than in the control group (ten cases [0·8%]); no serious adverse events were observed. Before hospital discharge 25 patients died (17 [16%] in the intervention group, eight [8%] in the control group). 3 months after hospital discharge 36 patients died (21 [22%] in the intervention group, 15 [17%] in the control group)., Interpretation: Early, goal-directed mobilisation improved patient mobilisation throughout SICU admission, shortened patient length of stay in the SICU, and improved patients' functional mobility at hospital discharge., Funding: Jeffrey and Judy Buzen., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Early mobilisation (EM) is an intervention that may improve the outcome of critically ill patients. There is limited data on EM in COVID-19 patients and its use during the first pandemic wave. Methods: This is a pre-planned subanalysis of the ESICM UNITE-COVID, an international multicenter observational study involving critically ill COVID-19 patients in the ICU between February 15th and May 15th, 2020. We analysed variables associated with the initiation of EM (within 72 h of ICU admission) and explored the impact of EM on mortality, ICU and hospital length of stay, as well as discharge location. Statistical analyses were done using (generalised) linear mixed-effect models and ANOVAs. Results: Mobilisation data from 4190 patients from 280 ICUs in 45 countries were analysed. 1114 (26.6%) of these patients received mobilisation within 72 h after ICU admission; 3076 (73.4%) did not. In our analysis of factors associated with EM, mechanical ventilation at admission (OR 0.29; 95% CI 0.25, 0.35; p = 0.001), higher age (OR 0.99; 95% CI 0.98, 1.00; p ≤ 0.001), pre-existing asthma (OR 0.84; 95% CI 0.73, 0.98; p = 0.028), and pre-existing kidney disease (OR 0.84; 95% CI 0.71, 0.99; p = 0.036) were negatively associated with the initiation of EM. EM was associated with a higher chance of being discharged home (OR 1.31; 95% CI 1.08, 1.58; p = 0.007) but was not associated with length of stay in ICU (adj. difference 0.91 days; 95% CI − 0.47, 1.37, p = 0.34) and hospital (adj. difference 1.4 days; 95% CI − 0.62, 2.35, p = 0.24) or mortality (OR 0.88; 95% CI 0.7, 1.09, p = 0.24) when adjusted for covariates. Conclusions: Our findings demonstrate that a quarter of COVID-19 patients received EM. There was no association found between EM in COVID-19 patients' ICU and hospital length of stay or mortality. However, EM in COVID-19 patients was associated with increased odds of being discharged home rather than to a care facility. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04836065 (retrospectively registered April 8th 2021). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. 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. 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. 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. Early mobilisation and early mobilisation with early nutrition seemed to be beneficial compared to other interventions like cycling on intensive care length of stay. [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]

Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients display risk factors for intensive care unit acquired weakness (ICUAW). The pandemic increased existing barriers to mobilisation. This study aimed to compare mobilisation practices in COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients. This retrospective cohort study was conducted at Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany, including adult patients admitted to one of 16 ICUs between March 2018, and November 2021. The effect of COVID-19 on mobilisation level and frequency, early mobilisation (EM) and time to active sitting position (ASP) was analysed. Subgroup analysis on COVID-19 patients and the ICU type influencing mobilisation practices was performed. Mobilisation entries were converted into the ICU mobility scale (IMS) using supervised machine learning. The groups were matched using 1:1 propensity score matching. A total of 12,462 patients were included, receiving 59,415 mobilisations. After matching 611 COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients were analysed. They displayed no significant difference in mobilisation frequency (0.4 vs. 0.3, p = 0.7), maximum IMS (3 vs. 3; p = 0.17), EM (43.2% vs. 37.8%; p = 0.06) or time to ASP (HR 0.95; 95% CI: 0.82, 1.09; p = 0.44). Subgroup analysis showed that patients in surge ICUs, i.e. , temporarily created ICUs for COVID-19 patients during the pandemic, more commonly received EM (53.9% vs. 39.8%; p = 0.03) and reached higher maximum IMS (4 vs. 3; p = 0.03) without difference in mobilisation frequency (0.5 vs. 0.3; p = 0.32) or time to ASP (HR 1.15; 95% CI: 0.85, 1.56; p = 0.36). COVID-19 did not hinder mobilisation. Those treated in surge ICUs were more likely to receive EM and reached higher mobilisation levels. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]