Early mobilization post-myocardial infarction: A scoping review.

Bedrest and immobilization following a myocardial infarction (MI) can lead to functional impairment that can persist following hospitalization. Early mobilization (EM) is associated with good functional and clinical outcomes in critical care, medical and surgical settings. However, the impact and current role of EM in post-MI care has not been well-defined. Our objective was to assess the evidence for post-MI mobilization, define current post-MI mobilization practice, and understand perspectives of cardiovascular professionals toward mobilization. A scoping review related to "early mobilization" and "myocardial infarction" was performed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Methodology. Pubmed, Embase, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library and CINAHL databases were included. Results were categorized into six topic areas. There were 59 references included in the analysis. There was evidence for the effectiveness and safety of earlier mobilization in experimental studies of the pre-revascularization era, but there was a lack of strong evidence for EM in contemporary post-MI care. Mobilization appears to be safe following arterial catheterization and is associated with minimal hemodynamic and respiratory compromise. Most people are delayed in mobilizing post-MI and spend the majority of the initial hospitalization period lying in bed. Only 1 of 7 current major cardiovascular professional societies guidelines recommend EM post-MI. There were no studies exploring the perspectives of cardiovascular professionals toward mobilization. EM may be beneficial in the post-MI care. However, there is an evidence gap for the impact of EM post-MI in the contemporary literature. More robust evidence from randomized clinical trials is required to inform clinicians and influence practice

Early Mobilization Interventions in the Intensive Care Unit: Ongoing and Unpublished Randomized Trials

Background. Critical care societies recommend early mobilization (EM) as standard practice in the intensive care unit (ICU) setting. However, there is limited randomized controlled trial (RCT) evidence supporting EM’s effectiveness. Our objective was to identify ongoing or completed RCTs assessing EM’s effectiveness in the ICU. Method. We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry for ongoing or completed but not published RCTs in an ICU setting with objective outcome measures. Results. There were 14 RCTs included in the analysis. All studies were in the general or mixed ICU setting (N=14). Half of the studies (N=7) were small RCTs (<100 projected participants) and half (N=7) were medium-sized RCTs (100–999 participants). Inclusion criteria included mechanical ventilation use or expected use (N=13) and prehospital functional status (N=7). Primary EM interventions were standard physiotherapist-based activities (N=4), cycling (N=9), and electrical muscle stimulation (N=1). Only one study involved nurse-led EM. The most common assessment tool was the 6-minute walk test (N=6). Primary outcome measures were physiological (N=3), clinical (N=3), patient-centered (N=7), and healthcare resource use (N=1). Most studies (N=8) involved post-ICU follow-up measures up to 1-year posthospitalization. There were no studies targeting older adults or people with acute cardiac disease. Conclusion. Identified studies will further the evidence base for EM’s effectiveness. There is a need for studies looking at specific patient populations that may benefit from EM, such as older adults and cardiac patients, as well as for novel EM delivery strategies, such as nurse-led EM