Expert consensus and recommendations on safety criteria for active mobilization of mechanically ventilated critically ill adults

Introduction: The aim of this study was to develop consensus recommendations on safety parameters for mobilizing adult, mechanically ventilated, intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Methods: A systematic literature review was followed by a meeting of 23 multidisciplinary ICU experts to seek consensus regarding the safe mobilization of mechanically ventilated patients. Results: Safety considerations were summarized in four categories: respiratory, cardiovascular, neurological and other. Consensus was achieved on all criteria for safe mobilization, with the exception being levels of vasoactive agents. Intubation via an endotracheal tube was not a contraindication to early mobilization and a fraction of inspired oxygen less than 0.6 with a percutaneous oxygen saturation more than 90% and a respiratory rate less than 30 breaths/minute were considered safe criteria for in- and out-of-bed mobilization if there were no other contraindications. At an international meeting, 94 multidisciplinary ICU clinicians concurred with the proposed recommendations. Conclusion: Consensus recommendations regarding safety criteria for mobilization of adult, mechanically ventilated patients in the ICU have the potential to guide ICU rehabilitation whilst minimizing the risk of adverse events

A predictive model for the early identification of patients at risk for a prolonged intensive care unit length of stay

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Patients with a prolonged intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay account for a disproportionate amount of resource use. Early identification of patients at risk for a prolonged length of stay can lead to quality enhancements that reduce ICU stay. This study developed and validated a model that identifies patients at risk for a prolonged ICU stay.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We performed a retrospective cohort study of 343,555 admissions to 83 ICUs in 31 U.S. hospitals from 2002-2007. We examined the distribution of ICU length of stay to identify a threshold where clinicians might be concerned about a prolonged stay; this resulted in choosing a 5-day cut-point. From patients remaining in the ICU on day 5 we developed a multivariable regression model that predicted remaining ICU stay. Predictor variables included information gathered at admission, day 1, and ICU day 5. Data from 12,640 admissions during 2002-2005 were used to develop the model, and the remaining 12,904 admissions to internally validate the model. Finally, we used data on 11,903 admissions during 2006-2007 to externally validate the model.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The variables that had the greatest impact on remaining ICU length of stay were those measured on day 5, not at admission or during day 1. Mechanical ventilation, PaO₂: FiO₂ratio, other physiologic components, and sedation on day 5 accounted for 81.6% of the variation in predicted remaining ICU stay. In the external validation set observed ICU stay was 11.99 days and predicted total ICU stay (5 days + day 5 predicted remaining stay) was 11.62 days, a difference of 8.7 hours. For the same patients, the difference between mean observed and mean predicted ICU stay using the APACHE day 1 model was 149.3 hours. The new model's r²was 20.2% across individuals and 44.3% across units.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>A model that uses patient data from ICU days 1 and 5 accurately predicts a prolonged ICU stay. These predictions are more accurate than those based on ICU day 1 data alone. The model can be used to benchmark ICU performance and to alert physicians to explore care alternatives aimed at reducing ICU stay.</p

Early mobilisation in intensive care units in Australia and Scotland:A prospective, observational cohort study examining mobilisation practises and barriers

Introduction: Mobilisation of patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) is an area of growing research. Currently, there is\ud little data on baseline mobilisation practises and the barriers to them for patients of all admission diagnoses.\ud Methods: The objectives of the study were to (1) quantify and benchmark baseline levels of mobilisation in Australian\ud and Scottish ICUs, (2) compare mobilisation practises between Australian and Scottish ICUs and (3) identify barriers to\ud mobilisation in Australian and Scottish ICUs. We conducted a prospective, observational, cohort study with a 4-week\ud inception period. Patients were censored for follow-up upon ICU discharge or after 28 days, whichever occurred first.\ud Patients were included if they were >18 years of age, admitted to an ICU and received mechanical ventilation in the ICU.\ud Results: Ten tertiary ICUs in Australia and nine in Scotland participated in the study. The Australian cohort had a large\ud proportion of patients admitted for cardiothoracic surgery (43.3 %), whereas the Scottish cohort had none. Therefore,\ud comparison analysis was done after exclusion of patients admitted for cardiothoracic surgery. In total, 60.2 % of the 347\ud patients across 10 Australian ICUs and 40.1 % of the 167 patients across 9 Scottish ICUs mobilised during their ICU stay\ud (p < 0.001). Patients in the Australian cohort were more likely to mobilise than patients in the Scottish cohort (hazard\ud ratio 1.83, 95 % confidence interval 1.38–2.42). However, the percentage of episodes of mobilisation where patients\ud were receiving mechanical ventilation was higher in the Scottish cohort (41.1 % vs 16.3 %, p < 0.001). Sedation was the\ud most commonly reported barrier to mobilisation in both the Australian and Scottish cohorts. Physiological instability\ud and the presence of an endotracheal tube were also frequently reported barriers.\ud Conclusions: This is the first study to benchmark baseline practise of early mobilisation internationally, and it\ud demonstrates variation in early mobilisation practises between Australia and Scotland

Effects of early, combined endurance and resistance training in mechanically ventilated, critically ill patients: a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND Prolonged need for intensive care is associated with neuromuscular weakness, termed Intensive Care Unit Acquired Weakness. Those affected suffer from severe functional impairment that can persist for years. First studies suggest a positive effect of physiotherapy and early mobilisation. However, the ideal intervention for a preferential functional outcome is not known. So far no randomised controlled trial has been conducted to specifically evaluate an early endurance and resistance training in the mechanically ventilated, critically ill patient. METHODS/DESIGN A randomised controlled trial with blinded assessors and 6-month follow-up will be conducted in a tertiary, interdisciplinary intensive care unit in Switzerland. Participants (n = 115; expected dropouts: n = 15) will be randomised to a control group receiving standard physiotherapy and to an experimental group that undergoes early mobilisation combined with endurance and resistance training. The inclusion criteria are being aged 18 years or older, expected mechanical ventilation for more than 72 h and qualitative independence before the illness. Primary endpoints are functional capacity (6-Minute Walk Test) and the ability to perform activities of daily living (Functional Independence Measure) measured at hospital discharge. Secondary endpoints include muscle strength (Medical Research Council sum score, handgrip strength and handheld dynamometry for quadriceps muscle), joint contractures (range of motion), exercise capacity (Timed 'Up & Go' Test) and health-related quality of life (Short Form 36). Safety will be monitored during interventions by indirect calorimetry and continuous intensive care standard monitoring. All previously defined adverse events will be noted. The statistical analysis will be by intention-to-treat with the level of significance set at p < 0.05. DISCUSSION This prospective, single-centre, allocation-concealed and assessor-blinded randomised controlled trial will evaluate participant's function after an early endurance and resistance training compared to standard care. Limitations of this study are the heterogeneity of the critically ill and the discontinuity of the protocol after relocation to the ward. The strengths lie in the pragmatic design and the clinical significance of the chosen outcome measures. TRIAL REGISTRATION German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS): DRKS00004347 , registered on 10 September 2012