ABSTRACT
Some patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) present with severe acute respiratory syndrome, which causes multiple organ dysfunction, besides dysfunction of the respiratory system, that requires invasive procedures. On the basis of the opinions of front-line experts and a review of the relevant literature on several topics, we proposed clinical practice recommendations on the following aspects for physiotherapists facing challenges in treating patients and containing virus spread: 1. personal protective equipment, 2. conventional chest physiotherapy, 3. exercise and early mobilization, 4. oxygen therapy, 5. nebulizer treatment, 6. non-invasive ventilation and high-flow nasal oxygen, 7. endotracheal intubation, 8. protective mechanical ventilation, 9. management of mechanical ventilation in severe and refractory cases of hypoxemia, 10. prone positioning, 11. cuff pressure, 12. tube and nasotracheal suction, 13. humidifier use for ventilated patients, 14. methods of weaning ventilated patients and extubation, and 15. equipment and hand hygiene. These recommendations can serve as clinical practice guidelines for physiotherapists. This article details the development of guidelines on these aspects for physiotherapy of patients with COVID-19.
Subject(s)
Humans , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Respiratory Therapy/methods , Physical Therapy Modalities , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Coronavirus , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Respiration, Artificial , Brazil , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Physical Therapists , Betacoronavirus , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19ABSTRACT
RESUMO Objetivo: Avaliar a evolução funcional dos pacientes submetidos a um protocolo de reabilitação precoce do paciente grave da admissão até a alta da unidade de terapia intensiva. Métodos: Foi conduzido um estudo transversal retrospectivo, incluindo 463 pacientes adultos com diagnóstico clínico e/ou cirúrgico, submetidos a um protocolo de reabilitação precoce. A força muscular global foi avaliada na admissão da unidade de terapia intensiva por meio da escala Medical Research Council. De acordo com a pontuação da Medical Research Council os pacientes foram alocados em um dos quatro planos de intervenção, de acordo com a adequação ou não desses parâmetros, com a escala crescente do plano significando melhor status funcional. Os pacientes não colaborativos foram alocados nos planos de intervenção, conforme seu status funcional. A força muscular global e/ou o status funcional foram reavaliados na alta da unidade de terapia. Por meio do comparativo entre o plano de Intervenção na admissão (Planoinicial) e na alta (Planofinal). Os pacientes foram categorizados em três grupos, de acordo com a melhora ou não do status funcional: respondedores 1 (Planofinal > Planoinicial), respondedores 2 (Planofinal = Planoinicial) e não respondedores (Planofinal < Planoinicial). Resultados: Dos 463 pacientes submetidos ao protocolo, 432 (93,3%) pacientes responderam positivamente à estratégia de intervenção, apresentando manutenção e/ou melhora do status funcional inicial. Os pacientes clínicos classificados como não respondedores apresentaram idade superior (74,3 ± 15,1 anos; p = 0,03) e maior tempo de internação na unidade de terapia intensiva (11,6 ± 14,2 dias; p = 0,047) e no hospital (34,5 ± 34,1 dias; p = 0,002). Conclusão: A manutenção e/ou melhora do status funcional admissional esteve associada com menor tempo de internação na unidade de terapia intensiva e hospitalar. Os resultados sugerem que o tipo de diagnóstico, clínico ou cirúrgico, ...
ABSTRACT Objective: Evaluation of the functional outcomes of patients undergoing an early rehabilitation protocol for critically ill patients from admission to discharge from the intensive care unit. Methods: A retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted that included 463 adult patients with clinical and/or surgical diagnosis undergoing an early rehabilitation protocol. The overall muscle strength was evaluated at admission to the intensive care unit using the Medical Research Council scale. Patients were allocated to one of four intervention plans according to the Medical Research Council score, the suitability of the plan’s parameters, and the increasing scale of the plan expressing improved functional status. Uncooperative patients were allocated to intervention plans based on their functional status. The overall muscle strength and/or functional status were reevaluated upon discharge from the intensive care unit by comparison between the Intervention Plans upon admission (Planinitial) and discharge (Planfinal). Patients were classified into three groups according to the improvement of their functional status or not: responsive 1 (Planfinal > Planinitial), responsive 2 (Planfinal = Planinitial) and unresponsive (Planfinal < Planinitial). Results: In total, 432 (93.3%) of 463 patients undergoing the protocol responded positively to the intervention strategy, showing maintenance and/or improvement of the initial functional status. Clinical patients classified as unresponsive were older (74.3 ± 15.1 years of age; p = 0.03) and had longer lengths of intensive care unit (11.6 ± 14.2 days; p = 0.047) and hospital (34.5 ± 34.1 days; p = 0.002) stays. Conclusion: The maintenance and/or improvement of the admission functional status were associated with shorter lengths of intensive care unit and hospital stays. The results suggest that the type of diagnosis, clinical or surgical, fails to define the positive response to an ...