Impact of High Dose Early Mobilization on Outcomes for Patients with Diabetes: A Secondary Analysis of the TEAM Trial.

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 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 a lower number of days alive and out of 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, days alive and out of 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 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 [CI], 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 hospital at day 180 but it increased 180-day mortality.

Association of active mobilisation variables with adverse events and mortality in patients requiring mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Mobilisation during critical illness is now included in multiple clinical practice guidelines. However, a large, randomised trial and systematic review have recently identified an increased probability of adverse events and mortality in patients who received early active mobilisation in the intensive care unit (ICU). We aimed to determine the effects of mobilisation compared with usual care on adverse events and mortality in an acute ICU setting. In subgroup analyses, we specifically aimed to investigate possible sources of harm, including the timing and duration of mobilisation achieved, ventilation status, and admission diagnosis. METHODS: In this systematic review with frequentist and Bayesian analyses, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and PEDro electronic databases, as well as clinical trial registries (ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov), from inception to March 16, 2023, without language restrictions. Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials that examined active mobilisation compared with either no mobilisation or mobilisation commencing later, or at a lower frequency or intensity, in adults who were critically ill during or after a period of mechanical ventilation in an acute ICU setting. Two authors independently screened reports, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (version 1). The primary outcome was the number of adverse events that occurred during the implementation of mobilisation, with the effect of mobilisation on mortality being the secondary outcome. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% CIs were calculated in R (version 4.0.3) using random-effects modelling, with Bayesian analysis completed to calculate the probability of treatment harm (ie, RR >1). Subgroup analyses were completed to investigate the association of various factors of mobilisation on adverse events and mortality: duration of mobilisation (longer [≥20 min per day] vs shorter [<20 min per day]), timing of commencement (early [≤72 h from ICU admission] vs late [>72 h from ICU admission]), ventilation status at commencement (all patients mechanically ventilated vs all patients extubated), and ICU admission diagnosis (surgical vs medical). This study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42022369272. FINDINGS: After title and abstract screening of 14 440 studies and review of 466 full texts, 67 trials with 7004 participants met inclusion criteria, with 59 trials contributing to the meta-analysis. Of the 67 included studies, 15 (22%) did not mention adverse events and 13 (19%) reported no adverse events occurring across the trial period. Overall, we found no effect of mobilisation compared with usual care on the occurrence of adverse events (RR 1·09 [95% CI 0·69-1·74], p=0·71; I2 91%; 32 731 events, 20 studies; very low certainty), with a 2·96% occurrence rate (693 events in 23 395 intervention sessions; 25 studies). Mobilisation did not have any effect on mortality (RR 0·98 [95% CI 0·87-1·12], p=0·81; I2 0%; n=6218, 58 studies; moderate certainty). Subgroup analysis was hindered by the large amount of data that could not be allocated and analysed, making the results hypothesis generating only. INTERPRETATION: Implementation of mobilisation in the ICU was associated with a less than 3% chance of an adverse event occurring and was not found to increase adverse events or mortality overall, providing reassurance for clinicians about the safety of performing this intervention. Subgroup analyses did not clearly identify any specific variable of mobilisation implementation that increased harm. FUNDING: None.

Muscularity of older trauma patients at intensive care unit admission, association with functional outcomes, and relationship with frailty: A retrospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: Older individuals are at an increased risk of delayed recovery following a traumatic injury. Measurement of muscularity and frailty at hospital admission may aid with prognostication and risk stratification. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to describe muscularity at intensive care unit (ICU) admission in patients admitted following trauma and assess the relationship between muscularity and clinical, long-term functional outcomes and frailty at ICU admission. METHODS: This retrospective study utilised data from a prospective observational study investigating frailty in patients aged ≥50 years, admitted to the ICU following trauma. Patients were eligible if they had a Computed Tomography (CT) scan including the third lumbar vertebra at ICU admission. Specialist software was used to quantify CT-derived skeletal muscle cross-sectional area. Muscularity status was classified as normal or low using published sex-specific cut-points. Demographic data, frailty, clinical, and long-term functional outcomes (Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended and EQ-5DL-5L Visual analogue scale and utility score) were extracted from the original study. RESULTS: One hundred patients were screened; 71 patients had a CT scan on admission with 66 scans suitable for muscle assessment. Patients with low muscularity (n = 25, 38%) were older and had a higher Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score and lower body mass index than patients with normal muscularity. Low muscularity was associated with frailty at admission (32% vs 5%, p = 0.005) but not with long term outcomes at 6 or 12 months. As a continuous variable, lower muscle cross-sectional area was associated with a poorer outcome on the Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended at 6 months (mean [standard deviation]: 150 [43] and 180 [44], respectively; p = 0.014), no association was observed after adjustment for age p = 0.43). CONCLUSION: In a population of older adults hospitalised following trauma, low muscularity at ICU admission was prevalent. Low muscularity was associated with frailty but not long-term functional outcomes. Larger studies are warranted to better understand the relationship between muscularity and long-term functional outcomes.

Prevalence, recovery, and factors associated with dysphagia in an older critically ill trauma cohort: A cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) following trauma often have multiple injuries, which can lead to disordered swallowing, dysphagia. The prevalence of dysphagia in trauma populations ranges between 4.2% and 86%; however, clinical and associated longitudinal health outcomes and patient-reported quality of life are unknown. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to compare hospital and clinical outcomes for older critically ill trauma patients diagnosed with and without dysphagia up to 12 months after hospital admission. Secondary outcomes include characteristics of dysphagia assessment and recovery during indexed hospital admission. METHODS: Post hoc analysis of an observational study. All patients were recruited from a tertiary ICU trauma unit, all were aged above 50 years, with an expected ICU length of stay of >24 h. Criteria of dysphagia diagnosis were determined via presence of International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) code (R13). Hospital, clinical, and health-reported quality-of-life data were collected. RESULTS: Ninety-eight patients were included with 79 (81%) being male, overall median injury severity scale: 21.5 (interquartile range: 14-29); 38 (38.8%) with spinal injury, 37 (37.8%) with multitrauma excluding head injury, and 23 (23.5%) with multitrauma including head injury. Prevalence of dysphagia was 29%, with patients diagnosed with dysphagia more likely to have required invasive mechanical ventilation (odds ratio [OR]: 4.0, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.25-12.78), for an increased duration (OR: 2.6, 95% CI: 0.27-4.92) and required longer ICU admission (OR: 2.98, 95% CI: 0.28-5.69). Recovery of swallow function was protracted beyond the indexed hospital admission, with only 18% of those diagnosed with dysphagia returning to a normal, unrestricted, oral diet by hospital discharge. At 6 and 12 months, functional disabilities were reported across the cohort with no significant differences between groups. CONCLUSIONS: In older critically ill trauma patients, dysphagia is common. Use and duration of invasive mechanical ventilation and increased ICU length of stay for survivors were significantly increased for those with dysphagia. Management of swallowing is required across the continuum of care commencing in and beyond ICU to optimise recovery and outcomes.

The Effect of Mobilization at 6 Months after Critical Illness - Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The comparative efficacy and safety of early active mobilization compared with usual care regarding long-term outcomes for adult critically ill survivors remain uncertain. METHODS: We systematically reviewed randomized clinical trials comparing early active mobilization versus usual care in critically ill adults. The primary outcome was days alive and out of hospital to day 180 after pooling data using random effects modeling. We also performed a Bayesian meta-analysis to describe the treatment effect in probability terms. Secondary outcomes were mortality, physical function, strength, health-related quality of life at 6 months, and adverse events. RESULTS: Fifteen trials from 11 countries were included with data from 2703 participants. From six trials (1121 participants) reporting the primary outcome, the pooled mean difference was an increase of 4.28 days alive and out of hospital to day 180 in those patients who received early active mobilization (95% confidence interval, −4.46 to 13.03; I2=41%). Using Bayesian analyses with vague priors, the probability that the intervention increased days alive and out of hospital was 75.1%. In survivors, there was a 95.1% probability that the intervention improved physical function measured through a patient-reported outcome measure at 6 months (standardized mean difference, 0.2; 95% confidence interval, 0.09 to 0.32; I2=0%). Although no treatment effect was identified on any other secondary outcome, there was a 66.4% possibility of increased adverse events with the implementation of early active mobilization and a 72.2% chance it increased 6-month mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Use of early active mobilization for critically ill adults did not significantly affect days alive and out of hospital to day 180. Early active mobilization was associated with improved physical function in survivors at 6 months; however, the possibility that it might increase mortality and adverse events needs to be considered when interpreting this finding. (PROSPERO number, CRD42022309650.)

Early Active Mobilization during Mechanical Ventilation in the ICU.

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.).

Comparison of 6-Month Outcomes of Survivors of COVID-19 versus Non-COVID-19 Critical Illness.

Rationale: The outcomes of survivors of critical illness due to coronavirus disease (COVID-19) compared with non-COVID-19 are yet to be established. Objectives: We aimed to investigate new disability at 6 months in mechanically ventilated patients admitted to Australian ICUs with COVID-19 compared with non-COVID-19. Methods: We included critically ill patients with COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 from two prospective observational studies. Patients were eligible if they were adult (age ⩾ 8 yr) and received ⩾24 hours of mechanical ventilation. In addition, patients with COVID-19 were eligible with a positive laboratory PCR test for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Measurements and Main Results: Demographic, intervention, and hospital outcome data were obtained from electronic medical records. Survivors were contacted by telephone for functional outcomes with trained outcome assessors using the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0. Between March 6, 2020, and April 21, 2021, 120 critically ill patients with COVID-19, and between August 2017 and January 2019, 199 critically ill patients without COVID-19, fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Patients with COVID-19 were older (median [interquartile range], 62 [55-71] vs. 58 [44-69] yr; P = 0.019) with a lower Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score (17 [13-20] vs. 19 [15-23]; P = 0.011). Although duration of ventilation was longer in patients with COVID-19 than in those without COVID-19 (12 [5-19] vs. 4.8 [2.3-8.8] d; P < 0.001), 180-day mortality was similar between the groups (39/120 [32.5%] vs. 70/199 [35.2%]; P = 0.715). The incidence of death or new disability at 180 days was similar (58/93 [62.4%] vs. 99/150 [66/0%]; P = 0.583). Conclusions: At 6 months, there was no difference in new disability for patients requiring mechanical ventilation for acute respiratory failure due to COVID-19 compared with non-COVID-19. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04401254).

The impact of COVID-19 critical illness on new disability, functional outcomes and return to work at 6 months: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: There are few reports of new functional impairment following critical illness from COVID-19. We aimed to describe the incidence of death or new disability, functional impairment and changes in health-related quality of life of patients after COVID-19 critical illness at 6 months. METHODS: In a nationally representative, multicenter, prospective cohort study of COVID-19 critical illness, we determined the prevalence of death or new disability at 6 months, the primary outcome. We measured mortality, new disability and return to work with changes in the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 12L (WHODAS) and health status with the EQ5D-5LTM. RESULTS: Of 274 eligible patients, 212 were enrolled from 30 hospitals. The median age was 61 (51-70) years, and 124 (58.5%) patients were male. At 6 months, 43/160 (26.9%) patients died and 42/108 (38.9%) responding survivors reported new disability. Compared to pre-illness, the WHODAS percentage score worsened (mean difference (MD), 10.40% [95% CI 7.06-13.77]; p < 0.001). Thirteen (11.4%) survivors had not returned to work due to poor health. There was a decrease in the EQ-5D-5LTM utility score (MD, - 0.19 [- 0.28 to - 0.10]; p < 0.001). At 6 months, 82 of 115 (71.3%) patients reported persistent symptoms. The independent predictors of death or new disability were higher severity of illness and increased frailty. CONCLUSIONS: At six months after COVID-19 critical illness, death and new disability was substantial. Over a third of survivors had new disability, which was widespread across all areas of functioning. Clinical trial registration NCT04401254 May 26, 2020.

The impact of frailty in critically ill patients after trauma: A prospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: As our population ages, older adults are increasingly exposed to trauma. Frailty could be a useful measure to identify patients at risk of a poor outcome. This study aimed to determine the impact of frailty in an Australian trauma intensive care unit (ICU) population. METHODS: A prospective observational study of critically ill trauma patients ≥50 years of age. Frailty was determined on admission to the ICU using the frailty phenotype. Demographic and hospital data were collected, and patients were followed up at 6 and 12 months. The primary outcome was 12-month mortality, and multiple regression was used to determine associated factors. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-eight patients were included, whose mean age was 68 years; 78.2% (108/138) were classified as major trauma (Injury Severity Score >12). Twenty-two percent (30/138) of patients were identified as frail. Patients with frailty were significantly older: however, they were less severely injured and required lower rates of surgical interventions and mechanical ventilation. Frailty was independently associated with mortality at 6 and 12 months (odds ratio: 5.9, 95% confidence interval: 1.9-18.1 and odds ratio: 7.3, 95% confidence interval: 2.5-21.9, respectively). Patients with frailty had lower measures of global functioning (Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended frail 3 [1-5] vs nonfrail 6 [(5-7], p = 0.002) and health status (Euro Qol 5Q-5D-5L utility score 0.6 [0.5-0.7] vs 0.7 [0.6-0.9], p = 0.02) at 12 months than patients without frailty. CONCLUSION: Frailty is a useful predictor of poor outcomes in critically ill trauma patients. REGISTRATION OF PROTOCOL NUMBER: ACTRN12615000039583.

Frailty in Patients With Trauma Who Are Critically Ill: A Prospective Observational Study to Determine Feasibility, Concordance, and Construct and Predictive Validity of 2 Frailty Measures.

BACKGROUND: As the older population increases, more older people are exposed to trauma. Frailty can be used to highlight patients at risk of a poorer outcome. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study were to compare 2 frailty measures with regard to concordance, floor and ceiling effects, and construct and predictive validity and to determine which is more valid and clinically applicable in a critically ill trauma population. DESIGN: This was a prospective observational study. METHODS: Patients were included if admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) under a trauma medical unit and ≥ 50 years old. Frailty was determined using 2 frailty measures, the Frailty Phenotype (FP) and Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS). RESULTS: One hundred people were enrolled; their mean age was 69.2 years (SD = 10.4) and 81% had major trauma (as determined with the Injury Severity Score). Frailty was identified with the FP in 22 participants and with the CFS in 13 participants. The 2 frailty measures had an excellent correlation (Spearman rank correlation coefficient = 0.77; 95% confidence interval = 0.66-0.85). Both the FP and the CFS had large floor effects but no ceiling effects. The FP and CFS showed construct validity, with frailty being significantly associated with increasing age, requiring an aid to mobilize, and more falls and hospital admissions. Frailty on the FP was predictive of ICU and hospital mortality, whereas frailty on the CFS was predictive of hospital mortality. LIMITATIONS: The limitations of this study include the use of a single site, small sample size, and collection of frailty measures retrospectively. CONCLUSIONS: Measuring frailty in a trauma ICU population was feasible, with excellent correlation between the 2 frailty measures. Both showed aspects of construct and predictive validity; however, the FP identified frailty in more participants and was associated with more comorbidities and higher mortality at ICU discharge. Therefore, the FP might be more clinically relevant in this population.

Barriers to implementing expert safety recommendations for early mobilisation in intensive care unit during mechanical ventilation: A prospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: Early mobilisation in the intensive care unit (ICU) has been consistently reported as feasible and safe with minimal adverse events; however, invasive mechanical ventilation patients are rarely actively mobilised. An expert consensus group developed and published recommendations using a traffic light system on safety criteria to promote active mobilisation of invasive mechanical ventilation patients. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine whether, in clinical practice, the safety consensus recommendations resulted in (1) increased early mobilisation in patients assessed as appropriate to mobilise based on the risk classification and (2) early mobilisation without adverse events. METHODS: A prospective observational study of 100 patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) for greater than 24 h admitted to the ICU at The Alfred Hospital. Patients were assessed daily (Monday to Friday) to determine their ability to perform early mobilisation. RESULTS: Data were collected on 100 patients, resulting in 280 physiotherapy-patient interactions during IMV. Of the 100 patients, five patients actively mobilised out of bed during IMV. No adverse event occurred during active physiotherapy-patient interactions. There were 15 physiotherapy-patient interactions that had a low risk of an adverse event, and on nine (60.0%) of these physiotherapy-patient interactions, patients were actively mobilised out of bed with the main reported barrier being time constraints. Of 208 physiotherapy-patient interactions where there were significant potential risks of an adverse event identified for mobilising, active out of bed mobilisation did not occur, with sedation being reported as the main barrier in 170 (82%) patients. CONCLUSIONS: The translation of expert consensus recommendations for early mobilisation into clinical practice was poor. Clinicians were safe and conservative in the implementation of early mobilisation during IMV.

The minimal important difference of the ICU mobility scale.

BACKGROUND: The intensive care unit mobility scale (IMS) is reliable, valid and responsive. Establishing the minimal important difference (MID) of the IMS is important in order to detect clinically significant changes in mobilization. OBJECTIVE: To calculate the MID of the IMS in intensive care unit patients. METHODS: Prospective multi center observational study. The IMS was collected from admission and discharge physiotherapy assessments. To calculate the MID we used; anchor based methods (global rating of change) and two distribution-based methods (standard error of the mean and effect size). RESULTS: We enrolled 184 adult patients; mean age 62.0 years, surgical, trauma, and medical. Anchor based methods gave a MID of 3 with area under the curve 0.94 (95% CI 0.89-0.97). The two distribution based methods gave a MID between 0.89 and 1.40. CONCLUSION: These data increase our understanding of the clinimetric properties of the IMS, improving its utility for clinical practice and research.

Early Mobilization of Patients in Intensive Care: Organization, Communication and Safety Factors that Influence Translation into Clinical Practice.

Please change the first sentence to: This article is one of ten reviews selected from the Annual Update in Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine 2018. Other selected articles can be found online at https://www.biomedcentral.com/collections/annualupdate2018 . Further information about the Annual Update in Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine is available from http://www.springer.com/series/8901 .

Physiotherapy management of intensive care unit-acquired weakness.

[Hodgson CL, Tipping CJ (2016) Physiotherapy management of intensive care unit-acquired weakness.Journal of Physiotherapy63: 4-10].

The effects of active mobilisation and rehabilitation in ICU on mortality and function: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: Early active mobilisation and rehabilitation in the intensive care unit (ICU) is being used to prevent the long-term functional consequences of critical illness. This review aimed to determine the effect of active mobilisation and rehabilitation in the ICU on mortality, function, mobility, muscle strength, quality of life, days alive and out of hospital to 180 days, ICU and hospital lengths of stay, duration of mechanical ventilation and discharge destination, linking outcomes with the World Health Organization International Classification of Function Framework. METHODS: A PRISMA checklist-guided systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised and controlled clinical trials. RESULTS: Fourteen studies of varying quality including a total of 1753 patients were reviewed. Active mobilisation and rehabilitation had no impact on short- or long-term mortality (p > 0.05). Meta-analysis showed that active mobilisation and rehabilitation led to greater muscle strength (body function) at ICU discharge as measured using the Medical Research Council Sum Score (mean difference 8.62 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.39-15.86), greater probability of walking without assistance (activity limitation) at hospital discharge (odds ratio 2.13, 95% CI 1.19-3.83), and more days alive and out of hospital to day 180 (participation restriction) (mean difference 9.69, 95% CI 1.7-17.66). There were no consistent effects on function, quality of life, ICU or hospital length of stay, duration of mechanical ventilation or discharge destination. CONCLUSION: Active mobilisation and rehabilitation in the ICU has no impact on short- and long-term mortality, but may improve mobility status, muscle strength and days alive and out of hospital to 180 days. REGISTRATION OF PROTOCOL NUMBER: CRD42015029836.

The ICU Mobility Scale Has Construct and Predictive Validity and Is Responsive. A Multicenter Observational Study.

RATIONALE: The ICU Mobility Scale (IMS) is a measure of mobility milestones in critically ill patients. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine the validity and responsiveness of the IMS from a prospective cohort study of adults admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: Construct and predictive validity were assessed by comparing IMS values at ICU discharge in 192 patients to other variables using Spearman rank correlation coefficient, Mann-Whitney U tests, and logistic regression. Responsiveness was assessed using change over time, effect size, floor and ceiling effects, and percentage of patients showing change. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The IMS at ICU discharge demonstrated a moderate correlation with muscle strength (r = 0.64, P < 0.001). There was a significant difference between the IMS at ICU discharge in patients with ICU-acquired weakness (median, 4.0; interquartile range, 3.0-5.0) compared with patients without (median, 8.0; interquartile range, 5.0-8.0; P < 0.001). Increasing IMS values at ICU discharge were associated with survival to 90 days (odds ratio [OR], 1.38; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.14-1.66) and discharge home (OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.02-1.32) but not with return to work at 6 months (OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.92-1.28). The IMS was responsive with a significant change from study enrollment to ICU discharge (d = 0.8, P < 0.001), with IMS values increasing in 86% of survivors during ICU admission. No substantial floor (14% scored 0) or ceiling (4% scored 10) effects were present at ICU discharge. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support the validity and responsiveness of the IMS as a measure of mobility in the ICU.

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 systematic review of measurements of physical function in critically ill adults.

BACKGROUND: Patients who recover from critical illness may be left with significant limitations to their physical function that can have important consequences for their quality of life. Measures of physical function may be useful end points to consider in studies conducted in critically ill patients and are particularly attractive in studies investigating early mobilisation and rehabilitation. OBJECTIVE: To describe measurements of physical function used in studies investigating early mobilisation and rehabilitation in critically ill adults. METHODS: A systematic search of Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and PEDro was undertaken to identify studies investigating early mobilisation and rehabilitation in critically ill adults. Two researchers independently extracted data from identified studies that described measurements of physical function and that evaluated the available evidence for the measurement properties and risk of bias associated with the identified end points. RESULTS: We identified 11 studies of early mobilisation and rehabilitation in critically ill patients, involving 19 distinct measures of physical function. The ability to perform activities such as sitting and standing and the maximum distance ambulated were the most commonly used end points. Only one end point in the included studies, the Functional Status Score for the ICU (FSS-ICU), was designed for use in the ICU setting. Of the end points used, only the Short Form 36 (SF-36), the Medical Research Council (MRC) scale score and handheld dynamometers have proven interrater reliability and population validity in the ICU setting. CONCLUSION: A wide range of end points have been used to evaluate physical function in critically ill patients. However, further studies are needed to establish the measurement properties of the most commonly used end points in order to recommend their use in clinical trials.

A qualitative study of physiotherapy education for parents of toddlers with cystic fibrosis.

BACKGROUND: Education and daily physiotherapy are often highlighted as difficult and stressful tasks for parents of young children with cystic fibrosis. This study aimed to identify factors that impair the delivery and retention of physiotherapy education for parents of these children and factors that impair effective physiotherapy treatment in the home environment. METHODS: A focus group of physiotherapists and six semi-structured interviews of parents with children with cystic fibrosis were conducted. The qualitative method of Grounded Theory was used to analyse the information and develop key themes. RESULTS: Major emergent themes were 'transitions', 'psychological distress' and 'connectedness'. Factors influencing the effectiveness of parental physiotherapy education include the large volumes of information, appropriateness of educational resources and timing of education. Factors influencing home physiotherapy management for toddlers include mastering techniques, the transition from infant to toddler and time management. CONCLUSION: Physiotherapy education and management were key causes of psychological distress for parents. This research suggests that significant targeted development of educational resources is warranted, in conjunction with dedicated and ongoing formal psychosocial support for parents.