Systemic and Cerebral Effects of Physiotherapy in Mechanically Ventilated Subjects.

BACKGROUND: Physiotherapy may result in better functional outcomes, shorter duration of delirium, and more ventilator-free days. The effects of physiotherapy on different subpopulations of mechanically ventilated patients on respiratory and cerebral function are still unclear. We evaluated the effect of physiotherapy on systemic gas exchange and hemodynamics as well as on cerebral oxygenation and hemodynamics in mechanically ventilated subjects with and without COVID-19 pneumonia. METHODS: This was an observational study in critically ill subjects with and without COVID-19 who underwent protocolized physiotherapy (including respiratory and rehabilitation physiotherapy) and neuromonitoring of cerebral oxygenation and hemodynamics. PaO2 /FIO2 , PaCO2 , hemodynamics (mean arterial pressure [MAP], mm Hg; heart rate, beats/min), and cerebral physiologic parameters (noninvasive intracranial pressure, cerebral perfusion pressure using transcranial Doppler, and cerebral oxygenation using near-infrared spectroscopy) were assessed before (T0) and immediately after physiotherapy (T1). RESULTS: Thirty-one subjects were included (16 with COVID-19 and 15 without COVID-19). Physiotherapy improved PaO2 /FIO2 in the overall population (T1 = 185 [108-259] mm Hg vs T0 = 160 [97-231] mm Hg, P = .02) and in the subjects with COVID-19 (T1 = 119 [89-161] mm Hg vs T0 = 110 [81-154] mm Hg, P = .02) and decreased the PaCO2 in the COVID-19 group only (T1 = 40 [38-44] mm Hg vs T0 = 43 [38-47] mm Hg, P = .03). Physiotherapy did not affect cerebral hemodynamics, whereas increased the arterial oxygen part of hemoglobin both in the overall population (T1 = 3.1% [-1.3 to 4.9] vs T0 = 1.1% [-1.8 to 2.6], P = .007) and in the non-COVID-19 group (T1 = 3.7% [0.5-6.3] vs T0 = 0% [-2.2 to 2.8], P = .02). Heart rate was higher after physiotherapy in the overall population (T1 = 87 [75-96] beats/min vs T0 = 78 [72-92] beats/min, P = .044) and in the COVID-19 group (T1 = 87 [81-98] beats/min vs T0 = 77 [72-91] beats/min, P = .01), whereas MAP increased in the COVID-19 group only (T1 = 87 [82-83] vs T0 = 83 [76-89], P = .030). CONCLUSIONS: Protocolized physiotherapy improved gas exchange in subjects with COVID-19, whereas it improved cerebral oxygenation in non-COVID-19 subjects.

Association of ventilator-free days with respiratory physiotherapy in critically ill patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) during the first pandemic wave. A propensity score-weighted analysis.

Background: Respiratory physiotherapy is reported as safe and feasible in mechanically ventilated patients with severe Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) admitted to Intensive Care Unit (ICU), but the short-term benefits remain unclear. Methods: We performed a retrospective observational study in four ICUs in Northern Italy. All patients with COVID-19 admitted to ICU and under invasive mechanical ventilation (MV) between March 1st and May 30th, 2020, were enrolled into the study. Overlap weighting based on the propensity score was used to adjust for confounding in the comparison of patients who had or had not been treated by physiotherapists. The primary outcome was the number of days alive and ventilator-free (VFDs). The secondary outcomes were arterial partial pressure of oxygen (PaO2)/fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) ratio (P/F) at ICU discharge, ICU length of stay, ICU and hospital mortality, and survival at 90 days. The trial protocol was registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT05067907). Results: A total of 317 patients were included in the analysis. The median VFDs was 18 days [interquartile range (IQR) 10; 24] in patients performing physiotherapy and 21 days (IQR 0; 26) in the group without physiotherapy [incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.78; 0.95]. The chance of 0 VFDs was lower for patients treated by physiotherapists compared to those who were not [odds ratio (OR) = 0.36, 95% CI: 0.18-0.71]. Survival at 90 days was 96.0% in the physiotherapy group and 70.6% in patients not performing physiotherapy [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.14, 95% CI: 0.03-0.71]. Number of VFDs was not associated with body mass index (BMI), sex, or P/F at ICU admission for individuals with at least 1 day off the ventilator. Conclusion: In patients with COVID-19 admitted to ICU during the first pandemic wave and treated by physiotherapists, the number of days alive and free from MV was lower compared to patients who did not perform respiratory physiotherapy. Survival at 90 days in the physiotherapy group was greater compared to no physiotherapy. These findings may be the starting point for further investigation in this setting.

The prevention of pressure injuries in the positioning and mobilization of patients in the ICU: a good clinical practice document by the Italian Society of Anesthesia, Analgesia, Resuscitation and Intensive Care (SIAARTI).

BACKGROUND: The aim of this document is to support clinical decision-making concerning positioning and mobilization of the critically ill patient in the early identification and resolution of risk factors (primary prevention) and in the early recognition of those most at risk (secondary prevention). The addresses of this document are physicians, nurses, physiotherapists, and other professionals involved in patient positioning in the intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: A consensus pathway was followed using the Nominal Focus Group and the Delphi Technique, integrating a phase of focused group discussion online and with a pre-coded guide to an individual phase. A multidisciplinary advisory board composed by nine experts on the topic contributed to both the phases of the process, to reach a consensus on four clinical questions positioning and mobilization of the critically ill patient. RESULTS: The topics addressed by the clinical questions were the risks associated with obligatory positioning and therapeutic positions, the effective interventions in preventing pressure injuries, the appropriate instruments for screening for pressure injuries in the ICU, and the cost-effectiveness of preventive interventions relating to ICU positioning. A total of 27 statements addressing these clinical questions were produced by the panel. Among the statements, nine provided guidance on how to manage safely some specific patients' positions, including the prone position; five suggested specific screening tools and patients' factors to consider when assessing the individual risk of developing pressure injuries; five gave indications on mobilization and repositioning; and eight focused on the use of devices, such as positioners and preventive dressings. CONCLUSIONS: The statements may represent a practical guidance for a broad public of healthcare professionals involved in the management of critically ill patients.

An Experimental Pre-Post Study on the Efficacy of Respiratory Physiotherapy in Severe Critically III COVID-19 Patients.

Background: Respiratory physiotherapy (RPT) is considered essential in patients' management during intensive care unit (ICU) stay. The role of RPT in critically ill COVID-19 patients is poorly described. We aimed to investigate the effects of RPT on oxygenation and lung aeration in critically ill COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU. Methods: Observational pre-post study. Patients with severe COVID-19 admitted to the ICU, who received a protocolized CPT session and for which a pre-and post-RPT lung ultrasound (LUS) was performed, were included. A subgroup of patients had an available quantitative computed tomography (CT) scan performed within 4 days from RPT. The primary aim was to evaluate whether RPT improved oxygenation; secondary aims included correlations between LUS, CT and response to RPT. Results: Twenty patients were included. The median (1st-3rd quartile) PaO2/FiO2 was 181 (105-456), 244 (137-497) and 246 (137-482) at baseline (T0), after RPT (T1), and after 6 h (T2), respectively. PaO2/FiO2 improved throughout the study (p = 0.042); particularly, PaO2/FiO2 improved at T1 in respect to T0 (p = 0.011), remaining higher at T2 (p = 0.007) compared to T0. Correlations between LUS, volume of gas (rho = 0.58, 95%CI 0.05-0.85, p = 0.033) and hyper-aerated mass at CT scan (rho = 0.54, 95% CI 0.00-0.84, p = 0.045) were detected. No significant changes in LUS score were observed before and after RPT. Conclusions: RPT improved oxygenation and the improvement persisted after 6 h. Oxygenation improvement was not reflected by aeration changes assessed with LUS. Further studies are warranted to assess the efficacy of RPT in COVID-19 ICU patients.

Chest physiotherapy: An important adjuvant in critically ill mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19.

In late 2019, an outbreak of a novel human coronavirus causing respiratory disease was identified in Wuhan, China. The virus spread rapidly worldwide, reaching pandemic status. Chest computed tomography scans of patients with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) have revealed different stages of respiratory involvement, with extremely variable lung presentations, which require individualized ventilatory strategies in those who become critically ill. Chest physiotherapy has proven to be effective for improving long-term respiratory physical function among ICU survivors. The ARIR recently reported the role of chest physiotherapy in the acute phase of COVID-19, pointing out limitation of some procedures due to the limited experience with this disease in the ICU setting. Evidence on the efficacy of chest physiotherapy in COVID-19 is still lacking. In this line, the current review discusses the important role of chest physiotherapy in critically ill mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19, around the weaning process, and how it can be safely applied with careful organization, including the training of healthcare staff and the appropriate use of personal protective equipment to minimize the risk of viral exposure.