Cargando…

Early Mobilization Interventions in the Intensive Care Unit: Ongoing and Unpublished Randomized Trials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

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Maheswaran, Janane, Fromowitz, Jake, Goldfarb, Michael
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Hindawi 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7201471/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32399292
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2020/3281394
_version_ 1783529539228401664
author Maheswaran, Janane
Fromowitz, Jake
Goldfarb, Michael
author_facet Maheswaran, Janane
Fromowitz, Jake
Goldfarb, Michael
author_sort Maheswaran, Janane
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7201471
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Hindawi
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-72014712020-05-12 Early Mobilization Interventions in the Intensive Care Unit: Ongoing and Unpublished Randomized Trials Maheswaran, Janane Fromowitz, Jake Goldfarb, Michael Crit Care Res Pract Research Article 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. Hindawi 2020-01-21 /pmc/articles/PMC7201471/ /pubmed/32399292 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2020/3281394 Text en Copyright © 2020 Janane Maheswaran et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Maheswaran, Janane
Fromowitz, Jake
Goldfarb, Michael
Early Mobilization Interventions in the Intensive Care Unit: Ongoing and Unpublished Randomized Trials
title Early Mobilization Interventions in the Intensive Care Unit: Ongoing and Unpublished Randomized Trials
title_full Early Mobilization Interventions in the Intensive Care Unit: Ongoing and Unpublished Randomized Trials
title_fullStr Early Mobilization Interventions in the Intensive Care Unit: Ongoing and Unpublished Randomized Trials
title_full_unstemmed Early Mobilization Interventions in the Intensive Care Unit: Ongoing and Unpublished Randomized Trials
title_short Early Mobilization Interventions in the Intensive Care Unit: Ongoing and Unpublished Randomized Trials
title_sort early mobilization interventions in the intensive care unit: ongoing and unpublished randomized trials
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7201471/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32399292
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2020/3281394
work_keys_str_mv AT maheswaranjanane earlymobilizationinterventionsintheintensivecareunitongoingandunpublishedrandomizedtrials
AT fromowitzjake earlymobilizationinterventionsintheintensivecareunitongoingandunpublishedrandomizedtrials
AT goldfarbmichael earlymobilizationinterventionsintheintensivecareunitongoingandunpublishedrandomizedtrials