Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 1

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study

Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 2

Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies

Study flow diagram
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 3

Study flow diagram

Summary of findings for the main comparison. Early intervention (mobilization or active exercise) versus usual care for critically ill adults

Early intervention (mobilization or active exercise) versus usual care for critically ill adults

Patient or population: critically ill, mechanically ventilated adults
Settings: general, medical or surgical ICU in Australia/China/USA
Intervention: early intervention (mobilization or active exercise)

Control: usual care (defined as no mobilization/active exercise while in ICU, or mobilization/active exercise given later than the intervention group)

Outcomes

Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

No of participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Assumed risk

Corresponding risk

Control

Early intervention (mobilization or active exercise)

Physical function ‐ return to independent functional status at hospital discharge
Defined as ability to perform 6 ADLs (bathing, dressing, eating, grooming, transferring from bed to chair, using the toilet) and walk independently, measured with Functional Independence Measure

Study population

RR 1.71
(1.11 to 2.64)

104
(1 study)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low1,2

345 per 1000

591 per 1000
(383 to 912)

Physical function ‐ independent ADLs total at ICU discharge
Functional Independence Measure (0 ‐ 6)

Study population

104
(1 study)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low1,2

Median 0 (IQR 0 to 5)

Median 3 (IQR 0 to 5)

Physical function ‐ Independent ADL total at hospital discharge
Functional Independence Measure (0 ‐ 6)

Study population

104
(1 study)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low1,2

Median 4 (IQR 0 to 6)

Median 6 (IQR 0 to 6)

Physical function

Barthel score (0 ‐ 100)

Study population

104

(1 study)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low1,2

Median 55 (IQR 0 to 85)

Median 75 (IQR 7.5 to 95)

Physical performance
Acute Care Index of Function score at ICU discharge
(0 ‐ 100)

Study population

42
(1 study)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low2,3

Mean score 55.0
(45.0 to 65.0)

Mean score 61.1 (46.2 to 76.0)

MD 6.10 (‐11.85 to 24.05)

Physical performance

Physical Function ICU Test score at ICU discharge

Study population

42

(1 study)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low2,3

Mean score 5.4 (4.7 to 6.1)

Mean score 5.6 (4.7 to 6.5)

MD 0.20 (‐0.98 to 1.38)

Physical performance

Short Physical Performance Battery score at ICU discharge

Study population

184

(1 study)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low2,3

Mean score 1.9 (1.3 to 2.4)

Mean score 1.6 (1.0 to 2.2)

MD ‐0.30 (‐1.10 to 0.50)

Physical performance

Short Physical Performance Battery score at hospital discharge

Study population

204

(1 study)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low2,3

Mean score 4.7 (4.0 to 5.4)

Mean score 4.7 (4.0 to 5.4)

MD 0 (‐1.00 to 0.90)

Adverse events

Proportion of participants with one or more events, or proportion of intervention sessions where an event occurred (falls, accidental dislodgement of attachments, haemodynamic instability, oxygen desaturation or any other adverse events defined by study authors)

One study reported that in the intervention group 1/49 (2%) experienced oxygen desaturation < 80% and 1/49 (2%) had accidental dislodgement of the radial catheter. This study also found cessation of therapy due to patient instability occurred in 19/498 (4%) of the intervention sessions. In another study 5/101 (5%) of the intervention group and 5/109 (4.6%) of the control group had postoperative pulmonary complications. These were deemed to be unrelated to intervention. A third study found 1/150 in the intervention group had an episode of asymptomatic bradycardia, but completed the exercise session. The fourth study reported no adverse events.

690
(4 studies)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low2,4

*The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).
ADLs: activities of daily living; CI: confidence interval; ICU: intensive care unit; MD: mean difference; RR: risk ratio

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect.
Moderate quality: we are moderately confident in the effect estimate; the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different.
Low quality: we are moderately confident in the effect estimate; the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different.
Very low quality: we have very little confidence in the effect estimate; the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect.

1Downgraded one point for high risk of bias. Risk of bias was high for blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias).
2Downgraded for imprecision (only one small study).
3Downgraded one point for high risk of bias. Risk of bias was high for blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) and incomplete outcome data (attrition bias; for all outcomes except mortality).
4Downgraded for imprecision, as there were very few adverse events of each type.

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings for the main comparison. Early intervention (mobilization or active exercise) versus usual care for critically ill adults
Table 1. Characteristics of each intervention ‐ summarized using TIDieR criteria*

Item

Morris 2016

Kayambu 2015

Patman 2001

Schweickert 2009

Brief name

Standardized rehabilitation therapy

Early physical rehabilitation in ICU

Physiotherapy

Early physical and occupational therapy in mechanically ventilated, critically ill patients

What
(Materials

and Procedures)

3 exercise types:

  • passive ROM: 5 repetitions for each upper and lower extremity joint;

  • physiotherapy: bed mobility, transfer training, and balance training. These exercises included transfer to the edge of the bed; safe transfers to/from bed, chair, or commode; seated balance activities; pre‐gait standing activities (forward and lateral weight shifting, marching in place); and ambulation;

  • progressive resistance exercise: included dorsiflexion, knee flexion and extension, hip flexion, elbow flexion and extension, and shoulder extension. Resistance was added through the use of elastic resistance bands (TheraBand, Hygienic Corporation).

Both the physiotherapy and resistance training targeted lower extremity functional tasks and ADLs. See trial protocol (supplement to article) for more details.

Specific equipment not reported.

Procedures mentioned include: arm or leg ergometry; passive, active and resisted ROM exercises; bed mobility activities; sitting and standing

balance exercises; transfer training; pre‐gait exercises; ambulation with assistance; electrical muscle stimulation; and Tilt table

Specific equipment was not reported.

Procedures mentioned include:

positioning; manual hyperinflation;

endotracheal suctioning; thoracic expansion exercises; and upper limb exercises

Specific equipment was not reported.

Procedures mentioned included: passive, active‐assisted

and active ROM exercises; bed mobility activities; sitting balance exercises; ADL exercises to promote increased independence with functional tasks; transfer training; pre‐gait exercises; and ambulation

Who provided

Physiotherapist, ICU nurse, and nursing assistant

ICU research physiotherapist

Team of physiotherapists under the guidance of the principal investigator

An occupational therapist and a physical therapist

Where

One medical ICU, Medical Centre, North Carolina, USA

Quaternary‐level general ICU, Australia

Surgical ICU,

Perth, Australia

Two medical ICUs: Chicago, USA and Iowa City, USA

When and how much

3 separate sessions every day of hospitalization for 7 days per week, from enrolment through to hospital discharge

30 min 1‐2 times/day within 48 h of

diagnosis of sepsis until discharge from the ICU

1‐2 interventions during

the first 24 h of mechanical ventilation

Interventions were synchronized with daily interruption of sedation. Each morning within 48‐72 h of intubation until return to previous level of function or discharge from the ICU

Tailoring and progression

The participant's level of consciousness determined whether they were considered suitable to receive the physiotherapy or progressive resistance exercise, as did their ability to complete the exercises. When participants were unconscious, the 3 sessions consisted of passive ROM. As consciousness was gained, physiotherapy and progressive resistance exercise was commenced. Participants did not need to be free of mechanical ventilation to begin any of the exercise sessions

Interventions were tailored, planned, administered and

progressed at the discretion of the physiotherapist, participant acuity of illness and level of co‐operation

Not reported

Progression of interventions depended on participant tolerance and stability.

Modification of

intervention

throughout trial

Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

Fidelity

(strategies to

improve)

Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

Fidelity

(extent)

The mean percentage of study days that participants received therapy was 87.1% (SD 18.4%) for passive ROM; 54.6% (SD 27.2%) for physiotherapy; and 35.7% (SD 23%) for progressive resistive exercise. The median days of delivery of therapy per participant was 8.0 (IQR, 5.0‐14.0) for passive ROM, 5.0 (IQR, 3.0‐8.0) for physiotherapy, and 3.0 (IQR, 1.0‐5.0) for progressive resistance exercise

All participants adhered and remained enrolled for an

average of 11.4 days. No further details.

Not reported

Therapy occurred on 87% of the days on the study for all participants in the intervention group and on 95% of the days on the study for 22/55 (40%) of participants in the control group

*See Hoffmann 2014 for TIDieR criteria

ADLs: activities of daily living; ICU: intensive care unit; ROM: range of motion

Figuras y tablas -
Table 1. Characteristics of each intervention ‐ summarized using TIDieR criteria*
Table 2. Death/Survival

n (%) in intervention group

n (%) in control group

Risk ratio (95% CI)

P value

Reference of studies

ICU mortality

3/26 (12%)

1/24 (4%)

RR 2.77 (0.31 to

24.85)

0.36

Kayambu 2015

ICU mortality

0/101 (0%)

3/109 (2.8%)

RR 0.16 (0.008

to 3.03)

0.22

Patman 2001

Hospital mortality

9/49 (18%)

14/55 (25%)

RR 0.72 (0.34 to

1.52)

0.53

Schweickert 2009

90‐day mortality

8/26 (31%)

2/24 (8%)

RR 3.69 (0.87 to

15.69)

0.08

Kayambu 2015

6‐month hospital‐free

survival

73/150 (48.7%)

67/150 (44.7%)

RR 1.09 (0.86 to

1.39)

0.69

Morris 2016

CI: confidence interval; ICU: intensive care unit; n: number; RR: risk ratio

Figuras y tablas -
Table 2. Death/Survival
Table 3. Functional status measures

Outcome measure

Intervention group

Control group

Effect size (95% CI) where possible

P value

Reference of studies

Return to independent functional status at hospital discharge ‐ n (%) in each group

29/49 (59%)

19/55 (35%)

RR 1.71 (1.11 to 2.64)

0.01

Schweickert 2009

Independent ADL total at ICU discharge ‐ median (IQR)

3 (0‐5)

0 (0‐5)

0.15

Schweickert 2009

Independent ADL total at hospital discharge ‐ median (IQR)

6 (0‐6)

4 (0‐6)

0.06

Schweickert 2009

Acute Care Index of Function (ACIF) at ICU discharge ‐ mean (SD)

61.1 (33.1)

55 (24.4)

MD 6.10 (‐11.85 to 24.05)

0.45

Kayambu 2015

Physical Function ICU Test (PFIT) at ICU discharge ‐ mean (SD)

5.6 (2.1)

5.4 (1.7)

MD 0.20 (‐0.98 to 1.38)

0.61

Kayambu 2015

Short Physical Performance Battery at ICU discharge ‐ mean (SD)

1.6 (3.1)

1.9 (2.8)

MD ‐0.3 (‐1.1 to 0.5)

0.46

Morris 2016

Time from intubation to out of bed (days) ‐ median (IQR)

1.7

(1.1 to 3.0)

6.6

(4.2‐8.3)

< 0.0001

Schweickert 2009

Time from intubation to standing (days) ‐ median (IQR)

3.2

(1.5 to 5.6)

6.0

(4.5‐8.9)

< 0.0001

Schweickert 2009

Time from intubation to marching in place (days) ‐ median (IQR)

3.3

(1.6 to 5.8)

6.2

(4.6‐9.6)

< 0.0001

Schweickert 2009

Time from intubation to transferring to a chair (days) ‐ median (IQR)

3.1

1.8 to 4.5)

6.2

(4.5‐8.4)

< 0.0001

Schweickert 2009

Time from intubation to walking (days) ‐ median (IQR)

3.8

(1.9 to 5.8)

7.3

(4.9‐9.6)

< 0.0001

Schweickert 2009

Barthel Index score at hospital discharge (score 0‐100) ‐ median (IQR)

75 (7.5 to 95)

55 (0‐85)

0.05

Schweickert 2009

Greatest walking distance (metres) at hospital discharge ‐ median (IQR) (metres)

33.4 (0 to 91.4)

0 (0‐30.4)

0.004

Schweickert 2009

ADL: activities of daily living; CI: confidence interval; ICU: intensive care unit; IQR: interquartile range; MD: mean difference; n: number; RR: risk ratio; SD: standard deviation

Figuras y tablas -
Table 3. Functional status measures
Table 4. Length of stay (ICU and hospital)

Outcome measure

Intervention group

Control group

Mean difference
(95% CI) where possible

P value

Reference of studies

Mean (SD) LOS (h) in ICU ‐ mean (SD)

42.7 (42.4)

36.7 (26.8)

6.00 (‐3.58 to 15.58)

0.56

Patman 2001

Median (IQR) LOS (days) in ICU ‐ median (IQR)

12.0 (4‐45)

8.5 (3‐36)

0.43

Kayambu 2015

7.5 (4‐14)

8.0 (4‐13)

0.68

Morris 2016

5.9 (4.5‐13.2)

7.9 (6.1‐12.9)

0.08

Schweickert 2009

Mean (SD) LOS (days) in hospital ‐ mean (SD)

9.2 (4.5)

9.6 (6.7)

‐0.40 (‐1.97 to 1.17)

0.25

Patman 2001

Median (IQR) LOS (days)in hospital ‐ median (IQR)

41 (9‐158)

45 (14‐308)

0.80

Kayambu 2015

10.0 (6‐17)

10.0 (7‐16)

0.41

Morris 2016

13.5 (8.0‐23.1)

12.9 (8.9‐19.8)

0.93

Schweickert 2009

CI: confidence interval; ICU: intensive care unit; IQR: interquartile range; LOS: length of stay; SD: standard deviation

Figuras y tablas -
Table 4. Length of stay (ICU and hospital)
Table 5. Muscle strength

Intervention group

Control group

Effect size (95% CI) where possible

P value

Reference of studies

Muscle strength (MRC score, 0‐60) at ICU discharge ‐ mean (SD)

51.9 (10.5)

47.3 (13.6)

MD 4.60 (‐3.11 to 12.31)

0.24

Kayambu 2015

Hand‐grip strength (kg) at ICU discharge ‐ mean (SD)

20.0

20.9

MD ‐0.8 (‐4.0 to 2.3)

0.60

Morris 2016

Muscle strength (MRC score, 0‐60) at hospital discharge ‐ median (IQR)

52 (25‐58)

48 (0‐58)

0.38

Schweickert 2009

Hand‐grip strength (kg) at hospital discharge ‐ median (IQR)

39 (10‐58)

35 (0‐57)

0.67

Schweickert 2009

Hand‐grip strength (kg) at hospital discharge ‐ mean (SD)

22.6 (10.4)

24.3 (16.3)

MD ‐1.7 (‐4.6 to 1.2)

0.25

Morris 2016

ICU‐acquired paresis at hospital discharge ‐ n (%)

15/49 (31%)

27/55 (49%)

RR 0.62 (0.38 to 1.03)

0.09

Schweickert 2009

CI: confidence interval; ICU: intensive care unit; IQR: interquartile range; MD: mean difference; MRC: medical research council; SD: standard deviation

Figuras y tablas -
Table 5. Muscle strength
Table 6. Health‐related quality of life

Outcome measure at 6 months' follow‐up

Mean (SD) of intervention group

Mean (SD) of control group

Mean difference (95% CI)

P value

Reference of studies

SF‐36 physical function

81.8 (22.2)

60.0 (29.4)

21.8 (0.81 to 42.79)

0.04

Kayambu 2015

55.9 (27.3)

43.6 (27.7)

12.2 (3.9 to 20.7)

0.001

Morris 2016

SF‐36 role physical

61.4 (43.8)

17.1 (34.4)

44.3 (14.79 to 73.81)

0.005

Kayambu 2015

SF‐36 bodily pain

70.9 (20.7)

64.7 (22.5)

6.20 (‐10.78 to 23.18)

0.46

Kayambu 2015

SF‐36 general health

50.5 (11.9)

41.8 (11.3)

8.70 (‐0.24 to 17.64)

0.06

Kayambu 2015

SF‐36 vitality

45.9 (12.0)

39.2 (7.7)

6.70 (‐0.22 to 13.62)

0.07

Kayambu 2015

SF‐36 social functioning

71.6 (37.1)

73.7 (37.2)

‐2.10 (‐30.94 to 26.74)

0.88

Kayambu 2015

SF‐36 role emotional

63.6 (40.7)

33.3 (45.8)

30.30 (‐3.88 to 64.48)

0.08

Kayambu 2015

SF‐36 mental health

38.6 (11.5)

37.3 (7.4)

1.30 (‐5.75 to 8.35)

0.71

Kayambu 2015

48.8

46.4

2.4 (‐1.2 to 6.0)

0.19

Morris 2016

CI: confidence interval; SD: standard deviation; SF‐36: Short Form 36

Figuras y tablas -
Table 6. Health‐related quality of life
Table 7. Delirium

Intervention group

Control group

P value

Reference of studies

ICU (days) with delirium ‐ median (IQR)

2.0 (0.0‐6.0)

4.0 (2.0‐7.0)

0.03

Schweickert 2009

0 (0 ‐12.5)

0 (0‐9.1)

0.71

Morris 2016

Hospital (days) with delirium ‐ median (IQR)

2.0 (0.0‐6.0)

4.0 (2.0‐8.0)

0.02

Schweickert 2009

ICU: intensive care unit; IQR: interquartile range

Figuras y tablas -
Table 7. Delirium
Table 8. Other outcomes not specified in this review

Intervention group

Control group

Mean difference (95% CI) where possible

P value

Reference of studies

Duration (h) of mechanical ventilation ‐ mean (SD)

13 (4.8)

12.7 (4.7)

0.20 (‐1.1 to 1.65)

0.85

Patman 2001

Duration (days) of mechanical ventilation ‐ median (IQR)

8.0 (4‐64)

7.0 (2‐30)

0.22

Kayambu 2015

3.4 (2.3‐7.3)

6.1 (4.0‐9.6)

0.02

Schweickert 2009

Abbreviations: CI: confidence interval. IQR: interquartile range. SD: standard deviation.

Figuras y tablas -
Table 8. Other outcomes not specified in this review