Amy J. Pawlik

Early physical and occupational therapy in mechanically ventilated, critically ill patients: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND Long-term complications of critical illness include intensive care unit (ICU)-acquired weakness and neuropsychiatric disease. Immobilisation secondary to sedation might potentiate these problems. We assessed the efficacy of combining daily interruption of sedation with physical and occupational therapy on functional outcomes in patients receiving mechanical ventilation in intensive care. METHODS Sedated adults (>/=18 years of age) in the ICU who had been on mechanical ventilation for less than 72 h, were expected to continue for at least 24 h, and who met criteria for baseline functional independence were eligible for enrolment in this randomised controlled trial at two university hospitals. We randomly assigned 104 patients by computer-generated, permuted block randomisation to early exercise and mobilisation (physical and occupational therapy) during periods of daily interruption of sedation (intervention; n=49) or to daily interruption of sedation with therapy as ordered by the primary care team (control; n=55). The primary endpoint-the number of patients returning to independent functional status at hospital discharge-was defined as the ability to perform six activities of daily living and the ability to walk independently. Therapists who undertook patient assessments were blinded to treatment assignment. Secondary endpoints included duration of delirium and ventilator-free days during the first 28 days of hospital stay. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00322010. FINDINGS All 104 patients were included in the analysis. Return to independent functional status at hospital discharge occurred in 29 (59%) patients in the intervention group compared with 19 (35%) patients in the control group (p=0.02; odds ratio 2.7 [95% CI 1.2-6.1]). Patients in the intervention group had shorter duration of delirium (median 2.0 days, IQR 0.0-6.0 vs 4.0 days, 2.0-8.0; p=0.02), and more ventilator-free days (23.5 days, 7.4-25.6 vs 21.1 days, 0.0-23.8; p=0.05) during the 28-day follow-up period than did controls. There was one serious adverse event in 498 therapy sessions (desaturation less than 80%). Discontinuation of therapy as a result of patient instability occurred in 19 (4%) of all sessions, most commonly for perceived patient-ventilator asynchrony. INTERPRETATION A strategy for whole-body rehabilitation-consisting of interruption of sedation and physical and occupational therapy in the earliest days of critical illness-was safe and well tolerated, and resulted in better functional outcomes at hospital discharge, a shorter duration of delirium, and more ventilator-free days compared with standard care. FUNDING None.

Feasibility of physical and occupational therapy beginning from initiation of mechanical ventilation.

Objective:Physical and occupational therapy are possible immediately after intubation in mechanically ventilated medical intensive care unit patients. The objective of this study was to describe a protocol of daily sedative interruption and early physical and occupational therapy and to specify details of intensive care unit-based therapy, including neurocognitive state, potential barriers, and adverse events related to this intervention. Design and Patients:Detailed descriptive study of the intervention arm of a trial of mechanically ventilated patients receiving early physical and occupational therapy. Setting:Two tertiary care academic medical centers participating in a randomized controlled trial. Intervention:Patients underwent daily sedative interruption followed by physical and occupational therapy every hospital day until achieving independent functional status. Therapy began with active range of motion and progressed to activities of daily living, sitting, standing, and walking as tolerated. Measurements and Main Results:Forty-nine mechanically ventilated patients received early physical and occupational therapy occurring a median of 1.5 days (range, 1.0–2.1 days) after intubation. Therapy was provided on 90% of MICU days during mechanical ventilation. While endotracheally intubated, subjects sat at the edge of the bed in 69% of all physical and occupational therapy sessions, transferred from bed to chair in 33%, stood in 33%, and ambulated during 15% (n = 26 of 168) of all physical and occupational therapy sessions (median distance of 15 feet; range, 15–20 feet). At least one potential barrier to mobilization during mechanical ventilation (acute lung injury, vasoactive medication administration, delirium, renal replacement therapy, or body mass index ≥30 kg/m2) was present in 89% of patient encounters. Therapy was interrupted prematurely in 4% of all sessions, most commonly for patient-ventilator asynchrony and agitation. Conclusion:Early physical and occupational therapy is feasible from the onset of mechanical ventilation despite high illness acuity and presence of life support devices. Adverse events are uncommon, even in this high-risk group.

Liberation From Mechanical Ventilation in Critically Ill Adults: An Official American College of Chest Physicians/American Thoracic Society Clinical Practice Guideline: Inspiratory Pressure Augmentation During Spontaneous Breathing Trials, Protocols Minimizing Sedation, and Noninvasive Ventilation Immediately After Extubation.

Background An update of evidence‐based guidelines concerning liberation from mechanical ventilation is needed as new evidence has become available. The American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) and the American Thoracic Society (ATS) have collaborated to provide recommendations to clinicians concerning liberation from the ventilator. Methods Comprehensive evidence syntheses, including meta‐analyses, were performed to summarize all available evidence relevant to the guideline panel’s questions. The evidence was appraised using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, and the results were summarized in evidence profiles. The evidence syntheses were discussed and recommendations developed and approved by a multidisciplinary committee of experts in mechanical ventilation. Results Recommendations for three population, intervention, comparator, outcome (PICO) questions concerning ventilator liberation are presented in this document. The guideline panel considered the balance of desirable (benefits) and undesirable (burdens, adverse effects, costs) consequences, quality of evidence, feasibility, and acceptability of various interventions with respect to the selected questions. Conditional (weak) recommendations were made to use inspiratory pressure augmentation in the initial spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) and to use protocols to minimize sedation for patients ventilated for more than 24 h. A strong recommendation was made to use preventive noninvasive ventilation (NIV) for high‐risk patients ventilated for more than 24 h immediately after extubation to improve selected outcomes. The recommendations were limited by the quality of the available evidence. Conclusions The guideline panel provided recommendations for inspiratory pressure augmentation during an initial SBT, protocols minimizing sedation, and preventative NIV, in relation to ventilator liberation.

Issues Affecting the Delivery of Physical Therapy Services for Individuals With Critical Illness

Research supports the provision of physical therapy intervention and early mobilization in the management of patients with critical illness. However, the translation of care from that of well-controlled research protocols to routine practice can be challenging and warrants further study. Discussions in the critical care and physical therapy communities, as well as in the published literature, are investigating factors related to early mobilization such as transforming culture in the intensive care unit (ICU), encouraging interprofessional collaboration, coordinating sedation interruption with mobility sessions, and determining the rehabilitation modalities that will most significantly improve patient outcomes. Some variables, however, need to be investigated and addressed specifically by the physical therapy profession. They include assessing and increasing physical therapist competence managing patients with critical illness in both professional (entry-level) education programs and clinical settings, determining and providing an adequate number of physical therapists for a given ICU, evaluating methods of prioritization of patients in the acute care setting, and adding to the body of research to support specific functional outcome measures to be used with patients in the ICU. Additionally, because persistent weakness and functional limitations can exist long after the critical illness itself has resolved, there is a need for increased awareness and involvement of physical therapists in all settings of practice, including outpatient clinics. The purpose of this article is to explore the issues that the physical therapy profession needs to address as the rehabilitation management of the patient with critical illness evolves.

An Official American Thoracic Society/American College of Chest Physicians Clinical Practice Guideline: Liberation from Mechanical Ventilation in Critically Ill Adults. Rehabilitation Protocols, Ventilator Liberation Protocols, and Cuff Leak Tests

Background: Interventions that lead to earlier liberation from mechanical ventilation can improve patient outcomes. This guideline, a collaborative effort between the American Thoracic Society and the American College of Chest Physicians, provides evidence‐based recommendations to optimize liberation from mechanical ventilation in critically ill adults. Methods: Two methodologists performed evidence syntheses to summarize available evidence relevant to key questions about liberation from mechanical ventilation. The methodologists appraised the certainty in the evidence (i.e., the quality of evidence) using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach and summarized the results in evidence profiles. The guideline panel then formulated recommendations after considering the balance of desirable consequences (benefits) versus undesirable consequences (burdens, adverse effects, and costs), the certainty in the evidence, and the feasibility and acceptability of various interventions. Recommendations were rated as strong or conditional. Results: The guideline panel made four conditional recommendations related to rehabilitation protocols, ventilator liberation protocols, and cuff leak tests. The recommendations were for acutely hospitalized adults mechanically ventilated for more than 24 hours to receive protocolized rehabilitation directed toward early mobilization, be managed with a ventilator liberation protocol, be assessed with a cuff leak test if they meet extubation criteria but are deemed high risk for postextubation stridor, and be administered systemic steroids for at least 4 hours before extubation if they fail the cuff leak test. Conclusions: The American Thoracic Society/American College of Chest Physicians recommendations are intended to support healthcare professionals in their decisions related to liberating critically ill adults from mechanical ventilation.

Official executive summary of an American Thoracic Society/American College of Chest Physicians clinical practice guideline: Liberation from mechanical ventilation in critically ill adults

Background: This clinical practice guideline addresses six questions related to liberation from mechanical ventilation in critically ill adults. It is the result of a collaborative effort between the American Thoracic Society and the American College of Chest Physicians. Methods: A multidisciplinary panel posed six clinical questions in a Population, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcomes format. A comprehensive literature search and evidence synthesis was performed for each question, which included appraising the certainty in the evidence (i.e., the quality of evidence) using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. The Evidence‐to‐Decision framework was applied to each question, requiring the panel to evaluate and weigh the importance of the problem, the confidence in the evidence, the certainty about how much the public values the main outcomes, the magnitude and balance of desirable and undesirable outcomes, the resources and costs associated with the intervention, the impact on health disparities, and the acceptability and feasibility of the intervention. Results: Evidence‐based recommendations were formulated and graded initially by subcommittees and then modified after full‐panel discussions. The recommendations were confirmed by confidential electronic voting; approval required that at least 80% of the panel members agree with the recommendation. Conclusions: The panel provides recommendations regarding liberation from mechanical ventilation. The details regarding the evidence and rationale for each recommendation are presented in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine and Chest.

Liberation From Mechanical Ventilation in Critically Ill Adults: Executive Summary of an Official American College of Chest Physicians/American Thoracic Society Clinical Practice Guideline

Background This clinical practice guideline addresses six questions related to liberation from mechanical ventilation in critically ill adults. It is the result of a collaborative effort between the American Thoracic Society (ATS) and the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST). Methods A multidisciplinary panel posed six clinical questions in a population, intervention, comparator, outcomes (PICO) format. A comprehensive literature search and evidence synthesis was performed for each question, which included appraising the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. The Evidence‐to‐Decision framework was applied to each question, requiring the panel to evaluate and weigh the importance of the problem, confidence in the evidence, certainty about how much the public values the main outcomes, magnitude and balance of desirable and undesirable outcomes, resources and costs associated with the intervention, impact on health disparities, and acceptability and feasibility of the intervention. Results Evidence‐based recommendations were formulated and graded initially by subcommittees and then modified following full panel discussions. The recommendations were confirmed by confidential electronic voting; approval required that at least 80% of the panel members agree with the recommendation. Conclusions The panel provides recommendations regarding liberation from mechanical ventilation. The details regarding the evidence and rationale for each recommendation are presented in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine and CHEST.

Early Mobilization in the Management of Critical Illness

Patients undergoing critical illness and mechanical ventilation are at risk of developing neuromuscular and neurocognitive impairments that can impact physical function and quality of life. Mobilizing patients early in the course of critical illness may improve outcomes. Recent literature on early mobilization is reviewed, suggestions for implementation are discussed, and areas for future research are identified.

Evidence-Based MedicineLiberation From Mechanical Ventilation in Critically Ill Adults: Executive Summary of an Official American College of Chest Physicians/American Thoracic Society Clinical Practice Guideline

Background This clinical practice guideline addresses six questions related to liberation from mechanical ventilation in critically ill adults. It is the result of a collaborative effort between the American Thoracic Society (ATS) and the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST). Methods A multidisciplinary panel posed six clinical questions in a population, intervention, comparator, outcomes (PICO) format. A comprehensive literature search and evidence synthesis was performed for each question, which included appraising the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. The Evidence‐to‐Decision framework was applied to each question, requiring the panel to evaluate and weigh the importance of the problem, confidence in the evidence, certainty about how much the public values the main outcomes, magnitude and balance of desirable and undesirable outcomes, resources and costs associated with the intervention, impact on health disparities, and acceptability and feasibility of the intervention. Results Evidence‐based recommendations were formulated and graded initially by subcommittees and then modified following full panel discussions. The recommendations were confirmed by confidential electronic voting; approval required that at least 80% of the panel members agree with the recommendation. Conclusions The panel provides recommendations regarding liberation from mechanical ventilation. The details regarding the evidence and rationale for each recommendation are presented in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine and CHEST.