Rita N. Bakhru

Standardized Rehabilitation and Hospital Length of Stay Among Patients With Acute Respiratory Failure: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE Physical rehabilitation in the intensive care unit (ICU) may improve the outcomes of patients with acute respiratory failure. OBJECTIVE To compare standardized rehabilitation therapy (SRT) to usual ICU care in acute respiratory failure. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Single-center, randomized clinical trial at Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center, North Carolina. Adult patients (mean age, 58 years; women, 55%) admitted to the ICU with acute respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation were randomized to SRT (n=150) or usual care (n=150) from October 2009 through May 2014 with 6-month follow-up. INTERVENTIONS Patients in the SRT group received daily therapy until hospital discharge, consisting of passive range of motion, physical therapy, and progressive resistance exercise. The usual care group received weekday physical therapy when ordered by the clinical team. For the SRT group, the median (interquartile range [IQR]) days of delivery of therapy were 8.0 (5.0-14.0) for passive range of motion, 5.0 (3.0-8.0) for physical therapy, and 3.0 (1.0-5.0) for progressive resistance exercise. The median days of delivery of physical therapy for the usual care group was 1.0 (IQR, 0.0-8.0). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Both groups underwent assessor-blinded testing at ICU and hospital discharge and at 2, 4, and 6 months. The primary outcome was hospital length of stay (LOS). Secondary outcomes were ventilator days, ICU days, Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) score, 36-item Short-Form Health Surveys (SF-36) for physical and mental health and physical function scale score, Functional Performance Inventory (FPI) score, Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score, and handgrip and handheld dynamometer strength. RESULTS Among 300 randomized patients, the median hospital LOS was 10 days (IQR, 6 to 17) for the SRT group and 10 days (IQR, 7 to 16) for the usual care group (median difference, 0 [95% CI, -1.5 to 3], P = .41). There was no difference in duration of ventilation or ICU care. There was no effect at 6 months for handgrip (difference, 2.0 kg [95% CI, -1.3 to 5.4], P = .23) and handheld dynamometer strength (difference, 0.4 lb [95% CI, -2.9 to 3.7], P = .82), SF-36 physical health score (difference, 3.4 [95% CI, -0.02 to 7.0], P = .05), SF-36 mental health score (difference, 2.4 [95% CI, -1.2 to 6.0], P = .19), or MMSE score (difference, 0.6 [95% CI, -0.2 to 1.4], P = .17). There were higher scores at 6 months in the SRT group for the SPPB score (difference, 1.1 [95% CI, 0.04 to 2.1, P = .04), SF-36 physical function scale score (difference, 12.2 [95% CI, 3.8 to 20.7], P = .001), and the FPI score (difference, 0.2 [95% CI, 0.04 to 0.4], P = .02). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among patients hospitalized with acute respiratory failure, SRT compared with usual care did not decrease hospital LOS. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00976833.

An Environmental Scan for Early Mobilization Practices in U.S. ICUs.

Objective: Early mobilization improves patient outcomes. However, diffusion of this intervention into standard ICU practice is unknown. Dissemination and implementation efforts may be guided by an environmental scan to detail readiness for early mobilization, current practice, and barriers to early mobilization. Design: A telephone survey. Setting: U.S. ICUs. Subjects: Five hundred randomly selected U.S. ICUs stratified by regional hospital density and hospital size. Interventions: None. Measurements and Main Results: We surveyed 687 ICUs for a 73% response rate (500 ICUs); 99% of respondents were nursing leadership. Fifty-one percent of hospitals reported an academic affiliation. Surveyed ICUs were most often mixed medical/surgical (58%) or medical (22%) with a median of 16 beds (12–24). Thirty-four percent reported presence of a dedicated physical and/or occupational therapy team for the ICU. Overall, 45% of ICUs reported early mobilization practice; two thirds of ICUs with early mobilization practice reported using a written early mobilization protocol. In ICUs with early mobilization practice, 52% began the intervention at admission and 74% enacted early mobilization for both ventilated and nonventilated patients. Early mobilization was provided a median of 6 days per week, twice daily. Factors independently associated with early mobilization protocols include dedicated physical/occupational therapy (odds ratio, 3.34; 95% CI, 2.13–5.22; p < 0.01), American Hospital Association region 2 (odds ratio, 3.33; 95% CI, 1.04–10.64; p = 0.04), written sedation protocol (odds ratio, 2.36; 95% CI, 1.25–4.45; p < 0.01), daily multidisciplinary rounds (odds ratio, 2.31; 95% CI, 1.29–4.15; p < 0.01), and written daily goals for patients (odds ratio, 2.17; 95% CI, 1.02–4.64; p = 0.04). Commonly cited barriers included equipment, staffing, patient and caregiver safety, and competing priorities. In ICUs without early mobilization adoption, 78% have considered implementation but cite barriers including competing priorities and need for further planning. Conclusions: Diffusion regarding benefits of early mobilization has occurred, but adoption into practice is lagging. Mandates for multidisciplinary rounds and formal sedation protocols may be necessary strategies to increase the likelihood of successful early mobilization implementation. Methods to accurately assess and compare institutional performance via practice audit are needed.

Reply: Are No, or Late, Mobility Practices Taken in Intensive Care Units without an Early Mobility Protocol?

2016;13:1527–1537. 2 Schweickert WD, Pohlman MC, Pohlman AS, Nigos C, Pawlik AJ, Esbrook CL, Spears L, Miller M, Franczyk M, Deprizio D, et al. Early physical and occupational therapy in mechanically ventilated, critically ill patients: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2009;373:1874–1882. 3 Bakhru RN, Wiebe DJ, McWilliams DJ, Spuhler VJ, Schweickert WD. An environmental scan for early mobilization practices in U.S. ICUs. Crit Care Med 2015;43:2360–2369.