Impact of High Dose Early Mobilization on Outcomes for Patients with Diabetes: A Secondary Analysis of the TEAM Trial.

RATIONALE: Patients with diabetes represent almost 20% of all ICU admissions and might respond differently to high dose early active mobilization. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether diabetes modified the relationship between the dose of early mobilization on clinical outcomes in the TEAM trial. METHODS: All TEAM trial patients were included. The primary outcome was days alive and out of hospital at day 180. Secondary outcomes included 180-day mortality and long-term functional outcomes at day 180. Logistic and median regression models were used to explore the effect of high dose early mobilization on outcomes by diabetes status. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: All 741 patients from the original trial were included. Of these, 159 patients (21.4%) had diabetes. Patients with diabetes had a lower number of days alive and out of hospital at day 180 (124 [0-153] vs. 147 [82-164], p = 0.013), and higher 180-day mortality (30% vs. 18%, p = 0.044). In patients receiving high dose early mobilization, days alive and out of hospital at day 180 was 73.0 (0.0 - 144.5) in patients with diabetes and 146.5 (95.8 - 163.0) in patients without diabetes (p for interaction = 0.108). However, in patients with diabetes, high dose early mobilization increased the odds of mortality at 180 days (adjusted odds ratio 3.47; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.67-7.61, p value for interaction, 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this secondary analysis of the TEAM trial, in patients with diabetes, a high dose early mobilization strategy did not significantly decrease the number of days alive and out of hospital at day 180 but it increased 180-day mortality.

Early Active Mobilization during Mechanical Ventilation in the ICU.

BACKGROUND: Intensive care unit (ICU)-acquired weakness often develops in patients who are undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation. Early active mobilization may mitigate ICU-acquired weakness, increase survival, and reduce disability. METHODS: We randomly assigned 750 adult patients in the ICU who were undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation to receive increased early mobilization (sedation minimization and daily physiotherapy) or usual care (the level of mobilization that was normally provided in each ICU). The primary outcome was the number of days that the patients were alive and out of the hospital at 180 days after randomization. RESULTS: The median number of days that patients were alive and out of the hospital was 143 (interquartile range, 21 to 161) in the early-mobilization group and 145 days (interquartile range, 51 to 164) in the usual-care group (absolute difference, -2.0 days; 95% confidence interval [CI], -10 to 6; P = 0.62). The mean (±SD) daily duration of active mobilization was 20.8±14.6 minutes and 8.8±9.0 minutes in the two groups, respectively (difference, 12.0 minutes per day; 95% CI, 10.4 to 13.6). A total of 77% of the patients in both groups were able to stand by a median interval of 3 days and 5 days, respectively (difference, -2 days; 95% CI, -3.4 to -0.6). By day 180, death had occurred in 22.5% of the patients in the early-mobilization group and in 19.5% of those in the usual-care group (odds ratio, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.65). Among survivors, quality of life, activities of daily living, disability, cognitive function, and psychological function were similar in the two groups. Serious adverse events were reported in 7 patients in the early-mobilization group and in 1 patient in the usual-care group. Adverse events that were potentially due to mobilization (arrhythmias, altered blood pressure, and desaturation) were reported in 34 of 371 patients (9.2%) in the early-mobilization group and in 15 of 370 patients (4.1%) in the usual-care group (P = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Among adults undergoing mechanical ventilation in the ICU, an increase in early active mobilization did not result in a significantly greater number of days that patients were alive and out of the hospital than did the usual level of mobilization in the ICU. The intervention was associated with increased adverse events. (Funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and the Health Research Council of New Zealand; TEAM ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03133377.).

The perceived barriers and facilitators to implementation of early mobilisation within a multicentre, phase 3 randomised controlled trial: A qualitative process evaluation study.

BACKGROUND: Process evaluation within clinical trials provides an assessment of the study implementation's accuracy and quality to explain causal mechanisms and highlight contextual factors associated with variation in outcomes. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to identify the barriers and facilitators of implementing early mobilisation (EM) within a trial. METHODS: This is a qualitative process evaluation study within the Trial of Early Activity and Mobilisation (TEAM) phase 3 randomised controlled trial. Semistructured interviews were conducted remotely with multiprofessional clinicians (physiotherapists, medical staff, and nursing staff) involved in the delivery of the TEAM intervention at Australian hospitals participating in the TEAM study. Inductive coding was used to establish themes which were categorised into the Behaviour system involving domains of Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation (COM-B), which allowed barriers and enablers affecting EM to be identified. FINDINGS: Semistructured interviews were conducted in three different states of Australia. There were 16 participants, including 10 physiotherapists, five physicians, and one nurse. The key themes that facilitated EM were mentoring, champions, additional staff, organisation of the environment, cultural changes, communication, and documented safety criteria. In contrast, the main factors that hindered EM were lack of expertise and confidence in delivering EM, heavy sedation, interdisciplinary conflicts, and perceived risks related to EM. CONCLUSION: A wide range of barriers and facilitators that influenced EM within the TEAM study were identified using the COM-B framework. Many of these have been previously identified in the literature; however, participation in the study was viewed positively by multidisciplinary team members.

The impact of COVID-19 critical illness on new disability, functional outcomes and return to work at 6 months: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: There are few reports of new functional impairment following critical illness from COVID-19. We aimed to describe the incidence of death or new disability, functional impairment and changes in health-related quality of life of patients after COVID-19 critical illness at 6 months. METHODS: In a nationally representative, multicenter, prospective cohort study of COVID-19 critical illness, we determined the prevalence of death or new disability at 6 months, the primary outcome. We measured mortality, new disability and return to work with changes in the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 12L (WHODAS) and health status with the EQ5D-5LTM. RESULTS: Of 274 eligible patients, 212 were enrolled from 30 hospitals. The median age was 61 (51-70) years, and 124 (58.5%) patients were male. At 6 months, 43/160 (26.9%) patients died and 42/108 (38.9%) responding survivors reported new disability. Compared to pre-illness, the WHODAS percentage score worsened (mean difference (MD), 10.40% [95% CI 7.06-13.77]; p < 0.001). Thirteen (11.4%) survivors had not returned to work due to poor health. There was a decrease in the EQ-5D-5LTM utility score (MD, - 0.19 [- 0.28 to - 0.10]; p < 0.001). At 6 months, 82 of 115 (71.3%) patients reported persistent symptoms. The independent predictors of death or new disability were higher severity of illness and increased frailty. CONCLUSIONS: At six months after COVID-19 critical illness, death and new disability was substantial. Over a third of survivors had new disability, which was widespread across all areas of functioning. Clinical trial registration NCT04401254 May 26, 2020.

Protocol and statistical analysis plan for the phase 3 randomised controlled Treatment of Invasively Ventilated Adults with Early Activity and Mobilisation (TEAM III) trial.

Objective: To describe the protocol and statistical analysis plan for the Treatment of Invasively Ventilated Adults with Early Activity and Mobilisation (TEAM III) trial. Design: An international, multicentre, parallel-group, randomised controlled phase 3 trial. Setting: Intensive care units (ICUs) in Australia, New Zealand, Germany, Ireland, the United Kingdom and Brazil. Patients: 750 adult patients expected to receive mechanical ventilation for more than 48 hours. Interventions: Early activity and mobilisation delivered to critically ill patients in an ICU for up to 28 days compared with standard care. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome is the number of days alive and out of hospital at 180 days after randomisation. Secondary outcomes include ICU-free days, ventilator-free days, delirium-free days, all-cause mortality at 28 and 180 days after randomisation, and functional outcome at 180 days after randomisation. Results: Recruitment at 46 research sites passed 576 patients in March 2021. Final collection of all 180-day outcome data for the target of 750 patients is anticipated by May 2022. Conclusions: Consistent with international guidelines, a detailed protocol and prospective analysis plan has been developed for the TEAM III trial. This plan specifies the statistical models for evaluating primary and secondary outcomes, defines covariates for adjusted analyses, and defines methods for exploratory analyses. Application of this protocol and statistical analysis plan to the forthcoming TEAM III trial will facilitate unbiased analyses of the clinical data collected. Trial registration:ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03133377.