Early mobilisation in critically ill COVID-19 patients: a subanalysis of the ESICM-initiated UNITE-COVID observational study.

BACKGROUND: Early mobilisation (EM) is an intervention that may improve the outcome of critically ill patients. There is limited data on EM in COVID-19 patients and its use during the first pandemic wave. METHODS: This is a pre-planned subanalysis of the ESICM UNITE-COVID, an international multicenter observational study involving critically ill COVID-19 patients in the ICU between February 15th and May 15th, 2020. We analysed variables associated with the initiation of EM (within 72 h of ICU admission) and explored the impact of EM on mortality, ICU and hospital length of stay, as well as discharge location. Statistical analyses were done using (generalised) linear mixed-effect models and ANOVAs. RESULTS: Mobilisation data from 4190 patients from 280 ICUs in 45 countries were analysed. 1114 (26.6%) of these patients received mobilisation within 72 h after ICU admission; 3076 (73.4%) did not. In our analysis of factors associated with EM, mechanical ventilation at admission (OR 0.29; 95% CI 0.25, 0.35; p = 0.001), higher age (OR 0.99; 95% CI 0.98, 1.00; p ≤ 0.001), pre-existing asthma (OR 0.84; 95% CI 0.73, 0.98; p = 0.028), and pre-existing kidney disease (OR 0.84; 95% CI 0.71, 0.99; p = 0.036) were negatively associated with the initiation of EM. EM was associated with a higher chance of being discharged home (OR 1.31; 95% CI 1.08, 1.58; p = 0.007) but was not associated with length of stay in ICU (adj. difference 0.91 days; 95% CI - 0.47, 1.37, p = 0.34) and hospital (adj. difference 1.4 days; 95% CI - 0.62, 2.35, p = 0.24) or mortality (OR 0.88; 95% CI 0.7, 1.09, p = 0.24) when adjusted for covariates. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate that a quarter of COVID-19 patients received EM. There was no association found between EM in COVID-19 patients' ICU and hospital length of stay or mortality. However, EM in COVID-19 patients was associated with increased odds of being discharged home rather than to a care facility. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04836065 (retrospectively registered April 8th 2021).

Mobilisation practices during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: A retrospective analysis (MobiCOVID).

BACKGROUND: Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients display risk factors for intensive care unit acquired weakness (ICUAW). The pandemic increased existing barriers to mobilisation. This study aimed to compare mobilisation practices in COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study was conducted at Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany, including adult patients admitted to one of 16 ICUs between March 2018, and November 2021. The effect of COVID-19 on mobilisation level and frequency, early mobilisation (EM) and time to active sitting position (ASP) was analysed. Subgroup analysis on COVID-19 patients and the ICU type influencing mobilisation practices was performed. Mobilisation entries were converted into the ICU mobility scale (IMS) using supervised machine learning. The groups were matched using 1:1 propensity score matching. RESULTS: A total of 12,462 patients were included, receiving 59,415 mobilisations. After matching 611 COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients were analysed. They displayed no significant difference in mobilisation frequency (0.4 vs. 0.3, p = 0.7), maximum IMS (3 vs. 3; p = 0.17), EM (43.2% vs. 37.8%; p = 0.06) or time to ASP (HR 0.95; 95% CI: 0.82, 1.09; p = 0.44). Subgroup analysis showed that patients in surge ICUs, i.e., temporarily created ICUs for COVID-19 patients during the pandemic, more commonly received EM (53.9% vs. 39.8%; p = 0.03) and reached higher maximum IMS (4 vs. 3; p = 0.03) without difference in mobilisation frequency (0.5 vs. 0.3; p = 0.32) or time to ASP (HR 1.15; 95% CI: 0.85, 1.56; p = 0.36). CONCLUSION: COVID-19 did not hinder mobilisation. Those treated in surge ICUs were more likely to receive EM and reached higher mobilisation levels.

Clustering of critically ill patients using an individualized learning approach enables dose optimization of mobilization in the ICU.

BACKGROUND: While early mobilization is commonly implemented in intensive care unit treatment guidelines to improve functional outcome, the characterization of the optimal individual dosage (frequency, level or duration) remains unclear. The aim of this study was to demonstrate that artificial intelligence-based clustering of a large ICU cohort can provide individualized mobilization recommendations that have a positive impact on the likelihood of being discharged home. METHODS: This study is an analysis of a prospective observational database of two interdisciplinary intensive care units in Munich, Germany. Dosage of mobilization is determined by sessions per day, mean duration, early mobilization as well as average and maximum level achieved. A k-means cluster analysis was conducted including collected parameters at ICU admission to generate clinically definable clusters. RESULTS: Between April 2017 and May 2019, 948 patients were included. Four different clusters were identified, comprising "Young Trauma," "Severely ill & Frail," "Old non-frail" and "Middle-aged" patients. Early mobilization (< 72 h) was the most important factor to be discharged home in "Young Trauma" patients (ORadj 10.0 [2.8 to 44.0], p < 0.001). In the cluster of "Middle-aged" patients, the likelihood to be discharged home increased with each mobilization level, to a maximum 24-fold increased likelihood for ambulating (ORadj 24.0 [7.4 to 86.1], p < 0.001). The likelihood increased significantly when standing or ambulating was achieved in the older, non-frail cluster (ORadj 4.7 [1.2 to 23.2], p = 0.035 and ORadj 8.1 [1.8 to 45.8], p = 0.010). CONCLUSIONS: An artificial intelligence-based learning approach was able to divide a heterogeneous critical care cohort into four clusters, which differed significantly in their clinical characteristics and in their mobilization parameters. Depending on the cluster, different mobilization strategies supported the likelihood of being discharged home enabling an individualized and resource-optimized mobilization approach. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials NCT03666286, retrospectively registered 04 September 2018.

Mobilisation of critically ill patients receiving norepinephrine: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Mobilisation and exercise intervention in general are safe and feasible in critically ill patients. For patients requiring catecholamines, however, doses of norepinephrine safe for mobilisation in the intensive care unit (ICU) are not defined. This study aimed to describe mobilisation practice in our hospital and identify doses of norepinephrine that allowed a safe mobilisation. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective single-centre cohort study of 16 ICUs at a university hospital in Germany with patients admitted between March 2018 and November 2021. Data were collected from our patient data management system. We analysed the effect of norepinephrine on level (ICU Mobility Scale) and frequency (units per day) of mobilisation, early mobilisation (within 72 h of ICU admission), mortality, and rate of adverse events. Data were extracted from free-text mobilisation entries using supervised machine learning (support vector machine). Statistical analyses were done using (generalised) linear (mixed-effect) models, as well as chi-square tests and ANOVAs. RESULTS: A total of 12,462 patients were analysed in this study. They received a total of 59,415 mobilisation units. Of these patients, 842 (6.8%) received mobilisation under continuous norepinephrine administration. Norepinephrine administration was negatively associated with the frequency of mobilisation (adjusted difference -0.07 mobilisations per day; 95% CI - 0.09, - 0.05; p ≤ 0.001) and early mobilisation (adjusted OR 0.83; 95% CI 0.76, 0.90; p ≤ 0.001), while a higher norepinephrine dose corresponded to a lower chance to be mobilised out-of-bed (adjusted OR 0.01; 95% CI 0.00, 0.04; p ≤ 0.001). Mobilisation with norepinephrine did not significantly affect mortality (p > 0.1). Higher compared to lower doses of norepinephrine did not lead to a significant increase in adverse events in our practice (p > 0.1). We identified that mobilisation was safe with up to 0.20 µg/kg/min norepinephrine for out-of-bed (IMS ≥ 2) and 0.33 µg/kg/min for in-bed (IMS 0-1) mobilisation. CONCLUSIONS: Mobilisation with norepinephrine can be done safely when considering the status of the patient and safety guidelines. We demonstrated that safe mobilisation was possible with norepinephrine doses up to 0.20 µg/kg/min for out-of-bed (IMS ≥ 2) and 0.33 µg/kg/min for in-bed (IMS 0-1) mobilisation.