Early mobilization of mechanically ventilated patients: a 1-day point-prevalence study in Germany.

OBJECTIVES: There is growing evidence to support early mobilization of adult mechanically ventilated patients in ICUs. However, there is little knowledge regarding early mobilization in routine ICU practice. Hence, the interdisciplinary German ICU Network for Early Mobilization undertook a 1-day point-prevalence survey across Germany. DESIGN: One-day point-prevalence study. SETTING: One hundred sixteen ICUs in Germany in 2011. PATIENTS: All adult mechanically ventilated patients. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: For a 24-hour period, data were abstracted on hospital and ICU characteristics, the level of patient mobilization and associated barriers, and complications occurring during mobilization. One hundred sixteen participating ICUs provided data for 783 patients. Overall, 185 patients (24%) were mobilized out of bed (i.e., sitting on the edge of the bed or higher level of mobilization). Among patients with an endotracheal tube, tracheostomy, and noninvasive ventilation, 8%, 39%, and 53% were mobilized out of bed, respectively (p < 0.001 for difference between three groups). The most common perceived barriers to mobilizing patients out of bed were cardiovascular instability (17%) and deep sedation (15%). Mobilization out of bed versus remaining in bed was not associated with a higher frequency of complications, with no falls or extubations occurring in those mobilized out of bed. CONCLUSIONS: In this 1-day point-prevalence study conducted across Germany, only 24% of all mechanically ventilated patients and only 8% of patients with an endotracheal tube were mobilized out of bed as part of routine care. Addressing modifiable barriers for mobilization, such as deep sedation, will be important to increase mobilization in German ICUs.

Nasal high-flow oxygen therapy in patients with hypoxic respiratory failure: effect on functional and subjective respiratory parameters compared to conventional oxygen therapy and non-invasive ventilation (NIV).

BACKGROUND: Aim of the study was to compare the short-term effects of oxygen therapy via a high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) on functional and subjective respiratory parameters in patients with acute hypoxic respiratory failure in comparison to non-invasive ventilation (NIV) and standard treatment via a Venturi mask. METHODS: Fourteen patients with acute hypoxic respiratory failure were treated with HFNC (FiO2 0.6, gas flow 55 l/min), NIV (FiO2 0.6, PEEP 5 cm H2O Hg, tidal volume 6-8 ml/kg ideal body weight,) and Venturi mask (FiO2 0.6, oxygen flow 15 l/min,) in a randomized order for 30 min each. Data collection included objective respiratory and circulatory parameters as well as a subjective rating of dyspnea and discomfort by the patients on a 10-point scale. In a final interview, all three methods were comparatively evaluated by each patient using a scale from 1 (=very good) to 6 (=failed) and the patients were asked to choose one method for further treatment. RESULTS: PaO2 was highest under NIV (129 ± 38 mmHg) compared to HFNC (101 ± 34 mmHg, p <0.01 vs. NIV) and VM (85 ± 21 mmHg, p <0.001 vs. NIV, p <0.01 vs. HFNC, ANOVA). All other functional parameters showed no relevant differences. In contrast, dyspnea was significantly better using a HFNC (2.9 ± 2.1, 10-point Borg scale) compared to NIV (5.0 ± 3.3, p <0.05), whereas dyspnea rating under HFNC and VM (3.3 ± 2.3) was not significantly different. A similar pattern was found when patients rated their overall discomfort on the 10 point scale: HFNC 2.7 ± 1.8, VM 3.1 ± 2.8 (ns vs. HFNC), NIV 5.4 ± 3.1 (p <0.05 vs. HFNC). In the final evaluation patients gave the best ratings to HFNC 2.3 ± 1.4, followed by VM 3.2 ± 1.7 (ns vs. HFNC) and NIV 4.5 ± 1.7 (p <0.01 vs. HFNC and p <0.05 vs. VM). For further treatment 10 patients chose HFNC, three VM and one NIV. CONCLUSIONS: In hypoxic respiratory failure HFNC offers a good balance between oxygenation and comfort compared to NIV and Venturi mask and seems to be well tolerated by patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: GERMAN CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTER: DRKS00005132.

Barriers and Strategies for Early Mobilization of Patients in Intensive Care Units.

Early mobilization of patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) is safe, feasible, and beneficial. However, implementation of early mobility as part of routine clinical care can be challenging. The objective of this review is to identify barriers to early mobilization and discuss strategies to overcome such barriers. Based on a literature search, we synthesize data from 40 studies reporting 28 unique barriers to early mobility, of which 14 (50%) were patient-related, 5 (18%) structural, 5 (18%) ICU cultural, and 4 (14%) process-related barriers. These barriers varied across ICUs and within disciplines, depending on the ICU patient population, setting, attitude, and ICU culture. To overcome the identified barriers, over 70 strategies were reported and are synthesized in this review, including: implementation of safety guidelines; use of mobility protocols; interprofessional training, education, and rounds; and involvement of physician champions. Systematic efforts to change ICU culture to prioritize early mobilization using an interprofessional approach and multiple targeted strategies are important components of successfully implementing early mobility in clinical practice.