Effects of robotic-assisted early mobilization versus conventional mobilization in intensive care unit patients: prospective interventional cohort study with retrospective control group analysis.

BACKGROUND: Approximately one in three survivors of critical illness suffers from intensive-care-unit-acquired weakness, which increases mortality and impairs quality of life. By counteracting immobilization, a known risk factor, active mobilization may mitigate its negative effects on patients. In this single-center trial, the effect of robotic-assisted early mobilization in the intensive care unit (ICU) on patients' outcomes was investigated. METHODS: We enrolled 16 adults scheduled for lung transplantation to receive 20 min of robotic-assisted mobilization and verticalization twice daily during their first week in the ICU (intervention group: IG). A control group (CG) of 13 conventionally mobilized patients after lung transplantation was recruited retrospectively. Outcome measures included the duration of mechanical ventilation, length of ICU stay, muscle parameters evaluated by ultrasound, and quality of life after three months. RESULTS: During the first week in the ICU, the intervention group received a median of 6 (interquartile range 3-8) robotic-assisted sessions of early mobilization and verticalization. There were no statistically significant differences in the duration of mechanical ventilation (IG: median 126 vs. CG: 78 h), length of ICU stay, muscle parameters evaluated by ultrasound, and quality of life after three months between the IG and CG. CONCLUSION: In this study, robotic-assisted mobilization was successfully implemented in the ICU setting. No significant differences in patients' outcomes were observed between conventional and robotic-assisted mobilization. However, randomized and larger studies are necessary to validate the adequacy of robotic mobilization in other cohorts. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This single-center interventional trial was registered in clinicaltrials.gov as NCT05071248 on 27/08/2021.

Robot-assisted early mobilization for intensive care unit patients: Feasibility and first-time clinical use.

BACKGROUND: Early mobilization is only carried out to a limited extent in the intensive care unit. To address this issue, the robotic assistance system VEMOTION® was developed to facilitate (early) mobilization measures more easily. This paper describes the first integration of robotic assistance systems in acute clinical intensive care units. OBJECTIVE: Feasibility test of robotic assistance in early mobilization of intensive care patients in routine clinical practice. SETTING: Two intensive care units guided by anesthesiology at a German university hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Patients who underwent elective surgery with postoperative treatment in the intensive care unit and had an estimated ventilation time over 48 h. METHODS: Participants underwent robot-assisted mobilization, scheduled for twenty-minute sessions twice a day, ten times or one week, conducted by nursing staff under actual operational conditions on the units. No randomization or blinding took place. We assessed data regarding feasible cutoff points (in brackets): the possibility of enrollment (x ≥ 50 %), duration (pre- and post-setup (x ≤ 25 min), therapy duration (x = 20 min), and intervention-related parameters (number of mobilizing professionals (x ≤ 2), intensity of training, events that led to adverse events, errors or discontinuation). Mobilizing professionals rated each mobilization regarding their physical stress (x ≤ 3) and feasibility (x ≥ 4) on a 7 Point Likert Scale. An estimated sample size of at least twenty patients was calculated. We analyzed the data descriptively. RESULTS: Within 6 months, we screened thirty-two patients for enrollment. 23 patients were included in the study and 16 underwent mobilization using robotic assistance, 7 dropped out (enrollment eligibility = 69 %). On average, 1.9 nurses were involved per therapy unit. Participants received 5.6 robot-assisted mobilizations in mean. Pre- and post-setup had a mean duration of 18 min, therapy a mean of 21 min. The robot-assisted mobilization was started after a median of 18 h after admission to the intensive care unit. We documented two adverse events (pain), twelve errors in handling, and seven unexpected events that led to interruptions or discontinuation. No serious adverse events occurred. The mobilizing nurses rated their physical stress as low (mean 2.0 ±â€¯1.3) and the intervention as feasible (mean 5.3 ±â€¯1.6). CONCLUSIONS: Robot-assisted mobilization was feasible, but specific safety measures should be implemented to prevent errors. Robotic-assisted mobilization requires process adjustments and consideration of unit staffing levels, as the intervention does not save staff resources or time. REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.org TRN: NCT05071248; Date: 2021/10/08; URL https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05071248. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Robot-assisted early mobilization in intensive care patients is feasible and no adverse event occurred.

[Hemoperfusion in anesthesia and intensive care medicine: benefits, risks, and evidence for different systems]. / Hämoperfusion in Anästhesie und Intensivmedizin: Chancen, Risiken und Evidenz verschiedener Systeme.

BACKGROUND: Hemoperfusion is a technique for the extracorporeal elimination of endogenous and exogenous toxins and harmful mediators by adsorption. It can be used as a stand-alone device, as part of a heart-lung machine or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) or, as is currently the case, integrated into a kidney replacement procedure. In the meantime, various suppliers offer devices with different technologies. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this work was to evaluate the benefits, risks and evidence of the different systems, how they work and for which indications they are approved in Germany. METHOD: To achieve this goal, a narrative assessment of the existing literature and guidelines for different indications was performed. The focus was on in vivo studies. RESULTS: In principle, a distinction must be made in adsorption techniques between pure adsorption and the combination as adsorption and kidney replacement therapy. The adsorbers available in Germany include Cytosorb®, HA-330, Seraph®-100 and Toraymyxin. Combined procedures (adsorption and kidney replacement) are offered with coupled plasma filtration and adsorption (CPFA) and oXiris®. Most adsorbers have been developed for cytokine and endotoxin removal in patients with sepsis; however, to date, no randomized controlled trial (RCT) has demonstrated a survival benefit when using hemoperfusion. Therefore, the S3 guidelines for treatment of sepsis and the surviving sepsis campaign guidelines advise against its routine use. When the corona pandemic began, hemoperfusion was considered as a promising therapeutic approach. Cytosorb®, Seraph®-100, and oXiris® received emergency approval by the FDA to be used in critically ill patients with COVID-19, so questions arose about the appropriateness and importance of its use; however, the data generated did not show positive results, so its use cannot be recommended routinely either. In addition, they are not mentioned as a treatment option in the current guidelines. The use of adsorption procedures in patients with liver failure and rhabdomyolysis has only been rudimentarily studied, so any evidence is currently lacking. The only adsorber that has CE approval in Germany for both applications is Cytosorb®. In the next few years, studies will have to follow that investigate the efficacy and thus either justify or refute the use in clinical routine. Hemoperfusion procedures are used in the heart-lung machine as part of cardiac surgery for either cytokine or anticoagulant adsorption. No congruent data are available to support the use for the elimination of cytokines. If emergency cardiac surgery is required in a patient with pre-existing anticoagulation, hemoperfusion procedures can be used to prevent bleeding complications. Cytosorb® has CE approval for this indication. All available techniques are nonselective adsorption processes, so that adsorption of known and unknown substances can occur. Unintentional adsorption of drugs, such as various anti-infective agents is a relevant risk, especially when used in patients with sepsis. DISCUSSION: Various adsorption systems can eliminate different known and unknown substances. Currently, there is a lack of evidence for all indications and systems to justify their routine use except in clinical trials. Future clinical trials should evaluate the potential benefits but also dangers, so that in the meantime the routine use can be justified or a recommendation against the use can be given.

Simultaneous quantification of seven repurposed COVID-19 drugs remdesivir (plus metabolite GS-441524), chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir, ritonavir, favipiravir and azithromycin by a two-dimensional isotope dilution LC-MS/MS method in human serum.

BACKGROUND: The present COVID-19 pandemic has prompted worldwide repurposing of drugs. The aim of the present work was to develop and validate a two-dimensional isotope-dilution liquid chromatrography tandem mass spectrometry (ID-LC-MS/MS) method for accurate quantification of remdesivir and its active metabolite GS-441524, chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir, ritonavir, favipiravir and azithromycin in serum; drugs that have gained attention for repurposing in the treatment of COVID-19. METHODS: Following protein precipitation, samples were separated with a two-dimensional ultra-high performance liquid chromatography (2D-UHPLC) setup, consisting of an online solid phase extraction (SPE) coupled to an analytical column. For quantification, stable isotope-labelled analogues were used as internal standards for all analytes. The method was validated on the basis of the European Medicines Agency bioanalytical method validation protocol. RESULTS: Detuning of lopinavir and ritonavir allowed simultaneous quantification of all analytes with different concentration ranges and sensitivity with a uniform injection volume of 5 µL. The method provided robust validation results with inaccuracy and imprecision values of ≤ 9.59 % and ≤ 11.1 % for all quality controls. CONCLUSION: The presented method is suitable for accurate and simultaneous quantification of remdesivir, its metabolite GS-441525, chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir, ritonavir, favipiravir and azithromycin in human serum. The quantitative assay may be an efficient tool for the therapeutic drug monitoring of these potential drug candidates in COVID-19 patients in order to increase treatment efficacy and safety.

Role of renal function in risk assessment of target non-attainment after standard dosing of meropenem in critically ill patients: a prospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: Severe bacterial infections remain a major challenge in intensive care units because of their high prevalence and mortality. Adequate antibiotic exposure has been associated with clinical success in critically ill patients. The objective of this study was to investigate the target attainment of standard meropenem dosing in a heterogeneous critically ill population, to quantify the impact of the full renal function spectrum on meropenem exposure and target attainment, and ultimately to translate the findings into a tool for practical application. METHODS: A prospective observational single-centre study was performed with critically ill patients with severe infections receiving standard dosing of meropenem. Serial blood samples were drawn over 4 study days to determine meropenem serum concentrations. Renal function was assessed by creatinine clearance according to the Cockcroft and Gault equation (CLCRCG). Variability in meropenem serum concentrations was quantified at the middle and end of each monitored dosing interval. The attainment of two pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic targets (100%T>MIC, 50%T>4×MIC) was evaluated for minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) values of 2 mg/L and 8 mg/L and standard meropenem dosing (1000 mg, 30-minute infusion, every 8 h). Furthermore, we assessed the impact of CLCRCG on meropenem concentrations and target attainment and developed a tool for risk assessment of target non-attainment. RESULTS: Large inter- and intra-patient variability in meropenem concentrations was observed in the critically ill population (n = 48). Attainment of the target 100%T>MIC was merely 48.4% and 20.6%, given MIC values of 2 mg/L and 8 mg/L, respectively, and similar for the target 50%T>4×MIC. A hyperbolic relationship between CLCRCG (25-255 ml/minute) and meropenem serum concentrations at the end of the dosing interval (C8h) was derived. For infections with pathogens of MIC 2 mg/L, mild renal impairment up to augmented renal function was identified as a risk factor for target non-attainment (for MIC 8 mg/L, additionally, moderate renal impairment). CONCLUSIONS: The investigated standard meropenem dosing regimen appeared to result in insufficient meropenem exposure in a considerable fraction of critically ill patients. An easy- and free-to-use tool (the MeroRisk Calculator) for assessing the risk of target non-attainment for a given renal function and MIC value was developed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01793012 . Registered on 24 January 2013.