Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery of Great Britain and Ireland (AUGIS)/Perioperative Quality Initiative (POQI) consensus statement on intraoperative and postoperative interventions to reduce pulmonary complications after oesophagectomy.

BACKGROUND: Pulmonary complications are the most common morbidity after oesophagectomy, contributing to mortality and prolonged postoperative recovery, and have a negative impact on health-related quality of life. A variety of single or bundled interventions in the perioperative setting have been developed to reduce the incidence of pulmonary complications. Significant variation in practice exists across the UK. The aim of this modified Delphi consensus was to deliver clear evidence-based consensus recommendations regarding intraoperative and postoperative care that may reduce pulmonary complications after oesophagectomy. METHODS: With input from a multidisciplinary group of 23 experts in the perioperative management of patients undergoing surgery for oesophageal cancer, a modified Delphi method was employed. Following an initial systematic review of relevant literature, a range of anaesthetic, surgical, and postoperative care interventions were identified. These were then discussed during a two-part virtual conference. Recommendation statements were drafted, refined, and agreed by all attendees. The level of evidence supporting each statement was considered. RESULTS: Consensus was reached on 12 statements on topics including operative approach, pyloric drainage strategies, intraoperative fluid and ventilation strategies, perioperative analgesia, postoperative feeding plans, and physiotherapy interventions. Seven additional questions concerning the perioperative management of patients undergoing oesophagectomy were highlighted to guide future research. CONCLUSION: Clear consensus recommendations regarding intraoperative and postoperative interventions that may reduce pulmonary complications after oesophagectomy are presented.

Quality improvement project to improve adherence to lung protective ventilation guidelines.

INTRODUCTION: Lung protective ventilation (LPV) is advocated for all patients requiring mechanical ventilation (MV), for any duration of time, to prevent worsening lung injury. Previous studies proved simple interventions can increase awareness of LPV and disease pathophysiology as well as improve adherence to LPV guidelines. OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of a multi-component LPV quality improvement project (QIP) on adherence to LPV guidelines. METHODS: Tidal volume data for all patients requiring MV at a large, tertiary UK critical care unit were collected retrospectively over 3, 6 months, Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles between September 2019 and August 2022. These cycles included the sequential implementation of LPV reports, bedside whiteboards and targeted education led by a multispecialty working group. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Adherence against predetermined targets of <5% of MV hours spent at >10 mL/kg predicted body weight (PBW) and >75% of MV hours spent <8 mL/kg PBW for all patients requiring MV. RESULTS: 408 949 hours (17 040 days) of MV data were analysed. Improved LPV adherence was demonstrated throughout the QIP. During mandated MV, time spent >10 mL/kg PBW reduced from 7.65% of MV hours to 4.04% and time spent <8 mL/kg PBW improved from 68.86% of MV hours to 71.87% following the QIP. During spontaneous MV, adherence improved with a reduction in time spent >10 mL/kg PBW from baseline to completion (13.2% vs 6.75%) with increased time spent <8 mL/kg PBW (62.74% vs 72.25%). Despite demonstrating improvements in adherence, we were unable to achieve success in all our predetermined targets. CONCLUSION: This multicomponent intervention including the use of LPV reports, bedside whiteboards and education improves adherence to LPV guidelines. More robust data analysis of reasons for non-adherence to our predetermined targets is required to guide future interventions that may allow further improvement in adherence to LPV guidelines.

Comparing rehabilitation outcomes for patients admitted to the intensive care unit with COVID-19 requiring mechanical ventilation during the first two waves of the pandemic: A service evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: To compare rehabilitation outcomes of patients admitted to the intensive care unit with COVID-19 and mechanically ventilated during wave 1 and 2, receiving two different models of physiotherapy delivery. METHODS: Adults admitted to the intensive care unit between October-March 2021 (wave 2) with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 and mechanically ventilated for >24 hours were included. During wave 2, rehabilitation was provided by physiotherapists over five days, with only emergency respiratory physiotherapy delivered at weekends. Rehabilitation status was measured daily using the Manchester Mobility Score to identify time taken to first mobilise and highest level of mobility achieved at ICU discharge. Outcomes were compared to data previously published from the same ICU during 'wave 1' (March-April 2020) when a seven-day rehabilitation physiotherapy service was provided. RESULTS: A total of n = 291 patients were included in analysis; 110 from wave 1, and 181 from wave 2. Patient characteristics and medical management were similar between waves. Mean ± SD time to first mobilise was slower in wave 2 (15 ± 11 days vs 14 ± 7 days), with overall mobility scores lower at both ICU (MMS 5 (Step transferring) vs MMS 4 (standing practice) (4), p < 0.05) and hospital (MMS 7 (Mobile > 30 m MMS) vs MMS 6 (Mobile < 30 m MMS), p < 0.0001) discharge. Significantly more patients in wave 2 required ongoing rehabilitation either at home or as an inpatient compared to wave 1 (81 % vs 49 %, p = 0.003). CONCLUSION: The change in physiotherapy staff provision from a seven-day rehabilitation service during wave 1 to a five day rehabilitation service with emergency respiratory physio only at weekends in wave 2 was associated with delayed time to first mobilise, lower levels of mobility at both intensive care unit and hospital discharge and higher requirement for ongoing rehabilitation at the point of hospital discharge.

Virtual Post-Intensive-Care Rehabilitation for Survivors of COVID-19: A Service Evaluation.

AIM: The objective of this study is to evaluate the safety, utilisation, and effectiveness of a novel, virtual rehabilitation programme for survivors of SARS­CoV­2 infection (COVID-19) and intensive care admission. METHODS: A service evaluation was performed. Adults admitted to a United Kingdom intensive care unit with COVID-19-induced respiratory failure and surviving hospital discharge were invited to an eight-week rehabilitation programme. The programme consisted of virtually delivered exercise classes and support groups led by critical care physiotherapists and follow-up nurses. RESULTS: Thirty-eight of 76 eligible patients (50%) agreed to participate, of which 28 (74%) completed the rehabilitation programme. On completion of the rehabilitation programme, there were significant improvements in exercise capacity (one-minute sit-to-stand test; 20 stands vs. 25 stands, p < 0.001), perceived breathlessness (Medical Research Council dyspnoea scale; 3 vs. 2 p < 0.001), shoulder disability (Quick Dash; 43 vs. 19 p = 0.001), anxiety (Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale; 4 vs. 3 p = 0.021), depression (Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale; 4 vs. 2.5 p = 0.010), and psychological distress (Intensive Care Psychological Assessment Tool; 3 vs. 2 p = 0.002). No adverse events or injuries were recorded during the programme. CONCLUSION: It is feasible to recruit and retain survivors of COVID-19-induced respiratory failure for virtual post-intensive-care rehabilitation. It appears that the virtual rehabilitation programme is safe and improves physical and psychological morbidity.

Rehabilitation Levels in Patients with COVID-19 Admitted to Intensive Care Requiring Invasive Ventilation. An Observational Study.

Rationale: Patients with severe coronavirus disease (COVID-19) have complex organ support needs that necessitate prolonged stays in the intensive care unit (ICU), likely to result in a high incidence of neuromuscular weakness and loss of well-being. Early and structured rehabilitation has been associated with improved outcomes for patients requiring prolonged periods of mechanical ventilation, but at present no data are available to describe similar interventions or outcomes in COVID-19 populations.Objectives: To describe the demographics, clinical status, level of rehabilitation, and mobility status at ICU discharge of patients with COVID-19.Methods: Adults admitted to the ICU with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 and mechanically ventilated for >24 hours were included. Rehabilitation status was measured daily using the Manchester Mobility Score to identify the time taken to first mobilize (defined as sitting on the edge of the bed or higher) and highest level of mobility achieved at ICU discharge.Results: A total of n = 177 patients were identified, of whom n = 110 survived to ICU discharge and were included in the subsequent analysis. While on ICU, patients required prolonged periods of mechanical ventilation (mean 19 ± 10 d), most received neuromuscular blockade (90%) and 67% were placed in the prone position on at least one occasion. The mean ± standard deviation time to first mobilize was 14 ± 7 days, with a median Manchester Mobility Score at ICU discharge of 5 (interquartile range: 4-6), which represents participants able to stand and step around to a chair with or without assistance. Time to mobilize was significantly longer in those with higher body mass index (P < 0.001), and older patients (P = 0.012) and those with more comorbidities (P = 0.017) were more likely to require further rehabilitation after discharge.Conclusions: The early experience of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom resembles the experience in other countries, with high acuity of illness and prolonged period of mechanical ventilation required for those patients admitted to the ICU. Although the time to commence rehabilitation was delayed owing to this severity of illness, rehabilitation was possible within the ICU and led to increased levels of mobility from waking before ICU discharge.Clinical trial registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04396197).

Critical appraisal on the impact of preoperative rehabilitation and outcomes after major abdominal and cardiothoracic surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: There has been increasing interest in the prehabilitation of patients undergoing major abdominal surgery to improve perioperative outcomes. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate and compare the current literature on prehabilitation in major abdominal surgery and cardiothoracic surgery METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted for studies reporting prehabilitation in patients undergoing major abdominal and cardiothoracic surgery. Meta-analysis of postoperative outcomes (overall and major complications, pulmonary and cardiac complications, postoperative pneumonia, and length of hospital stay) was performed using random effects models. RESULTS: Five thousand nine hundred and twenty-one patients underwent prehabilitation in 61 studies, of which 35 studies (n = 3,402) were in major abdominal surgery and 26 studies were in cardiothoracic surgery (n = 2,519). Only 45 studies compared the impact of prehabilitation versus no prehabilitation on postoperative outcomes (abdominal, n = 26; cardiothoracic, n = 19). Quality of evidence for prehabilitation in major abdominal and cardiothoracic surgery appear equivalent. Patients receiving prehabilitation for major abdominal surgery have significantly lower rates of overall (n = 10, odds ratio: 0.61, confidence interval 95%: 0.43-0.86, P = .005), pulmonary (n = 15, odds ratio: 0.41, confidence interval 95%: 0.25-0.67, P < .001), and cardiac complications (n = 4, odds ratio: 0.46, confidence interval 95%: 0.22-0.96, P = .044). Sensitivity analysis including randomized controlled trials only did not alter the findings of this study. CONCLUSION: Prehabilitation has the potential to improve surgical outcomes in patients undergoing major abdominal and cardiothoracic surgery. However, current evidence from randomized studies remains weak owing to variation in prehabilitation regimes, limiting the assessment of current postoperative outcomes.

Enhancing rehabilitation of mechanically ventilated patients in the intensive care unit: a quality improvement project.

PURPOSE: Prolonged periods of mechanical ventilation are associated with significant physical and psychosocial adverse effects. Despite increasing evidence supporting early rehabilitation strategies, uptake and delivery of such interventions in Europe have been variable. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of an early and enhanced rehabilitation program for mechanically ventilated patients in a large tertiary referral, mixed-population intensive care unit (ICU). METHOD: A new supportive rehabilitation team was created within the ICU in April 2012, with a focus on promoting early and enhanced rehabilitation for patients at high risk for prolonged ICU and hospital stays. Baseline data on all patients invasively ventilated for at least 5 days in the previous 12 months (n = 290) were compared with all patients ventilated for at least 5 days in the 12 months after the introduction of the rehabilitation team (n = 292). The main outcome measures were mobility level at ICU discharge (assessed via the Manchester Mobility Score), mean ICU, and post-ICU length of stay (LOS), ventilator days, and in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: The introduction of the ICU rehabilitation team was associated with a significant increase in mobility at ICU discharge, and this was associated with a significant reduction in ICU LOS (16.9 vs 14.4 days, P = .007), ventilator days (11.7 vs 9.3 days, P < .05), total hospital LOS (35.3 vs 30.1 days, P < .001), and in-hospital mortality (39% vs 28%, P < .05). CONCLUSION: A quality improvement strategy to promote early and enhanced rehabilitation within this European ICU improved levels of mobility at critical care discharge, and this was associated with reduced ICU and hospital LOS and reduced days of mechanical ventilation.