Hemodynamic impact of early mobilization in critical patients receiving vasoactive drugs: A prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Vasoactive drugs are one of the most common patient-related barriers to early mobilization. Little is known about the hemodynamic effects of early mobilization on patients receiving vasoactive drugs. This study aims to observe and describe the impact of mobilization on the vital signs of critical patients receiving vasoactive drugs as well as the occurrence of adverse events. METHODS: This is a cohort study performed in an Intensive Care Unit with patients receiving vasoactive drugs. All patients, either mobilized or non-mobilized, had their clinical data such as vital signs [heart rate, respiratory rate, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, mean arterial pressure, and oxygen saturation], type and dosage of the vasoactive drug, and respiratory support collected at rest. For mobilized patients, the vital signs were also collected after mobilization, and so was the highest level of mobility achieved and the occurrence of adverse events. The criteria involved in the decision of mobilizing the patients were registered. RESULTS: 53 patients were included in this study and 222 physiotherapy sessions were monitored. In most of the sessions (n = 150, 67.6%), patients were mobilized despite the use of vasoactive drugs. There was a statistically significant increase in heart rate and respiratory rate after mobilization when compared to rest (p<0.05). Only two (1.3%) out of 150 mobilizations presented an adverse event. Most of the time, non-mobilizations were justified by the existence of a clinical contraindication (n = 61, 84.7%). CONCLUSIONS: The alterations observed in the vital signs of mobilized patients may have reflected physiological adjustments of patients' cardiovascular and respiratory systems to the increase in physical demand imposed by the early mobilization. The adverse events were rare, not serious, and reversed through actions such as a minimal increase of the vasoactive drug dosage.

Functional Recovery Groups in Critically Ill COVID-19 Patients and Their Associated Factors: From ICU to Hospital Discharge.

OBJECTIVES: To analyze functional recovery groups of critically ill COVID-19 survivors during their hospital stay and to identify the associated factors. DESIGN: Prospective observational multicenter study. SETTING: Demographic, clinical, and therapeutic variables were collected, and physical and functional status were evaluated. The Barthel index was evaluated at three time points: 15 days before hospitalization, at ICU discharge, and at hospital discharge from the ward. PATIENTS: Patients with functional independence before COVID-19 diagnosis were recruited from four hospitals and followed up until hospital discharge. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Three groups of functional recovery were described for 328 patients: functional independence ( n = 144; 44%), which included patients who preserved their functional status during hospitalization; recovered functionality ( n = 109; 33.2%), which included patients who showed dependence at ICU discharge but recovered their independence by hospital discharge; and functional dependency ( n = 75; 22.8%), which included patients who were dependent at ICU discharge and had not recovered their functional status at hospital discharge. The factors associated with becoming functionally dependent at ICU discharge were time to out-of-bed patient mobilization (odds ratio [OR], 1.20; 95% CI, 1.11-1.29), age (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.01-1.04), hyperglycemia (OR, 2.52; 95% CI, 1.56-4.07), and Simplified Acute Physiology Score (OR, 1.022; 95% CI, 1.01-1.04). Recovery to baseline independence during ward stays was associated with ICU length of stay (OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.94-0.99) and muscle strength (Medical Research Council test) at ICU discharge (OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.08-1.18). CONCLUSIONS: Age, hyperglycemia, and time for patient mobilization out of bed were independent factors associated with becoming physically dependent after their ICU stay. Recovery of physical function at hospital discharge was associated with muscle strength at ICU discharge and length of ICU stay.

Effects of Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation During Hemodialysis on Peripheral Muscle Strength and Exercise Capacity: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of neuromuscular electrical stimulation of high and low frequency and intensity, performed during hemodialysis, on physical function and inflammation markers in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). DESIGN: Randomized clinical trial. SETTING: Hemodialysis clinic. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with CKD (N=51) were randomized into blocks of 4 using opaque sealed envelopes. They were divided into a group of high frequency and intensity neuromuscular electrical stimulation and a group of low frequency and intensity neuromuscular electrical stimulation. INTERVENTIONS: The high frequency and intensity neuromuscular electrical stimulation group was submitted to neuromuscular electrical stimulation at a frequency of 50Hz and a medium intensity of 72.90mA, and the low frequency and intensity neuromuscular electrical stimulation group used a frequency of 5Hz and a medium intensity of 13.85mA, 3 times per week for 1 hour, during 12 sessions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Peripheral muscle strength, exercise capacity, levels of muscle trophism marker (insulin growth factor 1) and levels of proinflammatory (tumor necrosis factor α) and anti-inflammatory (interleukin 10) cytokines. RESULTS: The high frequency and intensity neuromuscular electrical stimulation group showed a significant increase in right peripheral muscle strength (155.35±65.32Nm initial vs 161.60±68.73Nm final; P=.01) and left peripheral muscle strength (156.60±66.51Nm initial vs 164.10±69.76Nm final; P=.02) after the training, which did not occur in the low frequency and intensity neuromuscular electrical stimulation group for both right muscle strength (109.40±32.08Nm initial vs 112.65±38.44Nm final; P=.50) and left muscle strength (113.65±37.79Nm initial vs 116.15±43.01Nm final; P=.61). The 6-minute walk test distance (6MWTD) increased in both groups: high frequency and intensity neuromuscular electrical stimulation group (435.55±95.81m initial vs 457.25±90.64m final; P=.02) and low frequency and intensity neuromuscular electrical stimulation group (403.80±90.56m initial vs 428.90±87.42m final; P=.007). The groups did not differ in peripheral muscle strength and 6MWTD after the training protocol. In the high frequency and intensity neuromuscular electrical stimulation group, a correlation was observed between the initial and final values of 6MWTD and muscle strength. In the low frequency and intensity neuromuscular electrical stimulation group, correlations occurred only between the 6MWTD and the initial muscle strength. Only the low frequency and intensity neuromuscular electrical stimulation group increased levels of insulin growth factor 1 (252.38±156.35pg/mL initial vs 336.97±207.34pg/mL final; P=.03), and only the high frequency and intensity neuromuscular electrical stimulation group reduced levels of interleukin 10 (7.26±1.81pg/mL vs 6.32±1.54pg/mL; P=.03). The groups showed no differences in tumor necrosis factor α levels. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with CKD on hemodialysis improve exercise capacity after peripheral neuromuscular electrical stimulation of high and low frequency and intensity. However, the benefits on muscle and inflammatory outcomes seem to be specific for the adopted electrical stimulation strategy.