Physical therapy and nutrition therapy: synergistic, antagonistic, or independent interventions?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Physical therapy and nutrition therapy have predominantly been studied separately in the critically ill, however in clinical practice are often delivered in combination. It is important to understand how these interventions interact. This review will summarize the current science - where they are potentially synergistic, antagonistic, or independent interventions. RECENT FINDINGS: Only six studies were identified within the ICU setting that combined physical therapy and nutrition therapy. The majority of these were randomized controlled trials with modest sample sizes. There was an indication of benefit in the preservation of femoral muscle mass and short-term physical quality of life - particularly with high-protein delivery and resistance exercise, in patients who were predominantly mechanically ventilated patients, with an ICU length of stay of approximately 4-7 days (varied across studies). Although these benefits did not extend to other outcomes such as reduced length of ventilation, ICU or hospital admission. No recent trials were identified that combined physical therapy and nutrition therapy in post-ICU settings and is an area that warrants investigation. SUMMARY: The combination of physical therapy and nutrition therapy might be synergistic when evaluated within the ICU setting. However, more careful work is required to understand the physiological challenges in the delivery of these interventions. Combining these interventions in post-ICU settings is currently under-investigated, but may be important to understand any potential benefits to patient longitudinal recovery.

Functional electrical stimulation with cycling in the critically ill: a pilot case-matched control study.

PURPOSE: The purpose was to determine (a) safety and feasibility of functional electrical stimulation (FES)-cycling and (b) compare FES-cycling to case-matched controls in terms of functional recovery and delirium outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixteen adult intensive care unit patients with sepsis ventilated for more than 48 hours and in the intensive care unit for at least 4 days were included. Eight subjects underwent FES-cycling in addition to usual care and were compared to 8 case-matched control individuals. Primary outcomes were safety and feasibility of FES-cycling. Secondary outcomes were Physical Function in Intensive Care Test scored on awakening, time to reach functional milestones, and incidence and duration of delirium. RESULTS: One minor adverse event was recorded. Sixty-nine out of total possible 95 FES sessions (73%) were completed. A visible or palpable contraction was present 80% of the time. There was an improvement in Physical Function in Intensive Care Test score of 3.9/10 points in the intervention cohort with faster recovery of functional milestones. There was also a shorter duration of delirium in the intervention cohort. CONCLUSIONS: The delivery of FES-cycling is both safe and feasible. The preliminary findings suggest that FES-cycling may improve function and reduce delirium. Further research is required to confirm the findings of this study and evaluate the efficacy of FES-cycling.

Electrical muscle stimulation in the intensive care setting: a systematic review.

CONTEXT: The role of electrical muscle stimulation in intensive care has not previously been systematically reviewed. OBJECTIVES: To identify, evaluate, and synthesize the evidence examining the effectiveness and the safety of electrical muscle stimulation in the intensive care, and the optimal intervention variables. DATA SOURCES: A systematic review of articles using eight electronic databases (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane Library, Excerpta Medica Database, Expanded Academic ASAP, MEDLINE, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, PubMed, and Scopus) personal files were searched, and cross-referencing was undertaken. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Quantitative studies published in English, assessing electrical muscle stimulation in intensive care, were included. DATA EXTRACTION AND DATA SYNTHESIS: One reviewer extracted data using a standardized form, which were cross-checked by a second reviewer. Quality appraisal was undertaken by two independent reviewers using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database and Newcastle-Ottawa scales, and the National Health and Medical Research Council Hierarchy of Evidence Scale. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews guidelines were followed. RESULTS: Nine studies on six individual patient groups of 136 participants were included. Eight were randomized controlled trials, with four studies reporting on the same cohort of participants. Electrical muscle stimulation appears to preserve muscle mass and strength in long-stay participants and in those with less acuity. No such benefits were observed when commenced prior to 7 days or in patients with high acuity. One adverse event was reported. Optimal training variables and safety of the intervention require further investigation. CONCLUSIONS: Electrical muscle stimulation is a promising intervention; however, there is conflicting evidence for its effectiveness when administered acutely. Outcomes measured are heterogeneous with small sample sizes.

Clinical review: early patient mobilization in the ICU.

Early mobilization (EM) of ICU patients is a physiologically logical intervention to attenuate critical illness-associated muscle weakness. However, its long-term value remains controversial. We performed a detailed analytical review of the literature using multiple relevant key terms in order to provide a comprehensive assessment of current knowledge on EM in critically ill patients. We found that the term EM remains undefined and encompasses a range of heterogeneous interventions that have been used alone or in combination. Nonetheless, several studies suggest that different forms of EM may be both safe and feasible in ICU patients, including those receiving mechanical ventilation. Unfortunately, these studies of EM are mostly single center in design, have limited external validity and have highly variable control treatments. In addition, new technology to facilitate EM such as cycle ergometry, transcutaneous electrical muscle stimulation and video therapy are increasingly being used to achieve such EM despite limited evidence of efficacy. We conclude that although preliminary low-level evidence suggests that EM in the ICU is safe, feasible and may yield clinical benefits, EM is also labor-intensive and requires appropriate staffing models and equipment. More research is thus required to identify current standard practice, optimal EM techniques and appropriate outcome measures before EM can be introduced into the routine care of critically ill patients.

Safety and feasibility of an exercise intervention for patients following lung resection: a pilot randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: Following surgical lung resection, patients frequently suffer functional decline and reduced activity levels. Despite this exercise interventions are not routinely provided. This study aimed to establish the safety and feasibility of exercise administered following lung resection in an Australian setting. METHOD: Pilot randomized controlled trial. Fifteen individuals (53% male), mean ± standard deviation age 65.5 ± 16.1 years, undergoing surgery for suspected lung cancer. Randomization occurred postoperatively. Control arm received protocolized inpatient respiratory physiotherapy. Intervention arm additionally received twice daily exercise until discharge home and twice weekly as outpatient for 8 weeks. Outcome measures (safety, feasibility, functional capacity, functional mobility, and health-related quality of life [HRQoL]) were assessed preoperatively and 2 and 12 weeks postoperatively. RESULTS: Fifteen participants (lung cancer n = 10) were assigned to control (n = 8) and intervention (n = 7) groups. Inpatient exercise was delivered on 71% of occasions (35 out of 49 planned sessions). Four participants attended outpatient exercise sessions and these participants attended sessions on 81% of occasions (52 out of 64 planned sessions). No adverse events occurred. There was a significant between group difference in 6-Minute Walk Test (6MWT; P = .024). In both groups the 6MWT declined from baseline to 2 weeks postoperative and then improved up to 12 weeks; improvements were greater in the intervention group. Intervention was associated with positive trends of improvement in some HRQoL domains. CONCLUSIONS: Exercise intervention performed in the inpatient and outpatient settings for individuals following lung resection was safe and feasible. The uptake rate for outpatient exercise was 57%, similar to previous trials; however, adherence was excellent within the subgroup of participants who attended. Further research is required to investigate the best setting of exercise delivery and explore ways to improve the uptake rate.