Effect of a structured early mobilization protocol on the level of mobilization and muscle strength in critical care patients: A randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have evaluated the effects of structured early mobilization (EM) protocols on the level of mobilization in critical care patients. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of a structured EM protocol on the level of mobilization, muscle strength, and the level of activities of daily living (LADL) after intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital discharge. METHODS: This randomized clinical trial (U1111-1245-4840) included adults patients who were randomized into two groups: intervention (n = 40) and control (n = 45). The intervention group underwent conventional physiotherapy and structured EM protocols, and the control group underwent conventional physiotherapy. The level of mobilization from 0 (no mobilization) to 5 (walking), muscle strength (Medical Research Council scale), LADL (Katz Index), and incidence of complications were evaluated. RESULTS: The level of mobilization from day 1 to day 7 increased in the intervention group compared with the control group (p < .05). Muscle strength did not change during the protocol in the intervention and control groups {day 1 [effect size (r) = 0.15, p = .161], at ICU discharge [r = 0.16, p = .145], and after ICU discharge [r = 0.16, p = .191]}. The LADL did not differ between the intervention and control groups after ICU discharge [4 (1-6) vs. 3 (1-5), p = .702] or 30 days after hospital discharge [6 (5-6) vs. 6 (5-6), p = .945]. The structured EM protocol was safe, and no severe complications were observed during the protocol. CONCLUSION: A structured EM protocol increased the level of mobilization without improving muscle strength and the LADL compared with conventional physiotherapy.

Protective mechanical ventilation in patients with risk factors for ARDS: prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association that protective mechanical ventilation (MV), based on VT and maximum distending pressure (MDP), has with mortality in patients at risk for ARDS. METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study conducted in an ICU and including 116 patients on MV who had at least one risk factor for the development of ARDS. Ventilatory parameters were collected twice a day for seven days, and patients were divided into two groups (protective MV and nonprotective MV) based on the MDP (difference between maximum airway pressure and PEEP) or VT. The outcome measures were 28-day mortality, ICU mortality, and in-hospital mortality. The risk factors associated with the adoption of nonprotective MV were also assessed. RESULTS: Nonprotective MV based on VT and MDP was applied in 49 (42.2%) and 38 (32.8%) of the patients, respectively. Multivariate Cox regression showed that protective MV based on MDP was associated with lower in-hospital mortality (hazard ratio = 0.37; 95% CI: 0.19-0.73) and lower ICU mortality (hazard ratio = 0.40; 95% CI: 0.19-0.85), after adjustment for age, Simplified Acute Physiology Score 3, and vasopressor use, as well as the baseline values for PaO2/FiO2 ratio, PEEP, pH, and PaCO2. These associations were not observed when nonprotective MV was based on the VT. CONCLUSIONS: The MDP seems to be a useful tool, better than VT, for adjusting MV in patients at risk for ARDS.

Protective mechanical ventilation in patients with risk factors for ARDS: prospective cohort study / Ventilação mecânica protetora em pacientes com fator de risco para SDRA: estudo de coorte prospectiva

ABSTRACT Objective: To evaluate the association that protective mechanical ventilation (MV), based on VT and maximum distending pressure (MDP), has with mortality in patients at risk for ARDS. Methods: This was a prospective cohort study conducted in an ICU and including 116 patients on MV who had at least one risk factor for the development of ARDS. Ventilatory parameters were collected twice a day for seven days, and patients were divided into two groups (protective MV and nonprotective MV) based on the MDP (difference between maximum airway pressure and PEEP) or VT. The outcome measures were 28-day mortality, ICU mortality, and in-hospital mortality. The risk factors associated with the adoption of nonprotective MV were also assessed. Results: Nonprotective MV based on VT and MDP was applied in 49 (42.2%) and 38 (32.8%) of the patients, respectively. Multivariate Cox regression showed that protective MV based on MDP was associated with lower in-hospital mortality (hazard ratio = 0.37; 95% CI: 0.19-0.73) and lower ICU mortality (hazard ratio = 0.40; 95% CI: 0.19-0.85), after adjustment for age, Simplified Acute Physiology Score 3, and vasopressor use, as well as the baseline values for PaO2/FiO2 ratio, PEEP, pH, and PaCO2. These associations were not observed when nonprotective MV was based on the VT. Conclusions: The MDP seems to be a useful tool, better than VT, for adjusting MV in patients at risk for ARDS.

RESUMO Objetivo: Avaliar a associação da ventilação mecânica (VM) protetora, com base no VT e na pressão de distensão máxima (PDM), com a mortalidade em pacientes com fator de risco para SDRA. Métodos: Este estudo de coorte prospectivo foi conduzido em uma UTI e incluiu 116 pacientes em VM que apresentavam pelo menos um fator de risco para o desenvolvimento de SDRA. Os parâmetros ventilatórios foram coletados duas vezes ao dia durante sete dias, e os pacientes foram divididos em dois grupos (VM protetora e VM não protetora) com base na PDM (diferença entre pressão máxima de vias aéreas e PEEP) ou no VT. Os desfechos foram mortalidade em 28 dias, mortalidade na UTI e mortalidade hospitalar. Os fatores de risco associados com a adoção da VM não protetora também foram avaliados. Resultados: A VM não protetora com base no VT e na PDM ocorreu em 49 (42,2%) e em 38 (32,8%) dos pacientes, respectivamente. A regressão multivariada de Cox mostrou que a VM protetora com base na PDM associou-se a menor mortalidade hospitalar (hazard ratio = 0,37; IC95%: 0,19-0,73) e em UTI (hazard ratio = 0,40; IC95%, 0,19-0,85), após ajuste para idade, Simplified Acute Physiology Score 3, uso de vasopressor e valores basais de PaO2/FiO2, PEEP, pH e PaCO2. Essas associações não foram observadas quando a VM não protetora foi baseada no VT. Conclusões: A PDM parece ser uma ferramenta útil, melhor do que o VT, para o ajuste da VM em pacientes sob risco para SDRA.