Effects of early, combined endurance and resistance training in mechanically ventilated, critically ill patients: A randomised controlled trial

Neuromuscular weakness resulting in severe functional impairment is common in critical care survivors. This study aimed to evaluate effects of an early progressive rehabilitation intervention in mechanically ventilated adults at risk. This was a parallel, two-arm, assessor-blinded, randomised contro...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:PloS one 2018-11, Vol.13 (11), p.e0207428-e0207428
Hauptverfasser: Eggmann, Sabrina, Verra, Martin L, Luder, Gere, Takala, Jukka, Jakob, Stephan M
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Neuromuscular weakness resulting in severe functional impairment is common in critical care survivors. This study aimed to evaluate effects of an early progressive rehabilitation intervention in mechanically ventilated adults at risk. This was a parallel, two-arm, assessor-blinded, randomised controlled trial with 6-months follow-up that was conducted in a mixed ICU of an academic centre in Switzerland. Previously independent, mechanically ventilated, critically ill adults with expected critical care stay ≥72 hours (n = 115) were randomised to a control group receiving standard physiotherapy including early mobilisation or to an experimental group with early endurance and resistance training combined with mobilisation. Primary endpoints were functional capacity (6-Minute Walk Distance) and functional independence (Functional Independence Measure) at hospital discharge. Secondary endpoints including muscle strength were assessed at critical care discharge. Safety was monitored closely by standard monitoring and predefined adverse events. Physiotherapy started within 48 hours of critical care admission while 97% of participants were still ventilated and 68% on inotropes. Compared to the control group (n = 57), the experimental group (n = 58) received significantly more physiotherapy (sessions: 407 vs 377, p
ISSN:1932-6203
1932-6203
DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0207428