Sottile Peter D, Nordon-Craft Amy, Malone Daniel, Luby Darcie M, Schenkman Margaret, Moss Marc
P.D. Sottile, MD, University of Colorado, Anschutz Medical Campus, Research Building 2, 9th Floor, 12700 E 19th Ave, Aurora, CO 80045 (USA).
A. Nordon-Craft, PT, DSc, School of Medicine, University of Colorado.
Phys Ther. 2015 Jul;95(7):1006-14. doi: 10.2522/ptj.20140112. Epub 2015 Feb 5.
Although studies have established the safety and feasibility of physical therapy in the critical care setting, minimal information about physical therapist practice in the neurological intensive care unit (NICU) is available.
This study describes physical therapists' treatment of people admitted to a NICU.
People admitted to the NICU with a diagnosis of subarachnoid hemorrhage, subdural hematoma, intracranial hemorrhage, or trauma were retrospectively studied.
Data on patient demographics, use of mechanical ventilation, and intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring were collected. For each physical therapy session, the length of the session, the location (NICU or post-NICU setting), and the presence of mechanical ventilation or ICP monitoring were recorded. Data on safety parameters, including vital sign response, falls, and dislodgement of lines, were collected.
Over 1 year, 180 people were admitted to the NICU; 86 were evaluated by a physical therapist, for a total of 293 physical therapy sessions in the NICU (n=132) or post-NICU setting (n=161). Only one session (0.3%) was stopped, secondary to an increase in ICP. The first physical therapy session occurred on NICU day 3.0 (25%-75% interquartile range=2.0-6.0). Patients received a median of 3.4 sessions per week (25%-75% interquartile range=1.8-5.9). Patients with mechanical ventilation received less frequent physical therapy sessions than those without mechanical ventilation. Patients with ICP monitoring received less frequent sessions than those without ICP monitoring. However, after multivariate analysis, only the admission Glasgow Coma Score was independently associated with physical therapy frequency in the NICU. Patients were more likely to stand, transfer, and walk in the post-NICU setting than in the NICU.
The results are limited by the retrospective, single-center nature of the study. There is inherent bias of evaluating only those patients who had physical therapy, and therapists were unable to completely adjust for the severity of illness of a given patient.
Physical therapy was performed safely in the NICU. Patients who required invasive support received less frequent physical therapy.
尽管研究已证实物理治疗在重症监护环境中的安全性和可行性,但关于物理治疗师在神经重症监护病房(NICU)的实践信息却很少。
本研究描述了物理治疗师对入住NICU患者的治疗情况。
对入住NICU且诊断为蛛网膜下腔出血、硬膜下血肿、颅内出血或创伤的患者进行回顾性研究。
收集患者人口统计学数据、机械通气使用情况和颅内压(ICP)监测数据。每次物理治疗时,记录治疗时长、治疗地点(NICU或NICU后环境)以及是否存在机械通气或ICP监测。收集包括生命体征反应、跌倒和管路移位等安全参数的数据。
在1年多的时间里,180人入住NICU;86人接受了物理治疗师的评估,在NICU(n = 132)或NICU后环境(n = 161)共进行了293次物理治疗。仅1次治疗(0.3%)因ICP升高而中止。首次物理治疗在NICU第3.0天进行(四分位间距25%-75% = 2.0 - 6.0)。患者每周接受物理治疗的中位数为3.4次(四分位间距25%-75% = 1.8 - 5.9)。使用机械通气的患者接受物理治疗的频率低于未使用机械通气的患者。接受ICP监测的患者接受物理治疗的频率低于未接受ICP监测的患者。然而,多因素分析后,仅入院时的格拉斯哥昏迷评分与NICU中的物理治疗频率独立相关。与在NICU相比,患者在NICU后环境中更有可能站立、转移和行走。
本研究的回顾性、单中心性质限制了结果。仅评估接受物理治疗的患者存在固有偏差,且治疗师无法完全调整特定患者的疾病严重程度。
在NICU中物理治疗的实施是安全的。需要侵入性支持的患者接受物理治疗的频率较低。