Connolly Bronwen, Salisbury Lisa, O'Neill Brenda, Geneen Louise, Douiri Abdel, Grocott Michael P W, Hart Nicholas, Walsh Timothy S, Blackwood Bronagh
Lane Fox Clinical Respiratory Physiology Research Unit, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Jun 22;2015(6):CD008632. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008632.pub2.
Skeletal muscle wasting and weakness are significant complications of critical illness, associated with degree of illness severity and periods of reduced mobility during mechanical ventilation. They contribute to the profound physical and functional deficits observed in survivors. These impairments may persist for many years following discharge from the intensive care unit (ICU) and can markedly influence health-related quality of life. Rehabilitation is a key strategy in the recovery of patients after critical illness. Exercise-based interventions are aimed at targeting this muscle wasting and weakness. Physical rehabilitation delivered during ICU admission has been systematically evaluated and shown to be beneficial. However, its effectiveness when initiated after ICU discharge has yet to be established.
To assess the effectiveness of exercise rehabilitation programmes, initiated after ICU discharge, for functional exercise capacity and health-related quality of life in adult ICU survivors who have been mechanically ventilated longer than 24 hours.
We searched the following databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid SP MEDLINE, Ovid SP EMBASE and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) via EBSCO host to 15 May 2014. We used a specific search strategy for each database. This included synonyms for ICU and critical illness, exercise training and rehabilitation. We searched the reference lists of included studies and contacted primary authors to obtain further information regarding potentially eligible studies. We also searched major clinical trials registries (Clinical Trials and Current Controlled Trials) and the personal libraries of the review authors. We applied no language or publication restriction. We reran the search in February 2015 and will deal with the three studies of interest when we update the review.
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) that compared an exercise intervention initiated after ICU discharge versus any other intervention or a control or 'usual care' programme in adult (≥ 18 years) survivors of critical illness.
We used standard methodological procedures as expected by the Cochrane Collaboration.
We included six trials (483 adult ICU participants). Exercise-based interventions were delivered on the ward in two studies; both on the ward and in the community in one study; and in the community in three studies. The duration of the intervention varied according to length of hospital stay following ICU discharge (up to a fixed duration of 12 weeks).Risk of bias was variable for all domains across all trials. High risk of bias was evident in all studies for performance bias, although blinding of participants and personnel in therapeutic rehabilitation trials can be pragmatically challenging. For other domains, at least half of the studies were at low risk of bias. One study was at high risk of selection bias, attrition bias and other sources of bias. Risk of bias was unclear for the remaining studies across domains. We decided not to undertake a meta-analysis because of variation in study design, types of interventions and outcome measurements. We present a narrative description of individual studies for each outcome.All six studies assessed functional exercise capacity, although we noted wide variability in the nature of interventions, outcome measures and associated metrics and data reporting. Overall quality of the evidence was very low. Individually, three studies reported positive results in favour of the intervention. One study found a small short-term benefit in anaerobic threshold (mean difference (MD) 1.8 mL O2/kg/min, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.4 to 3.2; P value = 0.02). In a second study, both incremental (MD 4.7, 95% CI 1.69 to 7.75 watts; P value = 0.003) and endurance (MD 4.12, 95% CI 0.68 to 7.56 minutes; P value = 0.021) exercise testing results were improved with intervention. Finally self reported physical function increased significantly following use of a rehabilitation manual (P value = 0.006). Remaining studies found no effect of the intervention.Similar variability was evident with regard to findings for the primary outcome of health-related quality of life. Only two studies evaluated this outcome. Individually, neither study reported differences between intervention and control groups for health-related quality of life due to the intervention. Overall quality of the evidence was very low.Four studies reported rates of withdrawal, which ranged from 0% to 26.5% in control groups, and from 8.2% to 27.6% in intervention groups. The quality of evidence for the effect of the intervention on withdrawal was low. Very low-quality evidence showed rates of adherence with the intervention. Mortality ranging from 0% to 18.8% was reported by all studies. The quality of evidence for the effect of the intervention on mortality was low. Loss to follow-up, as reported in all studies, ranged from 0% to 14% in control groups, and from 0% to 12.5% in intervention groups, with low quality of evidence. Only one non-mortality adverse event was reported across all participants in all studies (a minor musculoskeletal injury), and the quality of the evidence was low.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: At this time, we are unable to determine an overall effect on functional exercise capacity, or on health-related quality of life, of an exercise-based intervention initiated after ICU discharge for survivors of critical illness. Meta-analysis of findings was not appropriate because the number of studies and the quantity of data were insufficient. Individual study findings were inconsistent. Some studies reported a beneficial effect of the intervention on functional exercise capacity, and others did not. No effect on health-related quality of life was reported. Methodological rigour was lacking across several domains, influencing the quality of the evidence. Wide variability was noted in the characteristics of interventions, outcome measures and associated metrics and data reporting.If further trials are identified, we may be able to determine the effects of exercise-based intervention following ICU discharge on functional exercise capacity and health-related quality of life among survivors of critical illness.
骨骼肌萎缩和无力是危重症的重要并发症,与疾病严重程度以及机械通气期间活动减少的时长相关。它们导致了幸存者出现严重的身体和功能缺陷。这些损伤在重症监护病房(ICU)出院后的许多年里可能持续存在,并会显著影响健康相关生活质量。康复是危重症患者康复过程中的关键策略。基于运动的干预旨在针对这种肌肉萎缩和无力。在ICU住院期间进行的身体康复已得到系统评估,并显示出有益效果。然而,在ICU出院后开始进行康复的有效性尚未得到证实。
评估在ICU出院后启动的运动康复计划对机械通气超过24小时的成年ICU幸存者的功能运动能力和健康相关生活质量的有效性。
我们检索了以下数据库:截至2014年5月15日通过EBSCO主机检索Cochrane对照试验中央注册库(CENTRAL)、Ovid SP MEDLINE、Ovid SP EMBASE以及护理和联合健康文献累积索引(CINAHL)。我们对每个数据库使用了特定的检索策略。这包括ICU和危重症、运动训练和康复的同义词。我们检索了纳入研究的参考文献列表,并联系了第一作者以获取有关潜在合格研究的更多信息。我们还检索了主要临床试验注册库(Clinical Trials和Current Controlled Trials)以及综述作者的个人图书馆。我们未设置语言或出版限制。我们在2015年2月重新进行了检索,并将在更新综述时处理三项相关研究。
我们纳入了随机对照试验(RCT)、半随机对照试验和对照临床试验(CCT),这些试验比较了ICU出院后启动的运动干预与任何其他干预措施或对照或“常规护理”方案,对象为成年(≥18岁)危重症幸存者。
我们采用了Cochrane协作网预期的标准方法程序。
我们纳入了六项试验(483名成年ICU参与者)。两项研究在病房进行基于运动的干预;一项研究在病房和社区均进行干预;三项研究在社区进行干预。干预持续时间根据ICU出院后的住院时长而有所不同(最长为固定的12周)。所有试验中所有领域的偏倚风险各不相同。在所有研究中,表现偏倚的高风险均很明显,尽管在治疗性康复试验中对参与者和工作人员进行盲法操作实际具有挑战性。对于其他领域,至少一半的研究偏倚风险较低。一项研究在选择偏倚、失访偏倚和其他偏倚来源方面存在高风险。其余研究在各领域的偏倚风险尚不清楚。由于研究设计、干预类型和结局测量存在差异,我们决定不进行荟萃分析。我们对每个结局对各项研究进行了叙述性描述。所有六项研究均评估了功能运动能力,尽管我们注意到干预性质、结局测量以及相关指标和数据报告存在很大差异。证据的总体质量非常低。个别而言,三项研究报告了支持干预的阳性结果。一项研究发现无氧阈值有小的短期益处(平均差(MD)1.8 mL O2/kg/min,95%置信区间(CI)0.4至3.2;P值 = 0.02)。在第二项研究中,干预后递增运动(MD 4.7,95%CI 1.69至7.75瓦;P值 = 0.003)和耐力运动(MD 4.12,95%CI 0.68至7.56分钟;P值 = 0.021)测试结果均得到改善。最后,使用康复手册后自我报告的身体功能显著提高(P值 = 0.006)。其余研究未发现干预有效果。关于健康相关生活质量这一主要结局的研究结果也存在类似的变异性。只有两项研究评估了这一结局。个别而言,两项研究均未报告因干预导致干预组和对照组在健康相关生活质量方面存在差异。证据的总体质量非常低。四项研究报告了退出率,对照组为0%至26.5%,干预组为8.2%至27.6%。关于干预对退出率影响的证据质量较低。极低质量的证据显示了干预的依从率。所有研究报告的死亡率为0%至18.8%。关于干预对死亡率影响的证据质量较低。所有研究报告的失访率,对照组为0%至14%,干预组为0%至12.5%,证据质量较低。在所有研究的所有参与者中仅报告了一例非死亡不良事件(轻微肌肉骨骼损伤),证据质量较低。
目前,我们无法确定ICU出院后启动的基于运动的干预对危重症幸存者的功能运动能力或健康相关生活质量的总体影响。由于研究数量和数据量不足,对研究结果进行荟萃分析并不合适。个别研究结果不一致。一些研究报告了干预对功能运动能力有有益效果,而其他研究则未发现。未报告对健康相关生活质量有影响。多个领域缺乏方法学严谨性,影响了证据质量。在干预特征、结局测量以及相关指标和数据报告方面存在很大差异。如果确定了进一步的试验,我们或许能够确定ICU出院后基于运动的干预对危重症幸存者的功能运动能力和健康相关生活质量的影响。