Suppr超能文献

康复干预对危重症患者临床结局的影响:系统评价和随机对照试验的荟萃分析。

Effects of Rehabilitation Interventions on Clinical Outcomes in Critically Ill Patients: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

机构信息

Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Charles University, 3 Faculty of Medicine and FNKV University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic.

William Harvey Research Institute, Barts and The London School of Medicine & Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom.

出版信息

Crit Care Med. 2020 Jul;48(7):1055-1065. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000004382.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

To assess the impact of rehabilitation in ICU on clinical outcomes.

DATA SOURCES

Secondary data analysis of randomized controlled trials published between 1998 and October 2019 was performed in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.

STUDY SELECTION

We have selected trials investigating neuromuscular electrical stimulation or cycling exercises or protocolized physical rehabilitation as compared to standard of care in critically ill adults.

DATA EXTRACTION

Mortality, length of stay in ICU and at hospital, days on mechanical ventilator, and adverse events.

DATA SYNTHESIS

We found 43 randomized controlled trials (nine on cycling, 14 on neuromuscular electrical stimulation alone and 20 on protocolized physical rehabilitation) into which 3,548 patients were randomized and none of whom experienced an intervention-related serious adverse event. The exercise interventions had no influence on mortality (odds ratio 0.94 [0.79-1.12], n = 38 randomized controlled trials) but reduced duration of mechanical ventilation (mean difference, -1.7 d [-2.5 to -0.8 d], n = 32, length of stay in ICU (-1.2 d [-2.5 to 0.0 d], n = 32) but not at hospital (-1.6 [-4.3 to 1.2 d], n = 23). The effects on the length of mechanical ventilation and ICU stay were only significant for the protocolized physical rehabilitation subgroup and enhanced in patients with longer ICU stay and lower Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores. There was no benefit of early start of the intervention. It is likely that the dose of rehabilitation delivered was much lower than dictated by the protocol in many randomized controlled trials and negative results may reflect the failure to implement the intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

Rehabilitation interventions in critically ill patients do not influence mortality and are safe. Protocolized physical rehabilitation significantly shortens time spent on mechanical ventilation and in ICU, but this does not consistently translate into long-term functional benefit. Stable patients with lower Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II at admission (<20) and prone to protracted ICU stay may benefit most from rehabilitation interventions.

摘要

目的

评估 ICU 康复对临床结局的影响。

资料来源

根据系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目指南,对 1998 年至 2019 年 10 月期间发表的随机对照试验进行了二次数据分析。

研究选择

我们选择了比较重症成人标准治疗的神经肌肉电刺激或自行车运动或规范化物理康复的试验。

数据提取

死亡率、 ICU 和医院住院时间、机械通气时间和不良事件。

数据综合

我们发现了 43 项随机对照试验(9 项关于自行车运动,14 项关于单独神经肌肉电刺激,20 项关于规范化物理康复),共有 3548 名患者随机分组,没有一人发生与干预相关的严重不良事件。运动干预对死亡率没有影响(比值比 0.94 [0.79-1.12],n = 38 项随机对照试验),但缩短了机械通气时间(平均差,-1.7 天[-2.5 至-0.8 天],n = 32 ,ICU 住院时间(-1.2 天[-2.5 至 0.0 天],n = 32),但不在医院(-1.6 [-4.3 至 1.2 天],n = 23)。对机械通气和 ICU 住院时间的影响仅在规范化物理康复亚组中显著,并且在 ICU 住院时间较长和急性生理学和慢性健康评估 II 评分较低的患者中增强。早期开始干预没有益处。在许多随机对照试验中,提供的康复剂量可能远低于方案规定,负面结果可能反映了干预措施的实施失败。

结论

危重症患者的康复干预措施不影响死亡率且安全。规范化物理康复可显著缩短机械通气和 ICU 住院时间,但这并不总是转化为长期功能获益。入院时急性生理学和慢性健康评估 II 评分较低(<20)且易于 ICU 住院时间延长的稳定患者可能最受益于康复干预措施。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验