Department of Physiotherapy, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK.
Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Nov 10;11(11):CD005955. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005955.pub3.
Approximately 30% of hospitalised older adults experience hospital-associated functional decline. Exercise interventions that promote in-hospital activity may prevent deconditioning and thereby maintain physical function during hospitalisation. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2007.
To evaluate the benefits and harms of exercise interventions for acutely hospitalised older medical inpatients on functional ability, quality of life (QoL), participant global assessment of success and adverse events compared to usual care or a sham-control intervention.
We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was May 2021.
We included randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials evaluating an in-hospital exercise intervention in people aged 65 years or older admitted to hospital with a general medical condition. We excluded people admitted for elective reasons or surgery.
We used standard Cochrane methods. Our major outcomes were 1. independence with activities of daily living; 2. functional mobility; 3. new incidence of delirium during hospitalisation; 4. QoL; 5. number of falls during hospitalisation; 6. medical deterioration during hospitalisation and 7. participant global assessment of success. Our minor outcomes were 8. death during hospitalisation; 9. musculoskeletal injuries during hospitalisation; 10. hospital length of stay; 11. new institutionalisation at hospital discharge; 12. hospital readmission and 13. walking performance. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each major outcome. We categorised exercise interventions as: rehabilitation-related activities (interventions designed to increase physical activity or functional recovery, but did not follow a specified exercise protocol); structured exercise (interventions that included an exercise intervention protocol but did not include progressive resistance training); and progressive resistance exercise (interventions that included an element of progressive resistance training).
We included 24 studies (nine rehabilitation-related activity interventions, six structured exercise interventions and nine progressive resistance exercise interventions) with 7511 participants. All studies compared exercise interventions to usual care; two studies, in addition to usual care, used sham interventions. Mean ages ranged from 73 to 88 years, and 58% of participants were women. Several studies were at high risk of bias. The most common domain assessed at high risk of bias was measurement of the outcome, and five studies (21%) were at high risk of bias arising from the randomisation process. Exercise may have no clinically important effect on independence in activities of daily living at discharge from hospital compared to controls (16 studies, 5174 participants; low-certainty evidence). Five studies used the Barthel Index (scale: 0 to 100, higher scores representing greater independence). Mean scores at discharge in the control groups ranged from 42 to 96 points, and independence in activities of daily living was 1.8 points better (0.43 worse to 4.12 better) with exercise compared to controls. The minimally clinical important difference (MCID) is estimated to be 11 points. We are uncertain regarding the effect of exercise on functional mobility at discharge from the hospital compared to controls (8 studies, 2369 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Three studies used the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) (scale: 0 to 12, higher scores representing better function) to measure functional mobility. Mean scores at discharge in the control groups ranged from 3.7 to 4.9 points on the SPPB, and the estimated effect of the exercise interventions was 0.78 points better (0.02 worse to 1.57 better). A change of 1 point on the SPPB represents an MCID. We are uncertain regarding the effect of exercise on the incidence of delirium during hospitalisation compared to controls (7 trials, 2088 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The incidence of delirium during hospitalisation was 88/1091 (81 per 1000) in the control group compared with 70/997 (73 per 1000; range 47 to 114) in the exercise group (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.41). Exercise interventions may result in a small clinically unimportant improvement in QoL at discharge from the hospital compared to controls (4 studies, 875 participants; low-certainty evidence). Mean QoL on the EuroQol 5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) visual analogue scale (VAS) (scale: 0 to 100, higher scores representing better QoL) ranged between 48.9 and 64.7 in the control group at discharge from the hospital, and QoL was 6.04 points better (0.9 better to 11.18 better) with exercise. A change of 10 points on the EQ-5D VAS represents an MCID. No studies measured participant global assessment of success. Exercise interventions did not affect the risk of falls during hospitalisation (moderate-certainty evidence). The incidence of falls was 31/899 (34 per 1000) in the control group compared with 31/888 (34 per 1000; range 20 to 57) in the exercise group (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.65). We are uncertain regarding the effect of exercise on the incidence of medical deterioration during hospitalisation (very low-certainty evidence). The incidence of medical deterioration in the control group was 101/1417 (71 per 1000) compared with 96/1313 (73 per 1000; range 44 to 120) in the exercise group (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.68). Subgroup analyses by different intervention categories and by the use of a sham intervention were not meaningfully different from the main analyses.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Exercise may make little difference to independence in activities of daily living or QoL, but probably does not result in more falls in older medical inpatients. We are uncertain about the effect of exercise on functional mobility, incidence of delirium and medical deterioration. Certainty of evidence was limited by risk of bias and inconsistency. Future primary research on the effect of exercise on acute hospitalisation could focus on more consistent and uniform reporting of participant's characteristics including their baseline level of functional ability, as well as exercise dose, intensity and adherence that may provide an insight into the reasons for the observed inconsistencies in findings.
约 30%的住院老年人经历与医院相关的功能下降。促进住院期间活动的运动干预可能会防止失健,从而维持住院期间的身体功能。这是 2007 年首次发表的 Cochrane 综述的更新。
评估针对急性住院老年内科患者的运动干预对功能能力、生活质量 (QoL)、参与者对成功的全球评估和不良事件的益处和危害,与常规护理或假对照干预相比。
我们使用了标准的、广泛的 Cochrane 检索方法。最新检索日期为 2021 年 5 月。
我们纳入了评估住院期间运动干预的随机或准随机对照试验,纳入对象为年龄在 65 岁及以上、因一般医疗条件住院的患者。我们排除了因择期原因或手术入院的患者。
我们使用了标准的 Cochrane 方法。我们的主要结局是:1. 日常生活活动的独立性;2. 功能移动性;3. 住院期间新发谵妄;4. QoL;5. 住院期间跌倒次数;6. 住院期间病情恶化;7. 参与者对成功的全球评估。我们的次要结局是:8. 住院期间死亡;9. 住院期间肌肉骨骼损伤;10. 住院时间;11. 出院时新机构化;12. 医院再入院;13. 步行表现。我们使用 GRADE 评估了每个主要结局的证据确定性。我们将运动干预分为:康复相关活动(旨在增加身体活动或功能恢复的干预措施,但不遵循特定的运动方案);结构化运动(包括运动干预方案但不包括渐进式抗阻训练的干预措施);和渐进式抗阻运动(包括渐进式抗阻训练元素的干预措施)。
我们纳入了 24 项研究(9 项康复相关活动干预、6 项结构化运动干预和 9 项渐进式抗阻运动干预),涉及 7511 名参与者。所有研究均将运动干预与常规护理进行比较;两项研究除常规护理外还使用了假干预。平均年龄从 73 岁到 88 岁不等,58%的参与者为女性。几项研究存在高度偏倚风险。最常被评估为存在高度偏倚风险的领域是结局的测量,五项研究(21%)存在因随机化过程而产生的高度偏倚风险。
与对照组相比,运动可能对出院时日常生活活动的独立性没有临床意义上的影响(16 项研究,5174 名参与者;低确定性证据)。五项研究使用了巴氏量表(范围:0 至 100,得分越高表示独立性越好)。对照组出院时的平均得分在 42 到 96 分之间,与对照组相比,运动使日常生活活动的独立性提高了 1.8 分(0.43 分差到 4.12 分好)。最小临床重要差异(MCID)估计为 11 分。我们对运动对出院时功能移动性的影响与对照组相比不确定(8 项研究,2369 名参与者;非常低确定性证据)。三项研究使用简短物理性能测试(SPPB)(范围:0 至 12,得分越高表示功能越好)来衡量功能移动性。对照组出院时 SPPB 的平均得分在 3.7 到 4.9 分之间,运动干预的效果是得分提高了 0.78 分(0.02 分差到 1.57 分好)。SPPB 上的 1 分变化代表 MCID。我们对运动对住院期间谵妄发生率的影响与对照组相比不确定(7 项试验,2088 名参与者;非常低确定性证据)。对照组的谵妄发生率为 88/1091(81 例/1000),而运动组为 70/997(73 例/1000;范围为 47 至 114)(RR 0.90,95% CI 0.58 至 1.41)。与对照组相比,运动可能对出院时的生活质量产生较小但无临床意义的改善(4 项研究,875 名参与者;低确定性证据)。对照组出院时的 EQ-5D 视觉模拟量表(EQ-5D VAS)的平均 QoL 得分在 48.9 到 64.7 之间,运动组的 QoL 得分提高了 6.04 分(0.9 分好到 11.18 分好)。EQ-5D VAS 上的 10 分变化代表 MCID。没有研究测量参与者对成功的全球评估。运动干预并未影响住院期间跌倒的风险(中等确定性证据)。对照组的跌倒发生率为 31/899(34 例/1000),运动组为 31/888(34 例/1000;范围为 20 至 57)(RR 0.99,95% CI 0.59 至 1.65)。我们对运动对住院期间病情恶化的影响与对照组相比不确定(非常低确定性证据)。对照组的病情恶化发生率为 101/1417(71 例/1000),而运动组为 96/1313(73 例/1000;范围为 44 至 120)(RR 1.02,95% CI 0.62 至 1.68)。按不同干预类别和使用假干预的亚组分析与主要分析无明显差异。
运动可能对日常生活活动或生活质量的独立性没有明显影响,但可能不会导致老年内科住院患者跌倒次数增加。我们对运动对功能移动性、谵妄发生率和病情恶化的影响不确定。证据的确定性受到偏倚和不一致性的限制。未来关于急性住院期间运动效果的初级研究可以集中在更一致和统一地报告参与者的特征,包括他们的基线功能能力,以及运动剂量、强度和依从性,这可能有助于了解观察到的结果不一致的原因。