[Effect of enhanced rehabilitation on the prognosis of critically ill patients in the intensive care unit: a retrospective historical controlled study].

Q3 Medicine
Shiheng Meng, Chenhao Wang, Xinyu Niu, Rongli Wang, Shuangling Li
{"title":"[Effect of enhanced rehabilitation on the prognosis of critically ill patients in the intensive care unit: a retrospective historical controlled study].","authors":"Shiheng Meng, Chenhao Wang, Xinyu Niu, Rongli Wang, Shuangling Li","doi":"10.3760/cma.j.cn121430-20241120-00946","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To observe the effects of enhanced rehabilitation on the prognosis of critically ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A single-center retrospective historical controlled study was conducted, patients admitted to the ICU of Peking University First Hospital from May 1, 2020, to April 30, 2021, and from October 1, 2021, to September 30, 2022 were enrolled. According to the different rehabilitation treatment strategies during different periods, patients were divided into the conventional rehabilitation group (patients receiving conventional rehabilitation treatment from May 1, 2020, to April 30, 2021) and the enhanced rehabilitation group (patients receiving the therapy of multidisciplinary team, ie medical care-rehabilitation-nursing care from October 1, 2021, to September 30, 2022). General data, acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II (APACHE II), and study endpoints were collected. Primary endpoints included rehabilitation-therapy rate, intervention time for rehabilitation, rehabilitation-related adverse events, and prognostic indicators such as (length of stay in hospital, length of stay in the ICU, and duration of mechanical ventilation). Secondary endpoints included incidence of deep vein thrombosis and hospital mortality. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to analyze cumulative discharge rates within 50 days.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 539 ICU patients were enrolled, with 245 in the conventional rehabilitation group and 294 in the enhanced rehabilitation group; 322 patients had an APACHE II score ≤ 15, while 217 patients had an APACHE II score > 15. Compared to the conventional rehabilitation group, the enhanced rehabilitation group demonstrated significantly higher rehabilitation-therapy rate [51.70% (152/294) vs. 11.43% (28/245)], earlier intervention time for rehabilitation [days: 2.00 (1.00, 3.00) vs. 4.00 (3.00, 7.00)]; shorter length of stay in hospital [days: 18.00 (12.00, 30.00) vs. 21.00 (13.00, 36.00)] and lower incidence of DVT [17.01% (50/294) vs. 24.08% (59/245)]. The differences were all statistically significant (all P < 0.05). There were no rehabilitation-related adverse events occurred in either group. Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated a significantly higher cumulative discharge rate within 50 days in the enhanced rehabilitation group compared to the conventional rehabilitation group [86.7% (255/294) vs. 82.9% (203/245); Log-Rank test: χ<sup>2</sup> = 4.262, P = 0.039]. Subgroup analysis showed that for patients with APACHE II score ≤ 15, the enhanced rehabilitation subgroup had higher rehabilitation-therapy rate [44.32% (78/176) vs. 6.16% (9/146), P < 0.05]. For patients with APACHE II score > 15, compared to the conventional rehabilitation group, the enhanced subgroup demonstrated higher rehabilitation-therapy rate [62.71% (74/118) vs. 19.19% (19/99), P < 0.05] and shorter length of stay in hospital [days: 20.50 (12.00, 31.25) vs. 26.00 (16.00, 43.00), P < 0.05].</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Enhanced rehabilitation therapy with medical care, rehabilitation and nursing care, improved rehabilitation-therapy rate, advanced time of rehabilitation treatment, reduced length of stay in hospital and incidence of deep vein thrombosis in critically ill patients, particularly benefited those with APACHE II score > 15. The enhanced rehabilitation was beneficial to the patient in the intensive care unit with safety and worth more investigation.</p>","PeriodicalId":24079,"journal":{"name":"Zhonghua wei zhong bing ji jiu yi xue","volume":"37 3","pages":"287-293"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Zhonghua wei zhong bing ji jiu yi xue","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.cn121430-20241120-00946","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To observe the effects of enhanced rehabilitation on the prognosis of critically ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU).

Methods: A single-center retrospective historical controlled study was conducted, patients admitted to the ICU of Peking University First Hospital from May 1, 2020, to April 30, 2021, and from October 1, 2021, to September 30, 2022 were enrolled. According to the different rehabilitation treatment strategies during different periods, patients were divided into the conventional rehabilitation group (patients receiving conventional rehabilitation treatment from May 1, 2020, to April 30, 2021) and the enhanced rehabilitation group (patients receiving the therapy of multidisciplinary team, ie medical care-rehabilitation-nursing care from October 1, 2021, to September 30, 2022). General data, acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II (APACHE II), and study endpoints were collected. Primary endpoints included rehabilitation-therapy rate, intervention time for rehabilitation, rehabilitation-related adverse events, and prognostic indicators such as (length of stay in hospital, length of stay in the ICU, and duration of mechanical ventilation). Secondary endpoints included incidence of deep vein thrombosis and hospital mortality. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to analyze cumulative discharge rates within 50 days.

Results: A total of 539 ICU patients were enrolled, with 245 in the conventional rehabilitation group and 294 in the enhanced rehabilitation group; 322 patients had an APACHE II score ≤ 15, while 217 patients had an APACHE II score > 15. Compared to the conventional rehabilitation group, the enhanced rehabilitation group demonstrated significantly higher rehabilitation-therapy rate [51.70% (152/294) vs. 11.43% (28/245)], earlier intervention time for rehabilitation [days: 2.00 (1.00, 3.00) vs. 4.00 (3.00, 7.00)]; shorter length of stay in hospital [days: 18.00 (12.00, 30.00) vs. 21.00 (13.00, 36.00)] and lower incidence of DVT [17.01% (50/294) vs. 24.08% (59/245)]. The differences were all statistically significant (all P < 0.05). There were no rehabilitation-related adverse events occurred in either group. Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated a significantly higher cumulative discharge rate within 50 days in the enhanced rehabilitation group compared to the conventional rehabilitation group [86.7% (255/294) vs. 82.9% (203/245); Log-Rank test: χ2 = 4.262, P = 0.039]. Subgroup analysis showed that for patients with APACHE II score ≤ 15, the enhanced rehabilitation subgroup had higher rehabilitation-therapy rate [44.32% (78/176) vs. 6.16% (9/146), P < 0.05]. For patients with APACHE II score > 15, compared to the conventional rehabilitation group, the enhanced subgroup demonstrated higher rehabilitation-therapy rate [62.71% (74/118) vs. 19.19% (19/99), P < 0.05] and shorter length of stay in hospital [days: 20.50 (12.00, 31.25) vs. 26.00 (16.00, 43.00), P < 0.05].

Conclusions: Enhanced rehabilitation therapy with medical care, rehabilitation and nursing care, improved rehabilitation-therapy rate, advanced time of rehabilitation treatment, reduced length of stay in hospital and incidence of deep vein thrombosis in critically ill patients, particularly benefited those with APACHE II score > 15. The enhanced rehabilitation was beneficial to the patient in the intensive care unit with safety and worth more investigation.

[加强康复治疗对重症监护室危重病人预后的影响:一项回顾性历史对照研究]。
目的:观察强化康复对重症监护病房(ICU)危重病人预后的影响。方法:采用单中心回顾性历史对照研究,选取2020年5月1日至2021年4月30日、2021年10月1日至2022年9月30日北京大学第一医院ICU收治的患者。根据不同时期康复治疗策略的不同,将患者分为常规康复组(2020年5月1日至2021年4月30日接受常规康复治疗)和强化康复组(2021年10月1日至2022年9月30日接受多学科团队治疗,即医疗-康复-护理)。收集一般数据、急性生理和慢性健康评估II (APACHE II)和研究终点。主要终点包括康复治疗率、康复干预时间、康复相关不良事件和预后指标(住院时间、ICU住院时间和机械通气时间)。次要终点包括深静脉血栓的发生率和住院死亡率。用Kaplan-Meier曲线分析50天内的累计放电率。结果:共纳入539例ICU患者,常规康复组245例,强化康复组294例;322例患者APACHE II评分≤15,217例患者APACHE II评分bb0 - 15。与常规康复组比较,强化康复组康复治愈率(51.70%(152/294)比11.43%(28/245))显著提高,康复干预时间(2.00(1.00,3.00)比4.00(3.00,7.00))显著缩短;住院天数:18.00(12.00,30.00)比21.00 (13.00,36.00),DVT发生率低[17.01%(50/294)比24.08%(59/245)]。差异均有统计学意义(P < 0.05)。两组均未发生与康复相关的不良事件。Kaplan-Meier分析显示,强化康复组50天内的累计出院率明显高于常规康复组[86.7%(255/294)比82.9% (203/245);Log-Rank检验:χ2 = 4.262, P = 0.039]。亚组分析显示,对于APACHEⅱ评分≤15分的患者,强化康复亚组的康复治疗率更高[44.32%(78/176)比6.16% (9/146),P < 0.05]。APACHEⅱ评分bbb15的患者,与常规康复组相比,强化亚组康复治愈率更高[62.71%(74/118)比19.19% (19/99),P < 0.05],住院天数更短[20.50(12.00,31.25)比26.00 (16.00,43.00),P < 0.05]。结论:加强医疗护理配合康复治疗,可提高危重症患者的康复治愈率,提前康复治疗时间,缩短住院时间,降低深静脉血栓发生率,尤其对APACHEⅱ评分bbb15的危重症患者受益。强化康复有利于重症监护病房患者的安全,值得进一步研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Zhonghua wei zhong bing ji jiu yi xue
Zhonghua wei zhong bing ji jiu yi xue Medicine-Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
42
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信