体外生命支持患者的身体康复和移动:系统回顾。

Q4 Medicine
Critical care explorations Pub Date : 2024-05-24 eCollection Date: 2024-06-01 DOI:10.1097/CCE.0000000000001095
Julian D Rivera, Edward S Fox, Shannon M Fernando, Alexandre Tran, Daniel Brodie, Eddy Fan, Jo-Anne Fowles, Carol L Hodgson, Joseph E Tonna, Bram Rochwerg
{"title":"体外生命支持患者的身体康复和移动:系统回顾。","authors":"Julian D Rivera, Edward S Fox, Shannon M Fernando, Alexandre Tran, Daniel Brodie, Eddy Fan, Jo-Anne Fowles, Carol L Hodgson, Joseph E Tonna, Bram Rochwerg","doi":"10.1097/CCE.0000000000001095","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>We planned to synthesize evidence examining the potential efficacy and safety of performing physical rehabilitation and/or mobilization (PR&M) in adult patients receiving extracorporeal life support (ECLS).</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>We included any study that compared PR&M to no PR&M or among different PR&M strategies in adult patients receiving any ECLS for any indication and any cannulation. We searched seven electronic databases with no language limitations.</p><p><strong>Study selection and data extraction: </strong>Two reviewers, independently and in duplicate, screened all citations for eligibility. We used the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 and Cochrane Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions tools to assess individual study risk of bias. Although we had planned for meta-analysis, this was not possible due to insufficient data, so we used narrative and tabular data summaries for presenting results. We assessed the overall certainty of the evidence for each outcome using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework.</p><p><strong>Data synthesis: </strong>We included 17 studies that enrolled 996 patients. Most studies examined venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and/or venoarterial ECMO as a bridge to recovery in the ICU. We found an uncertain effect of high-intensity/active PR&M on mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU length of stay, hospital length of stay, or quality of life compared with low-intensity/passive PR&M in patients receiving ECLS (very low certainty due to very serious imprecision). There was similarly an uncertain effect on safety events including clinically important bleeding, spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage, limb ischemia, accidental decannulation, or ECLS circuit dysfunction (very low certainty due to very serious risk of bias and imprecision).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Based on the currently available summary of evidence, there is an uncertain effect of high-intensity/active PR&M on patient important outcomes or safety in patients receiving ECLS. Despite indirect data from other populations suggesting potential benefit of high-intensity PR&M in the ICU; further high-quality randomized trials evaluating the benefits and risks of physical therapy and/or mobilization in this population are needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":93957,"journal":{"name":"Critical care explorations","volume":"6 6","pages":"e1095"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11132346/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Physical Rehabilitation and Mobilization in Patients Receiving Extracorporeal Life Support: A Systematic Review.\",\"authors\":\"Julian D Rivera, Edward S Fox, Shannon M Fernando, Alexandre Tran, Daniel Brodie, Eddy Fan, Jo-Anne Fowles, Carol L Hodgson, Joseph E Tonna, Bram Rochwerg\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/CCE.0000000000001095\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>We planned to synthesize evidence examining the potential efficacy and safety of performing physical rehabilitation and/or mobilization (PR&M) in adult patients receiving extracorporeal life support (ECLS).</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>We included any study that compared PR&M to no PR&M or among different PR&M strategies in adult patients receiving any ECLS for any indication and any cannulation. We searched seven electronic databases with no language limitations.</p><p><strong>Study selection and data extraction: </strong>Two reviewers, independently and in duplicate, screened all citations for eligibility. We used the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 and Cochrane Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions tools to assess individual study risk of bias. Although we had planned for meta-analysis, this was not possible due to insufficient data, so we used narrative and tabular data summaries for presenting results. We assessed the overall certainty of the evidence for each outcome using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework.</p><p><strong>Data synthesis: </strong>We included 17 studies that enrolled 996 patients. Most studies examined venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and/or venoarterial ECMO as a bridge to recovery in the ICU. We found an uncertain effect of high-intensity/active PR&M on mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU length of stay, hospital length of stay, or quality of life compared with low-intensity/passive PR&M in patients receiving ECLS (very low certainty due to very serious imprecision). There was similarly an uncertain effect on safety events including clinically important bleeding, spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage, limb ischemia, accidental decannulation, or ECLS circuit dysfunction (very low certainty due to very serious risk of bias and imprecision).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Based on the currently available summary of evidence, there is an uncertain effect of high-intensity/active PR&M on patient important outcomes or safety in patients receiving ECLS. Despite indirect data from other populations suggesting potential benefit of high-intensity PR&M in the ICU; further high-quality randomized trials evaluating the benefits and risks of physical therapy and/or mobilization in this population are needed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":93957,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Critical care explorations\",\"volume\":\"6 6\",\"pages\":\"e1095\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11132346/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Critical care explorations\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/CCE.0000000000001095\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/6/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical care explorations","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/CCE.0000000000001095","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的: 我们计划对接受体外生命支持(ECLS)的成人患者进行物理康复和/或移动(PR&M)的潜在疗效和安全性的证据进行综合分析:我们计划综合研究对接受体外生命支持(ECLS)的成年患者进行物理康复和/或移动(PR&M)的潜在疗效和安全性的证据:我们纳入了所有对接受体外生命支持(ECLS)治疗的成年患者进行物理康复和/或移动(PR&M)与不进行物理康复和/或移动(PR&M)进行比较的研究,这些患者接受过任何适应症和任何插管。我们检索了七个无语言限制的电子数据库:两名审稿人分别独立并重复筛选了所有符合条件的引文。我们使用 Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 和 Cochrane Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions 工具来评估各项研究的偏倚风险。虽然我们曾计划进行荟萃分析,但由于数据不足而无法实现,因此我们采用了叙述式和表格式数据摘要来呈现结果。我们采用建议分级评估、发展和评价框架对每项结果的证据的整体确定性进行了评估:我们纳入了 17 项研究,共招募了 996 名患者。大多数研究将静脉体外膜肺氧合(ECMO)和/或静脉动脉 ECMO 作为重症监护病房康复的桥梁。我们发现,在接受 ECLS 的患者中,与低强度/被动 PR&M 相比,高强度/主动 PR&M 对死亡率、机械通气持续时间、重症监护室住院时间、住院时间或生活质量的影响并不确定(由于非常严重的不精确性,确定性很低)。同样,对临床重要出血、自发性脑出血、肢体缺血、意外拔管或 ECLS 电路功能障碍等安全事件的影响也不确定(由于存在非常严重的偏倚和不精确风险,因此确定性很低):根据目前可用的证据摘要,高强度/积极的 PR&M 对接受 ECLS 患者的重要预后或安全性的影响尚不确定。尽管来自其他人群的间接数据表明,在 ICU 中进行高强度 PR&M 可能会带来益处,但仍需进一步开展高质量的随机试验,评估物理治疗和/或动员对该人群的益处和风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Physical Rehabilitation and Mobilization in Patients Receiving Extracorporeal Life Support: A Systematic Review.

Objectives: We planned to synthesize evidence examining the potential efficacy and safety of performing physical rehabilitation and/or mobilization (PR&M) in adult patients receiving extracorporeal life support (ECLS).

Data sources: We included any study that compared PR&M to no PR&M or among different PR&M strategies in adult patients receiving any ECLS for any indication and any cannulation. We searched seven electronic databases with no language limitations.

Study selection and data extraction: Two reviewers, independently and in duplicate, screened all citations for eligibility. We used the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 and Cochrane Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions tools to assess individual study risk of bias. Although we had planned for meta-analysis, this was not possible due to insufficient data, so we used narrative and tabular data summaries for presenting results. We assessed the overall certainty of the evidence for each outcome using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework.

Data synthesis: We included 17 studies that enrolled 996 patients. Most studies examined venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and/or venoarterial ECMO as a bridge to recovery in the ICU. We found an uncertain effect of high-intensity/active PR&M on mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU length of stay, hospital length of stay, or quality of life compared with low-intensity/passive PR&M in patients receiving ECLS (very low certainty due to very serious imprecision). There was similarly an uncertain effect on safety events including clinically important bleeding, spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage, limb ischemia, accidental decannulation, or ECLS circuit dysfunction (very low certainty due to very serious risk of bias and imprecision).

Conclusions: Based on the currently available summary of evidence, there is an uncertain effect of high-intensity/active PR&M on patient important outcomes or safety in patients receiving ECLS. Despite indirect data from other populations suggesting potential benefit of high-intensity PR&M in the ICU; further high-quality randomized trials evaluating the benefits and risks of physical therapy and/or mobilization in this population are needed.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
8 weeks
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信