早期动员期间和之后的不良事件:TEAM试验的事后分析。

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q2 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Tessa Broadley, Ary Serpa Neto, Michael Bailey, Rinaldo Bellomo, Kathy Brickell, Heidi Buhr, Belinda J Gabbe, Doug W Gould, Meg Harrold, Sally Hurford, Theodore J Iwashyna, Alistair D Nichol, Jeffrey J Presneill, Stefan J Schaller, Janani Sivasuthan, Claire J Tipping, Steven Webb, Paul J Young, Alisa M Higgins, Carol L Hodgson
{"title":"早期动员期间和之后的不良事件:TEAM试验的事后分析。","authors":"Tessa Broadley, Ary Serpa Neto, Michael Bailey, Rinaldo Bellomo, Kathy Brickell, Heidi Buhr, Belinda J Gabbe, Doug W Gould, Meg Harrold, Sally Hurford, Theodore J Iwashyna, Alistair D Nichol, Jeffrey J Presneill, Stefan J Schaller, Janani Sivasuthan, Claire J Tipping, Steven Webb, Paul J Young, Alisa M Higgins, Carol L Hodgson","doi":"10.1016/j.aucc.2024.101156","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Treatment of Mechanically Ventilated Adults with Early Activity and Mobilisation (TEAM) trial reported a higher occurrence of adverse events with greater mobilisation. However, their timing and nature remained unexplored. We conducted an in-depth exploration of such events.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The purpose of this paper is to thoroughly examine the timing and characteristics of adverse events reported within the TEAM trial.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Adverse event data were collected daily in real time. Categorical data were compared using the Fisher's exact test. The relationship between adverse events and patient survival was analysed using a Cox-regression frailty model.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, 37 out of 371 patients (10.0%) in the early mobilisation group and 16 out of 370 patients (4.3%) in the usual care group experienced adverse events, with 71 events in the early mobilisation group compared to 24 events in the usual care group. The most common adverse events were altered blood pressure in 21 out of 53 patients (39.6%), arrhythmia in 17 out of 53 patients (32.1%), and oxygen desaturation in nine of 53 patients (17.0%). Patients with an adverse event were more likely to have congestive heart failure (absolute percentage difference: 16.1, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 6.1 to 26.1), peripheral vascular disease (absolute percentage difference: 6.4, 95% CI: 1.3 to 11.5), heart attack (absolute percentage difference: 13.5, 95% CI: 5.9 to 21.1), or stroke (absolute percentage difference: 9.3, 95% CI: 3.5 to 15.1). Adverse events occurred at a median of 4 days with early mobilisation and 7 days with usual care. There was no significant difference in survival for patients who experienced an adverse event compared to those without an adverse event.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Adverse events were more common in patients randomised to early active mobilisation, were cardiovascular and respiratory in nature, tended to occur earlier with active mobilisation, and cardiovascular comorbidities were more common in such patients. This information can help guide future studies in this field.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>TEAM ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03133377, registered 28 April 2017.</p>","PeriodicalId":51239,"journal":{"name":"Australian Critical Care","volume":"38 3","pages":"101156"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Adverse events during and after early mobilisation: A post hoc analysis of the TEAM trial.\",\"authors\":\"Tessa Broadley, Ary Serpa Neto, Michael Bailey, Rinaldo Bellomo, Kathy Brickell, Heidi Buhr, Belinda J Gabbe, Doug W Gould, Meg Harrold, Sally Hurford, Theodore J Iwashyna, Alistair D Nichol, Jeffrey J Presneill, Stefan J Schaller, Janani Sivasuthan, Claire J Tipping, Steven Webb, Paul J Young, Alisa M Higgins, Carol L Hodgson\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.aucc.2024.101156\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Treatment of Mechanically Ventilated Adults with Early Activity and Mobilisation (TEAM) trial reported a higher occurrence of adverse events with greater mobilisation. However, their timing and nature remained unexplored. We conducted an in-depth exploration of such events.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The purpose of this paper is to thoroughly examine the timing and characteristics of adverse events reported within the TEAM trial.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Adverse event data were collected daily in real time. Categorical data were compared using the Fisher's exact test. The relationship between adverse events and patient survival was analysed using a Cox-regression frailty model.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, 37 out of 371 patients (10.0%) in the early mobilisation group and 16 out of 370 patients (4.3%) in the usual care group experienced adverse events, with 71 events in the early mobilisation group compared to 24 events in the usual care group. The most common adverse events were altered blood pressure in 21 out of 53 patients (39.6%), arrhythmia in 17 out of 53 patients (32.1%), and oxygen desaturation in nine of 53 patients (17.0%). Patients with an adverse event were more likely to have congestive heart failure (absolute percentage difference: 16.1, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 6.1 to 26.1), peripheral vascular disease (absolute percentage difference: 6.4, 95% CI: 1.3 to 11.5), heart attack (absolute percentage difference: 13.5, 95% CI: 5.9 to 21.1), or stroke (absolute percentage difference: 9.3, 95% CI: 3.5 to 15.1). Adverse events occurred at a median of 4 days with early mobilisation and 7 days with usual care. There was no significant difference in survival for patients who experienced an adverse event compared to those without an adverse event.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Adverse events were more common in patients randomised to early active mobilisation, were cardiovascular and respiratory in nature, tended to occur earlier with active mobilisation, and cardiovascular comorbidities were more common in such patients. This information can help guide future studies in this field.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>TEAM ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03133377, registered 28 April 2017.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51239,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Australian Critical Care\",\"volume\":\"38 3\",\"pages\":\"101156\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Australian Critical Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aucc.2024.101156\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Critical Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aucc.2024.101156","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:机械通气成人早期活动和活动治疗(TEAM)试验报道,活动越大,不良事件的发生率越高。然而,它们的时间和性质仍未被探索。我们对这类事件进行了深入调查。目的:本文的目的是彻底检查在TEAM试验中报告的不良事件的时间和特征。方法:每日实时收集不良事件资料。分类数据采用Fisher精确检验进行比较。使用Cox-regression脆弱模型分析不良事件与患者生存之间的关系。结果:总体而言,早期动员组371例患者中有37例(10.0%)和常规护理组370例患者中有16例(4.3%)出现不良事件,早期动员组有71例事件,而常规护理组有24例事件。最常见的不良事件是53例患者中21例血压改变(39.6%),53例患者中17例心律失常(32.1%),53例患者中9例氧饱和度过低(17.0%)。有不良事件的患者更有可能发生充血性心力衰竭(绝对百分比差:16.1,95%可信区间[CI]: 6.1至26.1)、周围血管疾病(绝对百分比差:6.4,95% CI: 1.3至11.5)、心脏病发作(绝对百分比差:13.5,95% CI: 5.9至21.1)或中风(绝对百分比差:9.3,95% CI: 3.5至15.1)。不良事件发生的中位时间为早期活动4天,正常护理7天。与没有不良事件的患者相比,有不良事件的患者的生存率没有显著差异。结论:随机分配到早期主动活动组的患者的不良事件更常见,主要是心血管和呼吸系统的不良事件,积极活动组的不良事件往往发生得更早,心血管合并症在这类患者中更常见。这些信息可以帮助指导该领域未来的研究。试验注册:TEAM ClinicalTrials.gov号码:NCT03133377,注册于2017年4月28日。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Adverse events during and after early mobilisation: A post hoc analysis of the TEAM trial.

Background: The Treatment of Mechanically Ventilated Adults with Early Activity and Mobilisation (TEAM) trial reported a higher occurrence of adverse events with greater mobilisation. However, their timing and nature remained unexplored. We conducted an in-depth exploration of such events.

Objective: The purpose of this paper is to thoroughly examine the timing and characteristics of adverse events reported within the TEAM trial.

Methods: Adverse event data were collected daily in real time. Categorical data were compared using the Fisher's exact test. The relationship between adverse events and patient survival was analysed using a Cox-regression frailty model.

Results: Overall, 37 out of 371 patients (10.0%) in the early mobilisation group and 16 out of 370 patients (4.3%) in the usual care group experienced adverse events, with 71 events in the early mobilisation group compared to 24 events in the usual care group. The most common adverse events were altered blood pressure in 21 out of 53 patients (39.6%), arrhythmia in 17 out of 53 patients (32.1%), and oxygen desaturation in nine of 53 patients (17.0%). Patients with an adverse event were more likely to have congestive heart failure (absolute percentage difference: 16.1, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 6.1 to 26.1), peripheral vascular disease (absolute percentage difference: 6.4, 95% CI: 1.3 to 11.5), heart attack (absolute percentage difference: 13.5, 95% CI: 5.9 to 21.1), or stroke (absolute percentage difference: 9.3, 95% CI: 3.5 to 15.1). Adverse events occurred at a median of 4 days with early mobilisation and 7 days with usual care. There was no significant difference in survival for patients who experienced an adverse event compared to those without an adverse event.

Conclusion: Adverse events were more common in patients randomised to early active mobilisation, were cardiovascular and respiratory in nature, tended to occur earlier with active mobilisation, and cardiovascular comorbidities were more common in such patients. This information can help guide future studies in this field.

Trial registration: TEAM ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03133377, registered 28 April 2017.

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
Australian Critical Care
Australian Critical Care NURSING-NURSING
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
9.10%
发文量
148
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Australian Critical Care is the official journal of the Australian College of Critical Care Nurses (ACCCN). It is a bi-monthly peer-reviewed journal, providing clinically relevant research, reviews and articles of interest to the critical care community. Australian Critical Care publishes peer-reviewed scholarly papers that report research findings, research-based reviews, discussion papers and commentaries which are of interest to an international readership of critical care practitioners, educators, administrators and researchers. Interprofessional articles are welcomed.
×
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