Evaluating early mobilisation in critically ill COVID-19 patients: Secondary analysis from the ESICM UNITE-COVID-II multicentre observational study
Jazyk angličtina Země Francie Médium print-electronic
Typ dokumentu časopisecké články, pozorovací studie, multicentrická studie
PubMed
40389154
DOI
10.1016/j.accpm.2025.101550
PII: S2352-5568(25)00082-7
Knihovny.cz E-zdroje
- Klíčová slova
- COVID-19 patients, ESICM, Early mobilisation, ICUAW, Multicentre study, UNITE-COVID,
- MeSH
- časné pohybování * statistika a číselné údaje metody MeSH
- COVID-19 * terapie mortalita epidemiologie MeSH
- délka pobytu statistika a číselné údaje MeSH
- jednotky intenzivní péče MeSH
- kritický stav * MeSH
- lidé středního věku MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- péče o pacienty v kritickém stavu metody MeSH
- SARS-CoV-2 MeSH
- senioři MeSH
- umělé dýchání MeSH
- Check Tag
- lidé středního věku MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- mužské pohlaví MeSH
- senioři MeSH
- ženské pohlaví MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
- multicentrická studie MeSH
- pozorovací studie MeSH
- Geografické názvy
- Evropa epidemiologie MeSH
BACKGROUND: Early mobilisation (EM) within the first 72 h of ICU admission is essential for preventing ICU-acquired weakness; however, mobilisation rates remained low among mechanically ventilated (MV) COVID-19 patients during the pandemic waves. This study aimed to characterise the association between EM and 60-day outcomes. METHODS: A multicentre observational study conducted by the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM) examined mobilisation strategies during the second COVID-19 wave (UNITE-COVIDed2021). All patients with confirmed SARS-COV-2 infection who were in the ICU on the peak day between 1st January and 1st June 2021 were included. The analysis expanded on the UNITE-COVIDed2020 study, comparing the first and second COVID-19 waves using a combined dataset. RESULTS: Data from 2053 patients during the second wave across 103 ICUs in 35 countries were analysed and compared with 4190 patients from the first wave. EM was achieved in 801 (39%) vs. 1114 (27%), p < 0.001, respectively. In the combined cohort, MV on admission significantly reduced the likelihood of EM (OR 0.29, 95% CI: 0.25-0.33, p = 0.001). While EM did not improve ICU or hospital length of stay, it was associated with reduced 60-day mortality (OR 0.74, 95% CI: 0.64-0.86, p = 0.001) and transfer rates to other care facilities (OR 0.74, 95% CI: 0.59-0.94, p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: EM is feasible and beneficial for critically ill COVID-19 patients. It was associated with reduced mortality and lower transfer rates to other care facilities, which underscores the critical role of EM in enhancing patient recovery during a pandemic.
Department of Critical Care Guy's and St Thomas' Hospital London United Kingdom
Department of Critical Care King's College Hospital London United Kingdom
Department of Intensive Care Medicine VUmc Amsterdam The Netherlands
Intensive Care Unit Department of Surgical Sciences Uppsala University Uppsala Sweden
Intensive Care Unit Hospital General Universitario de Castellón Castellón de la Plana Spain
Médecine Intensive et Réanimation APHP Saint Louis Hospital Paris University Paris France
School of Sports and Health Sciences University of Brighton Brighton United Kingdom
Service de Médecine Intensive Réanimation Hôpital Bicêtre AP HP Université Paris Saclay France
Citace poskytuje Crossref.org