The sit-to-stand test as a patient-centered functional outcome for critical care research: a pooled analysis of five international rehabilitation studies

by Heather K. O’Grady, Lara Edbrooke, Christopher Farley, Sue Berney, Linda Denehy, Zudin Puthucheary and Michelle E. Kho 

Critical Care volume 26, Article number: 175 (2022) Published: 13 June 2022

 

Background

With ICU mortality rates decreasing, it is increasingly important to identify interventions to minimize functional impairments and improve outcomes for survivors. Simultaneously, we must identify robust patient-centered functional outcomes for our trials. Our objective was to investigate the clinimetric properties of a progression of three outcome measures, from strength to function.

Methods

Adults (≥ 18 years) enrolled in five international ICU rehabilitation studies. Participants required ICU admission were mechanically ventilated and previously independent. Outcomes included two components of the Physical Function in ICU Test-scored (PFIT-s): knee extensor strength and assistance required to move from sit to stand (STS); the 30-s STS (30 s STS) test was the third outcome. We analyzed survivors at ICU and hospital discharge. We report participant demographics, baseline characteristics, and outcome data using descriptive statistics. Floor effects represented ≥ 15% of participants with minimum score and ceiling effects ≥ 15% with maximum score. We calculated the overall group difference score (hospital discharge score minus ICU discharge) for participants with paired assessments.

Results

Of 451 participants, most were male (n = 278, 61.6%) with a median age between 60 and 66 years, a mean APACHE II score between 19 and 24, a median duration of mechanical ventilation between 4 and 8 days, ICU length of stay (LOS) between 7 and 11 days, and hospital LOS between 22 and 31 days. For knee extension, we observed a ceiling effect in 48.5% (160/330) of participants at ICU discharge and in 74.7% (115/154) at hospital discharge; the median [1st, 3rd quartile] PFIT-s difference score (n = 139) was 0 [0,1] (p < 0.05). For STS assistance, we observed a ceiling effect in 45.9% (150/327) at ICU discharge and in 77.5% (79/102) at hospital discharge; the median PFIT-s difference score (n = 87) was 1 [0, 2] (p < 0.05). For 30 s STS, we observed a floor effect in 15.0% (12/80) at ICU discharge but did not observe a floor or ceiling effect at hospital discharge. The median 30 s STS difference score (n = 54) was 3 [1, 6] (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

Among three progressive outcome measures evaluated in this study, the 30 s STS test appears to have the most favorable clinimetric properties to assess function at ICU and hospital discharge in moderate to severely ill participants.

 

 

Effects on health-related quality of life of interventions affecting survival in critically ill patients: a systematic review

 

by Ottavia Pallanch, Alessandro Ortalda, Paolo Pelosi, Nicola Latronico, Chiara Sartini, Gaetano Lombardi, Cristiano Marchetti, Nicolò Maimeri, Alberto Zangrillo and Luca Cabrini 

 

Critical Care volume 26, Article number: 126 (2022) Published: 06 May 2022

Survival has been considered the cornerstone for clinical outcome evaluation in critically ill patients admitted to intensive care unit (ICU). There is evidence that ICU survivors commonly show impairments in long-term outcomes such as quality of life (QoL) considering them as the most relevant ones. In the last years, the concept of patient-important outcomes has been introduced and increasingly reported in peer-reviewed publications. In the present systematic review, we evaluated how many randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were conducted on critically ill patients and reporting a benefit on survival reported also data on QoL. All RCTs investigating nonsurgical interventions that significantly reduced mortality in critically ill patients were searched on MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus and Embase from inception until August 2021. In a second stage, for all the included studies, the outcome QoL was investigated. The primary outcome was to evaluate how many RCTs analyzing interventions reducing mortality reported also data on QoL. The secondary endpoint was to investigate if QoL resulted improved, worsened or not modified. Data on QoL were reported as evaluated outcome in 7 of the 239 studies (2.9%). The tools to evaluate QoL and QoL time points were heterogeneous. Four interventions showed a significant impact on QoL: Two interventions improved survival and QoL (pravastatin in subarachnoid hemorrhage, dexmedetomidine in elderly patients after noncardiac surgery), while two interventions reduced mortality but negatively influenced QoL (caloric restriction in patients with refeeding syndrome and systematic ICU admission in elderly patients). In conclusion, only a minority of RCTs in which an intervention demonstrated to affect mortality in critically ill patients reported also data on QoL. Future research in critical care should include patient-important outcomes like QoL besides mortality. Data on this topic should be collected in conformity with PROs statement and core outcome sets to guarantee quality and comparability of results.

Emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern and potential intervention approaches

 

Emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern and potential intervention approaches

by Jasmin Khateeb, Yuchong Li and Haibo Zhang 

Critical Care volume 25, Article number: 244, Published: 12 July 2021

The major variant of concerns (VOCs) have shared mutations in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spike proteins, mostly on the S1 unit and resulted in higher transmissibility rate and affect viral virulence and clinical outcome. The spike protein mutations and other non-structural protein mutations in the VOCs may lead to escape approved vaccinations in certain extend. We will discuss these VOC mutations and discuss the need for combination therapeutic strategies targeting viral cycle and immune host responses.

Effectiveness of Bundle Interventions on ICU Delirium: A Meta-Analysis*

 

Effectiveness of Bundle Interventions on ICU Delirium: A Meta-Analysis*

 

by Zhang, Shan; Han, Yuan; Xiao, Qian; Li, Haibin; Wu, Ying 

 

Critical Care Medicine: February 2021 - Volume 49 - Issue 2 - p 335-346

 

Objective: 

To evaluate the impact of bundle interventions on ICU delirium prevalence, duration, and other patients’ adverse outcomes.

Data Sources: 

The Cochrane Library, PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsychINFO, and MEDLINE from January 2000 to July 2020. The protocol of the study was registered in International prospective register of systematic reviews (CRD42020163147).

Study Selection: 

Randomized clinical trials or cohort studies that examined the following outcomes were included in the current study: ICU delirium prevalence and duration, proportion of patient-days with coma, ventilator-free days, mechanical ventilation days, ICU or hospital length of stay, and ICU or inhospital or 28-day mortality.

Data Extraction: 

Using a standardized data-collection form, two authors screened the studies and extracted the data independently, and assessed the studies’ quality using the Modified Jadad Score Scale for randomized clinical trials and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for cohort studies.

Data Synthesis: 

Eleven studies with a total of 26,384 adult participants were included in the meta-analysis. Five studies (three randomized clinical trials and two cohort studies) involving 18,638 patients demonstrated that ICU delirium prevalence was not reduced (risk ratio = 0.92; 95% CI, 0.68–1.24). Meta-analysis showed that the use of bundle interventions was not associated with shortening the duration of ICU delirium (mean difference = –1.42 d; 95% CI, –3.06 to 0.22; two randomized clinical trials and one cohort study), increasing ventilator-free days (mean difference = 1.56 d; 95% CI, –1.56 to 4.68; three randomized clinical trials), decreasing mechanical ventilation days (mean difference = –0.83 d; 95% CI, –1.80 to 0.14; four randomized clinical trials and two cohort studies), ICU length of stay (mean difference = –1.08 d; 95% CI, –2.16 to 0.00; seven randomized clinical trials and two cohort studies), and inhospital mortality (risk ratio = 0.86; 95% CI, 0.70–1.06; five randomized clinical trials and four cohort studies). However, bundle interventions are effective in reducing the proportion of patient-days experiencing coma (risk ratio = 0.47; 95% CI, 0.39–0.57; two cohort studies), hospital length of stay (mean difference = –1.47 d; 95% CI, –2.80 to –0.15; four randomized clinical trials and one cohort study), and 28-day mortality by 18% (risk ratio = 0.82; 95% CI, 0.69–0.99; three randomized clinical trials).

Conclusions: 

This meta-analysis fails to support that bundle interventions are effective in reducing ICU delirium prevalence and duration, but supports that bundle interventions are effective in reducing the proportion of patient-days with coma, hospital length of stay, and 28-day mortality. Larger randomized clinical trials are needed to evaluate the impact of bundle interventions on ICU delirium and other clinical outcomes.