BackgroundEarly mobilization in critically ill patients has been shown to prevent bed-rest-associated morbidity. Reported reasons for not mobilizing patients, thereby excluding or delaying such intervention, are diverse and comprise safety considerations for high-risk critically ill patients with multiple organ support systems. This study sought to demonstrate that early mobilization performed within the first 24 h of ICU admission proves to be feasible and well tolerated in the vast majority of critically ill patients.ResultsGeneral practice data were collected for 171 consecutive admissions to our ICU over a 2-month period according to a local, standardized, early mobilization protocol. The total period covered 731 patient-days, 22 (3 %) of which met our local exclusion criteria for mobilization. Of the remaining 709 patient-days, early mobilization was achieved on 86 % of them, bed-to-chair transfer on 74 %, and at least one physical therapy session on 59 %. Median time interval from ICU admission to the first early mobilization activity was 19 h (IQR = 15–23). In patients on mechanical ventilation (51 %), accounting for 46 % of patient-days, 35 % were administered vasopressors and 11 % continuous renal replacement therapy. Within this group, bed-to-chair transfer was achieved on 68 % of patient-days and at least one early mobilization activity on 80 %. Limiting factors to start early mobilization included restricted staffing capacities, diagnostic or surgical procedures, patients’ refusal, as well as severe hemodynamic instability. Hemodynamic parameters were rarely affected during mobilization, causing interruption in only 0.8 % of all activities, primarily due to reversible hypotension or arrhythmia. In general, all activities were well tolerated, while patients were able to self-regulate their active early mobilization. Patients’ subjective perception of physical therapy was reported to be enjoyable.ConclusionsMobilization within the first 24 h of ICU admission is achievable in the majority of critical ill patients, in spite of mechanical ventilation, vasopressor administration, or renal replacement therapy.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13613-016-0184-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Aerosol therapy concerns every fourth critically ill patient and one-fifth of ventilated patients.

BackgroundVolume-controlled ventilation has been suggested to optimize lung deposition during nebulization although promoting spontaneous ventilation is targeted to avoid ventilator-induced diaphragmatic dysfunction. Comparing topographic aerosol lung deposition during volume-controlled ventilation and spontaneous ventilation in pressure support has never been performed. The aim of this study was to compare lung deposition of a radiolabeled aerosol generated with a vibrating-mesh nebulizer during invasive mechanical ventilation, with two modes: pressure support ventilation and volume-controlled ventilation.MethodsSeventeen postoperative neurosurgery patients without pulmonary disease were randomly ventilated in pressure support or volume-controlled ventilation. Diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid labeled with technetium-99m (2 mCi/3 mL) was administrated using a vibrating-mesh nebulizer (Aerogen Solo®, provided by Aerogen Ltd, Galway, Ireland) connected to the endotracheal tube. Pulmonary and extrapulmonary particles deposition was analyzed using planar scintigraphy.ResultsLung deposition was 10.5 ± 3.0 and 15.1 ± 5.0 % of the nominal dose during pressure support and volume-controlled ventilation, respectively (p < 0.05). Higher endotracheal tube and tracheal deposition was observed during pressure support ventilation (27.4 ± 6.6 vs. 20.7 ± 6.0 %, p < 0.05). A similar penetration index was observed for the right (p = 0.210) and the left lung (p = 0.211) with both ventilation modes. A high intersubject variability of lung deposition was observed with both modes regarding lung doses, aerosol penetration and distribution between the right and the left lung.ConclusionsIn the specific conditions of the study, volume-controlled ventilation was associated with higher lung deposition of nebulized particles as compared to pressure support ventilation. The clinical benefit of this effect warrants further studies.Clinical trial registration NCT01879488Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13613-016-0169-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

This study demonstrated the high superiority of the new system combining a vibrating-mesh nebulizer with a valved holding chamber to deliver nebulized particles into the lungs as comparted to a constant-output jet nebulizer with a corrugated tube.