Background Early mobilization improves physical independency of critically ill patients at hospital discharge in a general intensive care unit (ICU)‐cohort. We aimed to investigate clinical and molecular benefits or detriments of early mobilization and muscle activating measures in a high‐risk ICU‐acquired weakness cohort. Methods Fifty patients with a SOFA score ≥9 within 72 h after ICU admission were randomized to muscle activating measures such as neuromuscular electrical stimulation or whole‐body vibration in addition to early protocol‐based physiotherapy (intervention) or early protocol‐based physiotherapy alone (control). Muscle strength and function were assessed by Medical Research Council (MRC) score, handgrip strength and Functional Independence Measure at first awakening, ICU discharge, and 12 month follow‐up. Patients underwent open surgical muscle biopsy on day 15. We investigated the impact of muscle activating measures in addition to early protocol‐based physiotherapy on muscle strength and function as well as on muscle wasting, morphology, and homeostasis in patients with sepsis and ICU‐acquired weakness. We compared the data with patients treated with common physiotherapeutic practice (CPP) earlier. Results ICU‐acquired weakness occurs within the entire cohort, and muscle activating measures did not improve muscle strength or function at first awakening (MRC median [IQR]: CPP 3.3 [3.0–4.3]; control 3.0 [2.7–3.4]; intervention 3.0 [2.1–3.8]; P > 0.05 for all), ICU discharge (MRC median [IQR]: CPP 3.8 [3.4–4.4]; control 3.9 [3.3–4.0]; intervention 3.6 [2.8–4.0]; P > 0.05 for all), and 12 month follow‐up (MRC median [IQR]: control 5.0 [4.3–5.0]; intervention 4.8 [4.3–5.0]; P = 0.342 for all). No signs of necrosis or inflammatory infiltration were present in the histological analysis. Myocyte cross‐sectional area in the intervention group was significantly larger in comparison with the control group (type I +10%; type IIa +13%; type IIb +3%; P < 0.001 for all) and CPP (type I +36%; type IIa +49%; type IIb +65%; P < 0.001 for all). This increase was accompanied by an up‐regulated gene expression for myosin heavy chains (fold change median [IQR]: MYH1 2.3 [1.1–2.7]; MYH2 0.7 [0.2–1.8]; MYH4 5.1 [2.2–15.3]) and an unaffected gene expression for TRIM63 , TRIM62 , and FBXO32 . Conclusions In our patients with sepsis syndrome at high risk for ICU‐acquired weakness muscle activating measures in addition to early protocol‐based physiotherapy did not improve muscle strength or function at first awakening, ICU discharge, or 12 month follow‐up. Yet it prevented muscle atrophy.
Background Neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) has been investigated as a preventative measure for intensive care unit-acquired weakness. Trial results remain contradictory and therefore inconclusive. As it has been shown that NMES does not necessarily lead to a contractile response, our aim was to characterise the response of critically ill patients to NMES and investigate potential outcome benefits of an adequate contractile response. Methods This is a sub-analysis of a randomised controlled trial investigating early muscle activating measures together with protocol-based physiotherapy in patients with a SOFA score ≥ 9 within the first 72 h after admission. Included patients received protocol-based physiotherapy twice daily for 20 min and NMES once daily for 20 min, bilaterally on eight muscle groups. Electrical current was increased up to 70 mA or until a contraction was detected visually or on palpation. Muscle strength was measured by a blinded assessor at the first adequate awakening and ICU discharge. Results One thousand eight hundred twenty-four neuromuscular electrical stimulations in 21 patients starting on day 3.0 (2.0/6.0) after ICU admission were included in this sub-analysis. Contractile response decreased from 64.4% on day 1 to 25.0% on day 7 with a significantly lower response rate in the lower extremities and proximal muscle groups. The electrical current required to elicit a contraction did not change over time (day 1, 50.2 [31.3/58.8] mA; day 7, 45.3 [38.0/57.5] mA). The electrical current necessary for a contractile response was higher in the lower extremities. At the first awakening, patients presented with significant weakness (3.2 [2.5/3.8] MRC score). When dividing the cohort into responders and non-responders (> 50% vs. ≤ 50% contractile response), we observed a significantly higher SOFA score in non-responders. The electrical current necessary for a muscle contraction in responders was significantly lower (38.0 [32.8/42.9] vs. 54.7 [51.3/56.0] mA, p < 0.001). Muscle strength showed higher values in the upper extremities of responders at ICU discharge (4.4 [4.1/4.6] vs. 3.3 [2.8/3.8] MRC score, p = 0.036). Conclusion Patients show a differential contractile response to NMES, which appears to be dependent on the severity of illness and also relevant for potential outcome benefits. Trial registration ISRCTN ISRCTN19392591, registered 17 February 2011
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.