Effects of early mobilization (EM) in patients with noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) in Intensive Care Unit (ICU): a randomized controlled trial

Abstract

Background Early mobilization (EM) may be an effective intervention for the promotion of rehabilitation in noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) patients. The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of EM in patients with NIPPV in Intensive Care Unit (ICU). Methods Participants were randomly allocated to the intervention group involving active and passive activities combined with routine treatments and the control group with routine treatments in this single-center, parallel-designed randomized controlled trial. Participants accepted initiative and passive activities following brought by medical and nursing team who were standardized training The primary outcomes were the incidence of ICU-AW, length of ICU stay, duration of ventilation and mortality. Results There were no adverse event in participants during EM. Compared with the control group, there was a significantly lower length of ICU stay (m = 6.0 vs 7.8 days, respectively, P = 0.038), incidence of ICU-acquired weakness (n = 17.4% vs 50%, respectively, P = 0.026), duration of ventilation (m = 2.1 vs 4.0 days, respectively, P = 0.019) in the intervention group. Conclusions EM is feasible and safe in noninvasive ventilator patients, it can decrease the incidence of ICU-acquired weakness, length of stay and duration of noninvasive ventilation in ICU, and promoted the recovery of grip strength.

The Effect of Passive Range of Motion Exercises on Hemodynamic Parameters of Mechanically Ventilated Patients

“…These findings were confirmed by Ahmed (2019) who reported that no statistically significant changes between the early ambulation and hospital care groups concerning their health profile data. Some studies reported similar findings (Azarfarin, Totonchi, Arizavi, & Yousefi-Moghadam, 2015; Santos et al, 2019;Wang et al, 2021).…”

Nutrition therapy during noninvasive ventilation: oral or enteral?

“…When comparing routes of nutrition, Reeves et al [29] reported that energy and protein intakes were significantly lower via the oral route than compared with enteral nutrition or parenteral nutrition (P < 0.05). Jeong [31 ] reported that patients who received parenteral nutrition received significantly more protein, being more likely to meet more than 50% of estimated protein requirements than via other routes (P ¼ 0.023), yet there was no association between route of nutrition and energy adequacy. The current data on intake of nutrition in NIV, based on route of delivery, provide limited evidence to inform the optimal route in clinical practice.…”