Early mobilisation in patients with shock and receiving vasoactive drugs in the intensive care unit: A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.

Henry Mauricio Parada-Gereda, Luis F Pardo-Cocuy, Janneth Milena Avendaño, Daniel Molano-Franco, Joan Ramón Masclans
{"title":"Early mobilisation in patients with shock and receiving vasoactive drugs in the intensive care unit: A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.","authors":"Henry Mauricio Parada-Gereda, Luis F Pardo-Cocuy, Janneth Milena Avendaño, Daniel Molano-Franco, Joan Ramón Masclans","doi":"10.1016/j.medine.2024.09.013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The aim of the study was to assess the feasibility and safety of early mobilisation in patients with shock requiring vasoactive drugs in the intensive care unit (ICU).</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Systematic review and meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Intensive care unit (ICU).</p><p><strong>Patients or participants: </strong>Adult patients requiring vasoactive drugs who received early mobilisation in the intensive care unit.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>A systematic search was conducted using the databases PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Medline Ovid, Science Direct, and CINAHL, including observational studies involving adult patients requiring vasoactive drugs who received early mobilisation. A meta-analysis was performed on the proportion of safety events and the proportion of early mobilisation in patients with high, moderate, and low doses of vasoactive drugs.</p><p><strong>Main variables of interest: </strong>Feasibility, safety events, and the maximum level of activity achieved during early mobilisation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The search yielded 1875 studies, of which 8 were included in the systematic review and 5 in the meta-analysis. The results showed that 64% (95% CI: 34%-95%, p<0.05) of patients were mobilised with low doses of vasoactive drugs, 30% (95% CI: 7%-53%, p<0.05) with moderate doses, and 7% (95% CI: 3%-16%, p 0.17) with high doses. The proportion of adverse events was low, at 2% (95% CI: 1%-4%, p<0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Early mobilisation in patients with shock and the need for vasoactive drugs is feasible and generally safe. However, there is an emphasis on the need for further high-quality research to confirm these findings.</p>","PeriodicalId":94139,"journal":{"name":"Medicina intensiva","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medicina intensiva","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medine.2024.09.013","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: The aim of the study was to assess the feasibility and safety of early mobilisation in patients with shock requiring vasoactive drugs in the intensive care unit (ICU).

Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Setting: Intensive care unit (ICU).

Patients or participants: Adult patients requiring vasoactive drugs who received early mobilisation in the intensive care unit.

Interventions: A systematic search was conducted using the databases PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Medline Ovid, Science Direct, and CINAHL, including observational studies involving adult patients requiring vasoactive drugs who received early mobilisation. A meta-analysis was performed on the proportion of safety events and the proportion of early mobilisation in patients with high, moderate, and low doses of vasoactive drugs.

Main variables of interest: Feasibility, safety events, and the maximum level of activity achieved during early mobilisation.

Results: The search yielded 1875 studies, of which 8 were included in the systematic review and 5 in the meta-analysis. The results showed that 64% (95% CI: 34%-95%, p<0.05) of patients were mobilised with low doses of vasoactive drugs, 30% (95% CI: 7%-53%, p<0.05) with moderate doses, and 7% (95% CI: 3%-16%, p 0.17) with high doses. The proportion of adverse events was low, at 2% (95% CI: 1%-4%, p<0.05).

Conclusions: Early mobilisation in patients with shock and the need for vasoactive drugs is feasible and generally safe. However, there is an emphasis on the need for further high-quality research to confirm these findings.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在重症监护室接受血管活性药物治疗的休克患者的早期康复:观察性研究的系统回顾和荟萃分析。
研究目的该研究旨在评估重症监护室(ICU)中需要血管活性药物的休克患者早期移动的可行性和安全性:设计:系统回顾和荟萃分析:重症监护室(ICU).患者或参与者:患者或参与者:需要使用血管活性药物并在重症监护室接受早期动员的成人患者:使用 PubMed、Cochrane Library、Scopus、Medline Ovid、Science Direct 和 CINAHL 等数据库进行了系统检索,其中包括需要使用血管活性药物并接受早期移动的成年患者的观察性研究。对使用高、中、低剂量血管活性药物的患者发生安全事件的比例和早期动员的比例进行了荟萃分析:主要关注变量:可行性、安全事件以及早期活动时达到的最大活动量:结果:搜索结果包括 1875 项研究,其中 8 项纳入系统综述,5 项纳入荟萃分析。结果表明,64%(95% CI:34%-95%,pConclusions.)的研究结果表明,在早期康复过程中,患者的活动能力达到了最高水平:对需要使用血管活性药物的休克患者进行早期动员是可行的,而且总体上是安全的。但需要强调的是,需要进一步开展高质量的研究来证实这些发现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Correlation and concordance of HACOR and IROX scales in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia who received non-invasive ventilation in two intensive care units. From geometric equations to dynamic strategies: advances in the personalization of mechanical ventilation through mechanical power. High flow in tracheostomized patients on their first attempt to wean from mechanical ventilation: More questions on the table. Shocked and moved. Early mobilisation in cardiogenic shock. Early mobilisation in patients with shock and receiving vasoactive drugs in the intensive care unit: A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1