Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/25577
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorBerney, Susan C-
dc.contributor.authorHopkins, Ramona O-
dc.contributor.authorRose, Joleen W-
dc.contributor.authorKoopman, Rene-
dc.contributor.authorPuthucheary, Zudin-
dc.contributor.authorPastva, Amy-
dc.contributor.authorGordon, Ian-
dc.contributor.authorColantuoni, Elizabeth-
dc.contributor.authorParry, Selina M-
dc.contributor.authorNeedham, Dale M-
dc.contributor.authorDenehy, Linda-
dc.date2020-12-15-
dc.date.accessioned2021-01-04T23:56:41Z-
dc.date.available2021-01-04T23:56:41Z-
dc.date.issued2021-07-
dc.identifier.citationThorax 2021; 76(7): 656-663en
dc.identifier.urihttps://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/25577-
dc.description.abstractTo investigate the effect of functional electrical stimulation-assisted cycle ergometry (FES-cycling) on muscle strength, cognitive impairment and related outcomes. Mechanically ventilated patients aged ≥18 years with sepsis or systemic inflammatory response syndrome were randomised to either 60 min of FES-cycling >5 days/week while in the intensive care unit (ICU) plus usual care rehabilitation versus usual care rehabilitation alone, with evaluation of two primary outcomes: (1) muscle strength at hospital discharge and (2) cognitive impairment at 6-month follow-up. We enrolled 162 participants, across four study sites experienced in ICU rehabilitation in Australia and the USA, to FES-cycling (n=80; mean age±SD 59±15) versus control (n=82; 56±14). Intervention participants received a median (IQR) of 5 (3-9) FES-cycling sessions with duration of 56 (34-63) min/day plus 15 (10-23) min/day of usual care rehabilitation. The control group received 15 (8-15) min/day of usual care rehabilitation. In the intervention versus control group, there was no significant differences for muscle strength at hospital discharge (mean difference (95% CI) 3.3 (-5.0 to 12.1) Nm), prevalence of cognitive impairment at 6 months (OR 1.1 (95% CI 0.30 to 3.8)) or secondary outcomes measured in-hospital and at 6 and 12 months follow-up. In this randomised controlled trial, undertaken at four centres with established rehabilitation programmes, the addition of FES-cycling to usual care rehabilitation did not substantially increase muscle strength at hospital discharge. At 6 months, the incidence of cognitive impairment was almost identical between groups, but potential benefit or harm of the intervention on cognition cannot be excluded due to imprecision of the estimated effect. ACTRN 12612000528853, NCT02214823.en
dc.language.isoeng-
dc.subjectcritical careen
dc.subjectexerciseen
dc.titleFunctional electrical stimulation in-bed cycle ergometry in mechanically ventilated patients: a multicentre randomised controlled trial.en
dc.typeJournal Articleen
dc.identifier.journaltitleThoraxen
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartments of Medicine, Orthopedic Surgery and Cell Biology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, USAen
dc.identifier.affiliationStatistical Consulting Centre, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Physiotherapy, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Physiotherapy, Austin Health, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationPhysiotherapyen
dc.identifier.affiliationDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USAen
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USAen
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Physiotherapy, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationMelbourne School of Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationAllied Health, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationOutcomes After Critical Illness and Surgery (OACIS) Group, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USAen
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Biostatistics, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USAen
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Physiology, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationAdult Critical Care Unit, The Royal London Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UKen
dc.identifier.affiliationCritical Care and Perioperative Medicine Research Group, William Harvey Research Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, UKen
dc.identifier.affiliationPulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Intermountain Medical Center, Murray, Utah, USAen
dc.identifier.affiliationPsychology Department and Neuroscience Center, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, USAen
dc.identifier.affiliationCenter for Humanizing Critical Care, Intermountain Health Care, Provo, Utah, USAen
dc.identifier.doi10.1136/thoraxjnl-2020-215093en
dc.type.contentTexten
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0003-1633-805Xen
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0002-0891-745Xen
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0002-9538-0557en
dc.identifier.pubmedid33323480-
local.name.researcherBerney, Susan C
item.grantfulltextnone-
item.openairetypeJournal Article-
item.languageiso639-1en-
item.fulltextNo Fulltext-
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_18cf-
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
crisitem.author.deptPhysiotherapy-
crisitem.author.deptPhysiotherapy-
Appears in Collections:Journal articles
Show simple item record

Page view(s)

74
checked on Nov 21, 2024

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in AHRO are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.