In this 1-day point-prevalence study conducted across Germany, only 24% of all mechanically ventilated patients and only 8% of patients with an endotracheal tube were mobilized out of bed as part of routine care. Addressing modifiable barriers for mobilization, such as deep sedation, will be important to increase mobilization in German ICUs.

BackgroundPatients with stable COPD show improvements in exercise capacity and muscular function after the application of whole body vibration. We aimed to evaluate whether this modality added to conventional physiotherapy in exacerbated hospitalised COPD patients would be safe and would improve exercise capacity and quality of life.Methods49 hospitalised exacerbated COPD patients were randomized (1:1) to undergo physiotherapy alone or physiotherapy with the addition of whole body vibration. The primary endpoint was the between-group difference of the 6-minute walking test (day of discharge – day of admission). Secondary assessments included chair rising test, quality of life, and serum marker analysis.ResultsWhole body vibration did not cause procedure-related adverse events. Compared to physiotherapy alone, it led to significantly stronger improvements in 6-minute walking test (95.55 ± 76.29 m vs. 6.13 ± 81.65 m; p = 0.007) and St. Georges Respiratory Questionnaire (-6.43 ± 14.25 vs. 5.59 ± 19.15, p = 0.049). Whole body vibration increased the expression of the transcription factor peroxisome proliferator receptor gamma coactivator-1-α and serum levels of irisin, while it decreased serum interleukin-8.ConclusionWhole body vibration during hospitalised exacerbations did not cause procedure-related adverse events and induced clinically significant benefits regarding exercise capacity and health-related quality of life that were associated with increased serum levels of irisin, a marker of muscle activity.Trial registrationGerman Clinical Trials Register DRKS00005979. Registered 17 March 2014.

IntroductionPulmonary rehabilitation has been demonstrated to improve exercise capacity, dyspnoea, quality of life and to reduce the adverse effects of acute exacerbations. Current guidelines recommend exercise training in patients with mild to very severe disease. However, there is insufficient data comparing the efficacy of different training approaches and intensities.MethodsBetween January 2009 and December 2012, 105 COPD patients were screened to participate in the study. 61 patients were randomly assigned into an individualized training group or into a non-individualized training group. Both groups exercised once a week for 60 minutes over a time period of three months. At the beginning and after three months, the following measurements were performed: 6-minute walking test (6-MWT), health-related quality of life (St. Georges Respiratory Questionnaire; SGRQ and COPD-Assessment-Test; CAT), M. rectus femoris cross-sectional area, and inflammatory markers in peripheral blood.ResultsOnly in the individualized training group we observed a significant change of the 6-MWT (increase of 32.47 m; p = 0.012) and the cross-sectional area of the M. rectus fermoris (increase of 0.57 cm2; p = 0.049), while no significant changes occurred in the non-individualized training group. Peroxisome-proliferator-activated receptor-γ coactivator 1α increased in the individualized training only after the three months training period (increase of 0.43 relative copies; p = 0.017), all other myokines and inflammatory markers were not influenced by either of the programs. The total drop-out-rate was 44.3%.ConclusionA low frequency outpatient training program may induce modest improvements in exercise capacity and muscle mass only if it is performed on an individualized basis.

There is no consensus regarding collaboration, competencies, and responsibilities with respect to early mobilization of intensive care patients. The approach to date has been characterized by a lack of interprofessional communication, which may lead to an inefficient use of the broad and varied base of knowledge and experienceof the different professions.

Background Mobilization of intensive care patients is a multi-professional task. Aim of this study was to explore how different professions working at Intensive Care Units (ICU) estimate the mobility capacity using the ICU Mobility Score in 10 different scenarios. Methods T en fictitious patient-scenarios and guideline-related knowledge were assessed using an online survey. Critical care team members in German-speaking countries were invited to participate. All datasets including professional data and at least one scenario were analyzed. Kruskal Wallis test was used for the individual scenarios, while a linear mixed-model was used over all responses. Results In total, 515 of 788 (65%) participants could be evaluated. Physicians (p = 0.001) and nurses (p = 0.002) selected a lower ICU Mobility Score (-0.7 95% CI -1.1 to -0.3 and -0.4 95% CI -0.7 to -0.2, respectively) than physical therapists, while other specialists did not (p = 0.81). Participants who classified themselves as experts or could define early mobilization in accordance to the “S2e guideline: positioning and early mobilisation in prophylaxis or therapy of pulmonary disorders” correctly selected higher mobilization levels (0.2 95% CI 0.0 to 0.4, p = 0.049 and 0.3 95% CI 0.1 to 0.5, p = 0.002, respectively). Conclusion Different professions scored the mobilization capacity of patients differently, with nurses and physicians estimating significantly lower capacity than physical therapists. The exact knowledge of guidelines and recommendations, such as the definition of early mobilization, independently lead to a higher score. Interprofessional education, interprofessional rounds and mobilization activities could further enhance knowledge and practice of mobilization in the critical care team.