Objective This study aims to determine whether a 6-month home physiotherapy program can improve outcomes in critical care survivors. Design Forty-eight consecutive patients were randomized. The treatment group underwent 2 sessions/day of breathing retraining and bronchial hygiene, physical activity (mobilization, sit-to-stand gait, limb strengthening), and exercise re-conditioning whereas controls underwent standard care. Maximum inspiratory/expiratory pressures (MIP/MEP), forced volumes, blood gases, dyspnea, respiratory rate, disability, peripheral force measurements, perceived health status (Euroquol-5D), patient adherence/satisfaction, safety, and costs were assessed. Results Outcomes of treatment versus controls: MIP 14 ± 17 vs. -0.2 ± 14 cm H2O, MEP 27 ± 27 vs. 6 ± 21 cm H2O both P < 0.03; in addition, quality of life (Euroquol-5D) (P = 0.04), FEV 1 (P = 0.03), dyspnea (P = 0.002), and respiratory rate (P = 0.009) were significantly improved for treated cardiorespiratory patients only. Eighty-three percent of the treated patients were decannulated versus 14% of controls (P = 0.01). Compliance was high (74 ± 25%) and there were no side effects. The majority (87.4%) expressed satisfaction with the program. Treatment cost was 459€/patient/month. Conclusions Carrying over regular bronchial hygiene techniques, physical activity, and exercise into the home after long critical care stays is safe and has a beneficial effect on respiratory muscles, decannulation, pulmonary function, and quality of life. © 2016 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.
Does 6-Month Home Caregiver-Supervised Physiotherapy Improve Post-Critical Care Outcomes?: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Paneroni, Mara
2016-01-01
Abstract
Objective This study aims to determine whether a 6-month home physiotherapy program can improve outcomes in critical care survivors. Design Forty-eight consecutive patients were randomized. The treatment group underwent 2 sessions/day of breathing retraining and bronchial hygiene, physical activity (mobilization, sit-to-stand gait, limb strengthening), and exercise re-conditioning whereas controls underwent standard care. Maximum inspiratory/expiratory pressures (MIP/MEP), forced volumes, blood gases, dyspnea, respiratory rate, disability, peripheral force measurements, perceived health status (Euroquol-5D), patient adherence/satisfaction, safety, and costs were assessed. Results Outcomes of treatment versus controls: MIP 14 ± 17 vs. -0.2 ± 14 cm H2O, MEP 27 ± 27 vs. 6 ± 21 cm H2O both P < 0.03; in addition, quality of life (Euroquol-5D) (P = 0.04), FEV 1 (P = 0.03), dyspnea (P = 0.002), and respiratory rate (P = 0.009) were significantly improved for treated cardiorespiratory patients only. Eighty-three percent of the treated patients were decannulated versus 14% of controls (P = 0.01). Compliance was high (74 ± 25%) and there were no side effects. The majority (87.4%) expressed satisfaction with the program. Treatment cost was 459€/patient/month. Conclusions Carrying over regular bronchial hygiene techniques, physical activity, and exercise into the home after long critical care stays is safe and has a beneficial effect on respiratory muscles, decannulation, pulmonary function, and quality of life. © 2016 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.