Dataset Information

Early head-up mobilisation versus standard care for patients with severe acquired brain injury: A systematic review with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:There is increasing focus on earlier rehabilitation in patients with traumatic or hypoxic brain injury or stroke. This systematic review evaluates the benefits and harms of early head-up mobilisation versus standard care in patients with severe acquired brain injury. METHODS:We searched Medline, CENTRAL, EMBASE, four other databases and 13 selected clinical trial registries until April 2020. Eligible randomised clinical trials compared early head-up mobilisation versus standard care in patients with severe acquired brain injury and were analysed conducting random- and fixed-effects meta-analyses and Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA). Certainty of evidence was assessed by GRADE. MAIN RESULTS:We identified four randomised clinical trials (total n = 385 patients) with severe acquired brain injury (stroke 86% and traumatic brain injury 13%). Two trials were at low risk and two at high risk of bias. We found no evidence of a difference between early mobilisation vs. standard care on mortality or poor functional outcome at end of the intervention (relative risk (RR) 1.19, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.53; I2 0%; very low certainty) or at maximal follow-up (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.21; I2 0%; very low certainty). We found evidence against an effect on quality of life at maximal follow-up. The proportion of patients with at least one serious adverse event did not differ at end of intervention or at maximal follow-up. For most comparisons, TSA suggested that further trials are needed. CONCLUSIONS:We found no evidence of a difference between early mobilisation versus standard care for patients with severe acquired brain injury. Early mobilisation appeared not to exert a major impact on quality of life. This systematic review highlights the insufficient evidence in patients with severe brain injury, and no firm conclusions can be drawn from these data. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Protocol uploaded to PROSPERO: April 2018 (revised October 2018, CRD42018088790).

SUBMITTER: Riberholt CG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7425882 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Early head-up mobilisation versus standard care for patients with severe acquired brain injury: A systematic review with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis.

Riberholt Christian Gunge CG Wagner Vibeke V Lindschou Jane J Gluud Christian C Mehlsen Jesper J Møller Kirsten K

PloS one 20200813 8

<h4>Background</h4>There is increasing focus on earlier rehabilitation in patients with traumatic or hypoxic brain injury or stroke. This systematic review evaluates the benefits and harms of early head-up mobilisation versus standard care in patients with severe acquired brain injury.<h4>Methods</h4>We searched Medline, CENTRAL, EMBASE, four other databases and 13 selected clinical trial registries until April 2020. Eligible randomised clinical trials compared early head-up mobilisation versus ...[more]

PMID: 32790771

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Intensive rehabilitation of patients with severe traumatic brain injury is generally applied in the subacute stages of the hospital stay. Few studies have assessed the association between early and intensive physical rehabilitation and functional outcomes. The aim of this trial is to assess the feasibility of an intensive physical rehabilitation intervention focusing on mobilisation to the upright position, starting as early as clinically possible versus standard care in the intensive care unit. The feasibility study is intended to inform a subsequent randomised clinical trial that will investigate benefits and harms of the intervention. METHODS:This randomised clinical feasibility trial with a follow-up period of 1 year will use blinded outcome assessors for the Coma Recovery Scale-Revised. A maximum of 60 patients admitted to the neurointensive care unit at Rigshospitalet, Denmark, with traumatic brain injury (age of at least 18 years), a low level of consciousness, and stable intracranial pressure will be included in the trial. Patients will be randomly assigned to experimental intervention versus standard care (1:1) stratified according to their Glasgow Coma Score. The intervention group will receive daily mobilisation in a tilt table with an integrated stepping device (ERIGO®). Feasibility is declared if more than 60% (the lower 95% confidence interval of the proportion) of eligible patients are included in the trial and more than 52% (the lower 95% confidence interval of the proportion) of patients in the intervention group receive more than 60% of the planned interventions. Safety is assessed by the occurrence of adverse events and adverse reactions. Exploratory clinical outcomes consist of cerebral haemodynamics (blood flow velocity and pressure autoregulation) and baroreceptor sensitivity in the early phase as well as functional outcomes (Coma Recovery Scale-Revised, Early Functional Ability scale, and Functional Independence Measure). DISCUSSION:Our findings will inform a future, larger-scale randomised clinical trial on early mobilisation using a tilt table early after severe traumatic brain injury. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02924649 . Registered on 3 October 2016.

Project description:BackgroundCurrently, there is a lack of evidence to guide optimal care for acute kidney injury (AKI) survivors. Therefore, post-discharge care by a multidisciplinary care team (MDCT) may improve these outcomes. This study aimed to demonstrate the outcomes of implementing comprehensive care by a MDCT in severe AKI survivors.MethodsThis study was a randomized controlled trial conducted between August 2018 to January 2021. Patients who survived severe AKI stage 2-3 were enrolled and randomized to be followed up with either comprehensive or standard care for 12 months. The comprehensive post-AKI care involved an MDCT (nephrologists, nurses, nutritionists, and pharmacists). The primary outcome was the feasibility outcomes; comprising of the rates of loss to follow up, 3-d dietary record, drug reconciliation, and drug alert rates at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included major adverse kidney events, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), and the amount of albuminuria at 12 months.ResultsNinety-eight AKI stage 3 survivors were enrolled and randomized into comprehensive care and standard care groups (49 patients in each group). Compared to the standard care group, the comprehensive care group had significantly better feasibility outcomes; 3-d dietary record, drug reconciliation, and drug alerts (p < 0.001). The mean eGFR at 12 months were comparable between the two groups (66.74 vs. 61.12 mL/min/1.73 m2, p = 0.54). The urine albumin: creatinine ratio (UACR) was significantly lower in the comprehensive care group (36.83 vs. 177.70 mg/g, p = 0.036), while the blood pressure control was also better in the comprehensive care group (87.9% vs. 57.5%, p = 0.006). There were no differences in the other renal outcomes between the two groups.ConclusionsComprehensive care by an MDCT is feasible and could be implemented for severe AKI survivors. MDCT involvement also yields better reduction of the UACR and better blood pressure control. Trial registration Clinicaltrial.gov: NCT04012008 (First registered July 9, 2019).

Dataset Information

Early head-up mobilisation versus standard care for patients with severe acquired brain injury: A systematic review with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis.

Publications

Early head-up mobilisation versus standard care for patients with severe acquired brain injury: A systematic review with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure