602
J. Wu et al.
Table I. Comparison of baseline characteristics
Group Early rehabilitation (n = 29) Usual care (n = 33)
Sex, male, n (%)
Age, years, n (%)
Live-in support, n (%) 20 (69)
53.9 (15.0) 21 (64)
55.2 (11.4)
Alone 6 (20.7) 7 (21.2)
Family 23 (79.3) 23 (69.7)
0 3 (9.1)
Cardiac/lung transplantation 12 (41.4) 9 (27.3)
Cardiac illness or surgery 12 (41.4) 8 (24.2)
Other medical illness 1 (3.4) 9 (27.3)
4 (13.7) 7 (21.2)
23 (79.4) 23 (69.7)
6 (20.6) 10 (30.3)
Employed 11 (37.9) 15 (45.5)
Retired due to age 4 (13.8) 7 (21.2)
Retired due to disability 14 (48.3) 9 (27.3)
0
1.0 (1.0–3.0)
100 (97.5–100)
25.5 (4.9)
8.0 (6.0–12.0)
5.5 (4.8)
7 (24.1)
53.0 (47.5–58.5) 2 (6.0)
1.0 (0–2.0)
100 (90.0–100)
26.4 (4.6)
8.0 (6.0–12.0)
5.8 (3.1)
10 (30.3)
54 (45.0–57.0)
Friend(s)
Diagnostic category at admission, n (%)
Other surgery
Educational level n (%)
High school
University
Employment n (%)
Other
Charlson Comorbidity Index, median (IQR)
Premorbid Barthel Index (0–100), median (IQR)
Premorbid Lawton’s score (8–30), mean (SD)
ICU LOS (first episode), days, median (IQR)
Delirium, days, mean (SD)
ICU acquired weakness, n (%)
ICU acquired weakness score, median (IQR)
SD: standard deviation; IQR: interquartile range; ICU: intensive care; LOS: length of stay; FIM: Functional Independence Measure.
vs 41 days [IQR 17–54] for the control group), but
this was not significant in the present pilot.
Secondary outcomes
Analyses of secondary outcomes are shown in Tables
IV and V. Participants in both groups demonstrated
improved function (measured by the FIM score)
from ICU discharge to acute care discharge, but
there were no differences in the magnitude or rate
of improvement between the groups. Participants’
ability to attend to domestic activities of daily living
(as measured by the Lawton’s Scale) improved from
baseline to 6-month follow-up, and remained stable
until 12 months. Both participant groups demonstra-
ted lower quality-of-life scores and higher scores on
the DASS compared with population norms (25, 27)
at follow-up. As for the primary outcomes, no signi-
ficant between-group differences were observed for
any secondary measures.
Table II. Comparison of therapy dose provided and participant activity levels
Group Early rehabilitation (n = 29),
Median (IQR) Usual care (n = 33),
Median (IQR) p-value
Total number of physiotherapy sessions
Total number of occupational therapy sessions
Total number of physiotherapy and occupational therapy sessions
Total number of physiotherapy sessions per week
Total number of occupational therapy sessions per week
Total number of physiotherapy and occupational therapy sessions per week
Time standing over 24-h period (min)
Time stepping over 24-h period (min)
Number of steps over 24-h period 10.0 (5.5–23.0)
4.0 (2.5–6.0)
12.0 (9.0–27.5)
5.4 (3.0–8.5)
2.3 (1.1–3.1)
8.2 (6.0–11.8)
26.0 (10.5–51.3)
8.5 (5.0–15.8)
530.5 (310.5–1216.0) 8.0 (4.5–10.5)
2.0 (1.0–5.0)
10.0 (5.5–15.5)
3.0 (1.6–4.7)
0.8 (0.3–2.3)
4.9 (2.6–7.0)
43.5 (11.5–90.5)
10.0 (4.0–23.0)
546.0 (327.0–1516.0) 0.07
0.04
0.06
< 0.001
0.03
< 0.001
0.28
0.72
0.70
IQR: interquartile range.
Table III. Comparison of length of stay
Early rehabilitation (n = 29)
Median (IQR) Usual care (n = 33)
Median (IQR) p-value a
ICU and acute LOS, days
LOS on the acute ward, days 24.0 (14.0–36.0)
14.0 (7.0–22.5) 25.0 (17.0–45.0)
15.0 (8.5–34.5) 0.39
0.37
Rehabilitation LOS , days
Total LOS, days 28.0 (14.5–43.5)
31.0 (20.0–56.0) 14.0 (11.0–14.5)
41.0 (17.0–54.0) 0.04
0.57
Group
b
a
Disclaimer: this study is not adequately powered for LOS outcomes.
n = 9 (early rehabilitation) and 10 (usual care).
IQR: interquartile range; ICU: intensive care; LOS: length of stay.
b
www.medicaljournals.se/jrm