TryCYCLE: A Prospective Study of the Safety and Feasibility of Early In-Bed Cycling in Mechanically Ventilated Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to assess the safety and feasibility of in-bed cycling started within the first 4 days of mechanical ventilation (MV) to inform a future randomized clinical trial. METHODS: We conducted a 33-patient prospective cohort study in a 21-bed adult academic medical-surgical intensive care unit (ICU) in Hamilton, ON, Canada. We included adult patients (≥ 18 years) receiving MV who walked independently pre-ICU. Our intervention was 30 minutes of in-bed supine cycling 6 days/week in the ICU. Our primary outcome was Safety (termination), measured as events prompting cycling termination; secondary Safety (disconnection or dislodgement) outcomes included catheter/tube dislodgements. Feasibility was measured as consent rate and fidelity to intervention. For our primary outcome, we calculated the binary proportion and 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: From 10/2013-8/2014, we obtained consent from 34 of 37 patients approached (91.9%), 33 of whom received in-bed cycling. Of those who cycled, 16(48.4%) were female, the mean (SD) age was 65.8(12.2) years, and APACHE II score was 24.3(6.7); 29(87.9%) had medical admitting diagnoses. Cycling termination was infrequent (2.0%, 95% CI: 0.8%-4.9%) and no device dislodgements occurred. Cycling began a median [IQR] of 3 [2, 4] days after ICU admission; patients received 5 [3, 8] cycling sessions with a median duration of 30.7 [21.6, 30.8] minutes per session. During 205 total cycling sessions, patients were receiving invasive MV (150 [73.1%]), vasopressors (6 [2.9%]), sedative or analgesic infusions (77 [37.6%]) and dialysis (4 [2.0%]). CONCLUSIONS: Early cycling within the first 4 days of MV among hemodynamically stable patients is safe and feasible. Research to evaluate the effect of early cycling on patient function is warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01885442.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".