Intensive Care Physiotherapy during Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: There are limited data on physiotherapy during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). OBJECTIVES: We sought to characterize physiotherapy delivered to patients with ARDS supported with ECMO, as well as to evaluate the association of this therapeutic modality with mortality. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all adult patients with ARDS supported with ECMO at our institution between 2010 and 2015. The highest level of daily activity while on ECMO was coded using the ICU Mobility Scale. Through multivariable logistic regression, we evaluated the association between intensive care unit (ICU) physiotherapy and ICU mortality. In an exploratory univariate analysis, we also evaluated factors associated with a higher intensity of ICU rehabilitation while on ECMO. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of 107 patients who underwent ECMO, 61 (57%) had ARDS requiring venovenous ECMO. The ICU physiotherapy team was consulted for 82% (n = 50) of patients. Thirty-nine percent (n = 18) of these patients achieved an activity level of 2 or higher (active exercises in bed), and 17% (n = 8) achieved an activity level 4 or higher (actively sitting over the side of the bed). In an exploratory analysis, consultation with the ICU physiotherapy team was associated with decreased ICU mortality (odds ratio, 0.19; 95% confidence interval, 0.04-0.98). In univariate analysis, severity-of-illness factors differentiated higher-intensity and lower-intensity physiotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Physiotherapy during ECMO is feasible and safe when performed by an experienced team and executed in stages. Although our study suggests an association with improved ICU mortality, future research is needed to identify potential barriers, optimal timing, dosage, and safety profile.
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 | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".