More is less: Effect of ICF-based early progressive mobilization on severe aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage in the NICU

The aim of this guideline is to present current and comprehensive recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH). A formal literature search of MEDLINE (November 1, 2006, through May 1, 2010) was performed. Data were synthesized with the use of evidence tables. Writing group members met by teleconference to discuss data-derived recommendations. The American Heart Association Stroke Council's Levels of Evidence grading algorithm was used to grade each recommendation. The guideline draft was reviewed by 7 expert peer reviewers and by the members of the Stroke Council Leadership and Manuscript Oversight Committees. It is intended that this guideline be fully updated every 3 years. Evidence-based guidelines are presented for the care of patients presenting with aSAH. The focus of the guideline was subdivided into incidence, risk factors, prevention, natural history and outcome, diagnosis, prevention of rebleeding, surgical and endovascular repair of ruptured aneurysms, systems of care, anesthetic management during repair, management of vasospasm and delayed cerebral ischemia, management of hydrocephalus, management of seizures, and management of medical complications. aSAH is a serious medical condition in which outcome can be dramatically impacted by early, aggressive, expert care. The guidelines offer a framework for goal-directed treatment of the patient with aSAH.

Subarachnoid haemorrhage is an uncommon and severe subtype of stroke affecting patients at a mean age of 55 years, leading to loss of many years of productive life. The rupture of an intracranial aneurysm is the underlining cause in 85% of cases. Survival from aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage has increased by 17% in the past few decades, probably because of better diagnosis, early aneurysm repair, prescription of nimodipine, and advanced intensive care support. Nevertheless, survivors commonly have cognitive impairments, which in turn affect patients' daily functionality, working capacity, and quality of life. Additionally, those deficits are frequently accompanied by mood disorders, fatigue, and sleep disturbances. Management requires specialised neurological intensive care units and multidisciplinary clinical expertise, which is better provided in high-volume centres. Many clinical trials have been done, but only two interventions are shown to improve outcome. Challenges that remain relate to prevention of subarachnoid haemorrhage by improved screening and development of lower-risk methods to repair or stabilise aneurysms that have not yet ruptured. Multicentre cooperative efforts might increase the knowledge that can be gained from clinical trials, which is often limited by small studies with differing criteria and endpoints that are done in single centres. Outcome assessments that incorporate finer assessment of neurocognitive function and validated surrogate imaging or biomarkers for outcome could also help to advance the specialty.

Immobilization and subsequent weakness are consequences of critical illness. Despite the theoretical advantages of physical therapy to address this problem, it has not been shown that physical therapy initiated in the intensive care unit offers benefit. Prospective cohort study in a university medical intensive care unit that assessed whether a mobility protocol increased the proportion of intensive care unit patients receiving physical therapy vs. usual care. Medical intensive care unit patients with acute respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation on admission: Protocol, n = 165; Usual Care, n = 165. An intensive care unit Mobility Team (critical care nurse, nursing assistant, physical therapist) initiated the protocol within 48 hrs of mechanical ventilation. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients receiving physical therapy in patients surviving to hospital discharge. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. Outcome data are reflective of survivors. More Protocol patients received at least one physical therapy session than did Usual Care (80% vs. 47%, p < or = .001). Protocol patients were out of bed earlier (5 vs. 11 days, p < or = .001), had therapy initiated more frequently in the intensive care unit (91% vs. 13%, p < or = .001), and had similar low complication rates compared with Usual Care. For Protocol patients, intensive care unit length of stay was 5.5 vs. 6.9 days for Usual Care (p = .025); hospital length of stay for Protocol patients was 11.2 vs. 14.5 days for Usual Care (p = .006) (intensive care unit/hospital length of stay adjusted for body mass index, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II, vasopressor). There were no untoward events during an intensive care unit Mobility session and no cost difference (survivors + nonsurvivors) between the two arms, including Mobility Team costs. A Mobility Team using a mobility protocol initiated earlier physical therapy that was feasible, safe, did not increase costs, and was associated with decreased intensive care unit and hospital length of stay in survivors who received physical therapy during intensive care unit treatment compared with patients who received usual care.