Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36434724›Full record

ArticleCritical care (London, England)2022

Mobilisation of critically ill patients receiving norepinephrine: a retrospective cohort study.

Maximilian Lindholz, Clara M Schellenberg, Julius J Grunow, Simone Kagerbauer, Annette Milnik, Daniel Zickler, Stefan Angermair, Anett Reißhauer, Martin Witzenrath, Mario Menk and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Critical care (London, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Maximilian LindholzDepartment of Anesthesiology and Operative Intensive Care Medicine (CVK, CCM), Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität Zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-3690-1161
Clara M SchellenbergDepartment of Anesthesiology and Operative Intensive Care Medicine (CVK, CCM), Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität Zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-3743-0771
Julius J GrunowDepartment of Anesthesiology and Operative Intensive Care Medicine (CVK, CCM), Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität Zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Simone KagerbauerDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Annette MilnikDivision of Molecular Neuroscience, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-3933-3289
Daniel ZicklerDepartment of Nephrology and Medical Intensive Care, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität Zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Stefan AngermairDepartment of Anesthesiology and Operative Intensive Care Medicine (CBF), Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität Zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Anett ReißhauerDepartment of Physical Medicine, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität Zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Martin WitzenrathDepartment of Infectious Diseases and Pulmonary Medicine, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität Zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Mario MenkDepartment of Anesthesiology and Operative Intensive Care Medicine (CVK, CCM), Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität Zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Sebastian BoieInstitute of Medical Informatics, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität Zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Felix BalzerInstitute of Medical Informatics, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität Zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-1575-2056
Stefan J SchallerDepartment of Anesthesiology and Operative Intensive Care Medicine (CVK, CCM), Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität Zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany. stefan.schaller@charite.de.ORCID 0000-0002-6683-9584
Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin · DEUniversität Ulm · DEUniversity of Basel · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMobilisation and exercise intervention in general are safe and feasible in critically ill patients. For patients requiring catecholamines, however, doses of norepinephrine safe for mobilisation in the intensive care unit (ICU) are not defined. This study aimed to describe mobilisation practice in our hospital and identify doses of norepinephrine that allowed a safe mobilisation.

methodsWe conducted a retrospective single-centre cohort study of 16 ICUs at a university hospital in Germany with patients admitted between March 2018 and November 2021. Data were collected from our patient data management system. We analysed the effect of norepinephrine on level (ICU Mobility Scale) and frequency (units per day) of mobilisation, early mobilisation (within 72 h of ICU admission), mortality, and rate of adverse events. Data were extracted from free-text mobilisation entries using supervised machine learning (support vector machine). Statistical analyses were done using (generalised) linear (mixed-effect) models, as well as chi-square tests and ANOVAs.

resultsA total of 12,462 patients were analysed in this study. They received a total of 59,415 mobilisation units. Of these patients, 842 (6.8%) received mobilisation under continuous norepinephrine administration. Norepinephrine administration was negatively associated with the frequency of mobilisation (adjusted difference -0.07 mobilisations per day; 95% CI - 0.09, - 0.05; p ≤ 0.001) and early mobilisation (adjusted OR 0.83; 95% CI 0.76, 0.90; p ≤ 0.001), while a higher norepinephrine dose corresponded to a lower chance to be mobilised out-of-bed (adjusted OR 0.01; 95% CI 0.00, 0.04; p ≤ 0.001). Mobilisation with norepinephrine did not significantly affect mortality (p > 0.1). Higher compared to lower doses of norepinephrine did not lead to a significant increase in adverse events in our practice (p > 0.1). We identified that mobilisation was safe with up to 0.20 µg/kg/min norepinephrine for out-of-bed (IMS ≥ 2) and 0.33 µg/kg/min for in-bed (IMS 0-1) mobilisation.

conclusionsMobilisation with norepinephrine can be done safely when considering the status of the patient and safety guidelines. We demonstrated that safe mobilisation was possible with norepinephrine doses up to 0.20 µg/kg/min for out-of-bed (IMS ≥ 2) and 0.33 µg/kg/min for in-bed (IMS 0-1) mobilisation.

Indexed as

Critical IllnessNorepinephrineCohort StudiesHumansProspective StudiesRetrospective StudiesNorepinephrineAdverse eventsEarly ambulationEarly mobilisationNorepinephrineSupervised machine learning

Identifiers

PMID36434724
PMCPMC9700948
OpenAlexW4309961332

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.