Early Mobilization After Stroke
2015; Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; Volume: 46; Issue: 4 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1161/strokeaha.114.007434
ISSN1524-4628
AutoresJulie Bernhardt, Coralie English, Liam Johnson, Toby Cumming,
Tópico(s)Spinal Cord Injury Research
ResumoHomeStrokeVol. 46, No. 4Early Mobilization After Stroke Free AccessResearch ArticlePDF/EPUBAboutView PDFView EPUBSections ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload citationsTrack citationsPermissionsDownload Articles + Supplements ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InMendeleyReddit Jump toSupplementary MaterialsFree AccessResearch ArticlePDF/EPUBEarly Mobilization After StrokeEarly Adoption but Limited Evidence Julie Bernhardt, PhD, Coralie English, PhD, Liam Johnson, PhD and Toby B. Cumming, PhD Julie BernhardtJulie Bernhardt From the Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, University of Melbourne, Australia (J.B., C.E., L.J., T.B.C.); International Centre for Allied Health Evidence, University of South Australia, Australia (C.E.); Institute of Sport, Exercise and Active Living, Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia (L.J.). , Coralie EnglishCoralie English From the Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, University of Melbourne, Australia (J.B., C.E., L.J., T.B.C.); International Centre for Allied Health Evidence, University of South Australia, Australia (C.E.); Institute of Sport, Exercise and Active Living, Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia (L.J.). , Liam JohnsonLiam Johnson From the Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, University of Melbourne, Australia (J.B., C.E., L.J., T.B.C.); International Centre for Allied Health Evidence, University of South Australia, Australia (C.E.); Institute of Sport, Exercise and Active Living, Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia (L.J.). and Toby B. CummingToby B. Cumming From the Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, University of Melbourne, Australia (J.B., C.E., L.J., T.B.C.); International Centre for Allied Health Evidence, University of South Australia, Australia (C.E.); Institute of Sport, Exercise and Active Living, Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia (L.J.). Originally published17 Feb 2015https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.114.007434Stroke. 2015;46:1141–1146Other version(s) of this articleYou are viewing the most recent version of this article. Previous versions: January 1, 2015: Previous Version 1 In the last decade, increasing attention has been paid to understanding the components of care that might contribute to the stroke unit effect. Early mobilization, in its many guises, is one component of care proposed to contribute to the survival and recovery benefits of stroke unit care.1 This topical review provides an overview of the current evidence, research, and practice recommendations for early mobilization after stroke.We Need to Define Early MobilizationAs a term, early mobilization is problematic. There is no common understanding of the meaning of early (eg, hours, days, weeks, months) or mobilization (movement of, eg, cells, joints, limbs, people). A recurring theme in this review, inadequate definition currently limits our ability to synthesize information on the topic. For example, in some clinical trials of mobility interventions started soon after stroke, mobilization is used to describe a program of task-specific standing and walking retraining (rehabilitation) delivered by therapists or nurses and continued throughout the acute hospital stay.2,3 In other cases, mobilization refers simply to moving a patients' limbs in bed or sitting them out of bed. The timing of commencement of activity is also highly variable and often hard to determine. As both what we do (intervention type, intensity, frequency, amount), and when we do it, may confer benefit or harm, we highlight variations in definition where relevant. We have focused our review on out-of-bed interventions commencing in the first 24 to 72 hours after stroke, as this is the period of greatest clinical uncertainty.Brief History of Early Mobilization After StrokeEarly mobilization was first discussed at a Swedish consensus conference on stroke care in the mid-1980s (Bo Norving and Bent Indredavik, personal communication, 2014) with several local guidelines in Norway and Sweden recommending the practice. Early mobilization became more prominent in the literature in the early 1990s when Indredavik and colleagues reported their clinical trial results showing marked reduction in death and disability in patients managed in a stroke unit with a focus on early rehabilitation and mobilization when compared with general medical ward care.4 This trial formed part of the seminal Cochrane review by Langhorne and colleagues5 that clearly demonstrated the benefits of organized stroke unit care. Early mobilization/rehabilitation was incorporated into subsequent discussions as an important component of stroke unit care1 and began to appear in national clinical guidelines around 1994.6 The first randomized controlled trial of early mobilization commenced in 2004 (A Very Early Rehabilitation Trial [AVERT] Phase II),3 testing the feasibility and safety of starting task-specific mobility training, in a stroke unit context, within 24 hours of stroke onset. The intervention protocol was informed by observational studies, which highlighted that in Indredaviks' Norwegian stroke unit, a philosophy of early mobilization did result in patients, even those with severe stroke, being more physically active throughout the day.7 The sub-24 hour timing of intervention commencement in AVERT Phase II was selected to better inform clinical practice, given the uncertainty about the potential harms and benefits of starting activity, particularly in the first day(s) after stroke. This will be covered in more depth below.Trials EvidenceOnly 4 completed trials (AVERT Phase II, n=713; Very Early Rehabilitation or Intensive Telemetry After Stroke [VERITAS], n=328; Akershus Early Mobilization in Stroke Study [AKEMIS], n=569; and Lausanne trial, n=4210; total n=201) have tested an early mobilization intervention commenced within 24 to 72 hours of stroke, against a usual care (later mobilization±monitoring) control in a stroke unit environment (Table 1). Generally, inclusion criteria have been broad with a wide range in age, stroke severity, and stroke type (only the Lausanne trial exlcuded patients with intracerebral hemorrhage). The interventions tested have varied; with some focused on frequent and ongoing mobility training supported by therapist or nurse (AVERT, VERITAS), and others testing a graduated head-raising protocol in bed then out of bed after 52 hours (Lausanne trial). Importantly, no trial has demonstrated significant effect on complications, mortality, or global disability (modified Rankin Scale). AVERT Phase II investigators did report faster return to unassisted walking11 and reduced costs of care.12 An individual patient meta-analysis, including data from AVERT and VERITAS, suggested some significant improvement in function at 3 months poststroke13; however, sample size remains small (n=103). Increasingly, we are seeing early rehabilitation trials from China. A systematic review and meta-analysis of 37 Chinese trials (n=5916) found significant functional benefits with earlier, highly varied interventions compared with no/little intervention; however, trial quality was often low.14 A more recent early rehabilitation trial by Liu and colleagues15 included 243 patients with intracerebral hemorrhage, randomized to commence rehabilitation (no mobility component specified) within 48 hours of stroke onset, or receive usual care (rehabilitation starting >7 days of bed rest). A higher risk of death (hazard ratio, 4.44; 95% confidence interval, 1.24–12.87) and a 6-point deficit (95% confidence interval, 4.2–8.7) in SF-36 (physical) was reported in patients with prolonged bed rest. Uncertainty remains about how to integrate findings from Chinese rehabilitation trials into reviews, but improved reporting should help.14,16 Two large ongoing trials, AVERT Phase III (n=2104) and Ischemic Stroke and Early Vertical Positioning (SEVEL) (n=400) are currently underway (Table 2). These trials will substantially increase the evidence base in this field.Table 1. Completed Trials of Early and Very Early Mobilization After StrokePublication (Trial Name)Randomized SampleIntervention ProtocolTime (Hours) Between Stroke and MobilizationOutcome*Bernhardt et al 20083 (AVERT)71• Recruited within 24 h of stroke, goal to start mobilization within 24 h of stroke• Emphasis on patient being upright and out of bed (sitting or standing)• At least twice a day for first 14 days or until dischargeIntervention (n=38):Median=18.1,IQR=12.8–21.5Control (n=33):Median=30.8,IQR=23.0–39.9Complications/safetyDeaths: intervention=8/38, SC=3/33, absolute risk difference=12%, ns.Serious adverse events†: intervention =15, control=14, ns.Nonserious adverse events: intervention =61, control=76, P=0.04Falls: intervention=27, SC=28, ns.Functional outcomemRS 0–2: intervention=39.5%, control =30.3%, adjusted‡ OR=4.10, P=0.05Langhorne et al 20108 (VERITAS)32• Recruited within 24 h of admission, with goal to start mobilization within 24 h of stroke• Goal for patient to be sitting, standing or walking (adjusted to patient needs)• Continued at least four times a day, during the inpatient stay, or for one week after recruitmentIntervention (n=16):Mean=27.3Range=26–29Control (n=16):Mean=32.0Range=22.5–47.3Complications/safetyDeaths: EM=0%, control=6%Complications§: EM=8, control=17Complications (days 5–90): EM=8, control=8Complications of immobility (days 0–5): intervention=0, control=3Functional outcomemRS 0–2: intervention=75%, control =44%, adjusted‖ OR=2.3, (P=0.44)Diserens et al 201110 (Lausanne trial)50 (42 included in analysis)• Recruited within 12 h of admission, with protocol started 24 h after stroke• Patient's head of the bed kept at 0° for first 24 h poststroke, followed by 45° for 24 h, then 90° for 4 h• At 52 h poststroke, patients were moved out of the bed to either sitting or standingIntervention (n=25):Not reportedControl (n=17):Not reportedComplications/safetyDeaths: intervention=0%, control=6%Severe complications including death¶ (during hospitalization): intervention=8%, control=47%Minor complications (during hospitalization): intervention=20%, control=0%, ns.Functional outcomemRS 0–2: intervention=40%, control=30%, ns.Sundseth et al 20129 (AKEMIS)65 (56 included in analysis)• Recruited if admitted to hospital within 24 h of stroke, with mobilization out of bed within 24 h of admission• No predefined mobilization protocol. Mobilization, defined as any out of bed activity, followed the stroke unit's standard routine for mobilization, adjusted to patients' needs• Mobilization occurred several times per dayIntervention (n=27):Median=13.1IQR=8.5–25.6Control (n=29):Median=33.3IQR=26.0–39.0Complications/safetyDeaths: intervention=7/27, control =2/29, adjusted# OR=5.26, ns.Patients who experienced ≥1 complication: intervention=67%, control=66%, ns.Functional outcomemRS 0–2: intervention=40%. control=60.7%, adjusted** OR=2.7, ns.IQR indicates interquartile range; mRS, modified Rankin Scale; ns, nonsignificant; and OR, odds ratio.*Outcome data are at 3 months, unless otherwise stated.†Serious adverse events included stroke progression, pneumonia, recurrent stroke, myocardial infarction, atrial fibrillation, and other (does not include death).‡Adjusted for age, baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS), premorbid mRS (modified Rankin Scale).§Complications included chest infection, falls, fatigue, and stroke progression. Complication of immobility was a subset including deep vein thrombosis, urinary tract infection.‖Adjusted for age, baseline NIHSS, cointervention.¶Severe complications included hospital acquired pneumonia, acute coronary syndrome, and pulmonary embolism. Minor complications were those that did not affect the autonomy of the patient (eg, allergic reactions, bed sores).#Adjusted for age, NIHSS on admission, and mortality.**Adjusted for age and admission NIHSS.Table 2. Ongoing Trials of Early and Very Early Mobilization After StrokeEstimated EnrollmentInterventionsRecruitment Time FramePrimary OutcomeAVERT Phase III (Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health) NCT01846247Active, not recruiting2104Intervention: usual care + very early mobilizationPatient will receive standard stroke unit care with earlier and additional physiotherapy and nursing sessions as per an intervention protocolComparator: usual careRecruited 30 mm Hg) seem to occur in 20), drowsiness, and confusion also seem to influence clinicians' decisions about the timing of mobilization after r-tPA.32 Evidence to guide early mobilization after r-tPA is scarce. A small trial of 29 patients mobilized 12 to 24 hours after r-tPA found 75% of patients had no adverse response to mobilization, with the remainder experiencing nonserious events.33 AVERT Phase III includes over 500 patients treated with r-tPA. These data should help inform clinical guidelines.Safety Criteria NeededEstablishing safety criteria for this intervention is an important next step. Clearly, not all patients admitted with stroke should start out-of-bed activity or training within hours, or even days, of stroke onset. Currently, there are no clear safety guidelines to guide initiation or progress of treatment. Within the context of a trial, trialists seem willing to include adults (no upper age limit) with ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke, who are rouseable, with no early deterioration, no signs of secondary intracerebral hemorrhage, acute coronary syndromes, or severe heart failure. Patients treated with r-tPA were excluded from earlier trials,3,8–10 but are included in AVERT Phase III. Additional broad physiological safety criteria include systolic blood pressure between 120 and 220 mm Hg and heart rate between 40 and 100 beats per minute.3 Physiological monitoring before each out-of-bed episode over the first 1 to 3 days, particularly targeting systolic blood pressure and consciousness, was practiced in several trials using a range of regimes. At present, cerebral imaging is not used to select patients or guide treatment.Early Mobilization in PracticeIncreasingly, we see early mobilization incorporated into stroke care audits as a quality indicator (see Table II in the online-only Data Supplement), although mobilization is largely undefined, and early is either not quantified or ranges from within 24 hours of stroke onset34 to day 2 of hospital admission.35,36 Only first mobilization is recorded. Reports on compliance vary and range from 49% in Spain37 to 85% in Australia.35 Does compliance with early mobilization have an effect on patient outcomes? Stroke audit data from Catalonia, Spain, showed that early mobilization was significantly associated with reduced mortality at 30 days (OR, 2.05; 95% confidence interval, 1.31–3.19) and 12 months (OR, 1.54; 95% confidence interval, 1.05–2.24).38 Others have found early mobilization to be independently associated with a lower risk of medical complications39 and shorter hospital stay.36 These indictors hinge on the timing of first mobilization. It is, therefore, likely that rather than indicate the effect of a specific intervention, the indicator serves as a proxy for how efficiently early team care is coordinated, which may include access to rehabilitation-focused staff.ConclusionsEarly mobilization has become a regular topic of workshops and scientific sessions at stroke conferences around the world. It seems like a simple activity that could improve the quality of acute care. This review highlights the early acceptance and, in some cases, adoption of starting some form of mobilization early, despite concerns. What is currently missing from the discussion is a shared understanding of what an early mobilization intervention is, evidence to help us decide which patients can safely start mobilizing early, and the mechanism by which early mobilization might aid recovery or cause harm as a treatment in the first hours or days of stroke. It was this uncertainty, on the back of promising Phase II results, that prompted us to conduct the soon to be completed international AVERT Phase III trial. On the sliding scale of mobilization interventions, our intervention protocol is firmly at the rehabilitation (training) end of the spectrum, and we will be able to examine who received treatment, how often and when over the course of their acute hospital stay. This large trial will help inform clinical guidelines about who might benefit or be harmed by starting mobility training within 24 hours of stroke onset and will provide a detailed evaluation of care costs. As with all research, it is also likely to generate new research questions. Increasingly, we are trying to understand how to enhance and accelerate recovery after stroke using multimodal approaches, including rehabilitation therapies. Improving rehabilitation interventions through better understanding of the neurobiology of recovery and when (and what) training may offer the most benefit, as well as determining who we should target, is an important part of this endeavor. Our new Center of Research Excellence in Rehabilitation and Recovery, funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council, is focused on these important goals. The model aligns with recommendations from the 2010 prioritizing a world agenda synergium,40 and we look forward to linking with other international rehabilitation and recovery research initiatives from around the globe.AcknowledgmentsWe thank Audrey Raffelt for sourcing guidelines, extracting recommendations, and preparing tables. We also thank the following people for their assistance in translating Good Clinical Practice Guidelines: Wen Wen Zhang, Atte Meretoja, Tina Kaffenberger, Thomas Linden, Torunn Askim, Marie Dagonnier, and Sharon Kramer. The Victorian State Government provides infrastructure support to The Florey for which we are grateful.Sources of FundingDr Bernhardt is funded by a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Senior Research Fellowship. Dr English is funded by an NHMRC Early Career Fellowship.DisclosuresDr Bernhardt is Principal Investigator for AVERT Phase III. The other authors report no conflicts.FootnotesThe online-only Data Supplement is available with this article at http://stroke.ahajournals.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.114.007434/-/DC1.Correspondence to Julie Bernhardt, PhD, The Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, 245 Burgundy St, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia 3084. E-mail [email protected]References1. Langhorne P, Pollock A; Stroke Unit Trialists' Collaboration. What are the components of effective stroke unit care?Age Ageing. 2002; 31:365–371.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar2. Indredavik B, Bakke F, Slordahl SA, Rokseth R, Hâheim LL. Treatment in a combined acute and rehabilitation stroke unit: which aspects are most important?Stroke. 1999; 30:917–923.LinkGoogle Scholar3. Bernhardt J, Dewey H, Thrift A, Collier J, Donnan G. A very early rehabilitation trial for stroke (AVERT): phase II safety and feasibility.Stroke. 2008; 39:390–396. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.107.492363.LinkGoogle Scholar4. Indredavik B, Bakke F, Slordahl S, Rokseth R, Haheim L, Holme I. Benefits of a stroke unit: a randomized controlled trial.Stroke1991; 22:1026–1031.LinkGoogle Scholar5. Stroke Unit Trialists Collaboration. Organised inpatient (stroke unit) care for stroke (Review).Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007; (4):CD000197.Google Scholar6. Adams HP, Brott TG, Crowell RM, Furlan AJ, Gomez CR, Grotta J, et al. Guidelines for the management of patients with acute ischemic stroke. A statement for healthcare professionals from a special writing group of the Stroke Council, American Heart Association.Circulation. 1994; 90:1588–1601.LinkGoogle Scholar7. Bernhardt J, Chitravas N, Meslo IL, Thrift AG, Indredavik B. Not all stroke units are the same: a comparison of physical activity patterns in Melbourne, Australia, and Trondheim, Norway.Stroke. 2008; 39:2059–2065. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.107.507160.LinkGoogle Scholar8. Langhorne P, Stott D, Knight A, Bernhardt J, Barer D, Watkins C. Very early rehabilitation or intensive telemetry after stroke: a pilot randomised trial.Cerebrovasc Dis. 2010; 29:352–360. doi: 10.1159/000278931.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar9. Sundseth A, Thommessen B, Rønning OM. Outcome after mobilization within 24 hours of acute stroke: a randomized controlled trial.Stroke. 2012; 43:2389–2394. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.111.646687.LinkGoogle Scholar10. Diserens K, Moreira T, Hirt L, Faouzi M, Grujic J, Bieler G, et al. Early mobilization out of bed after ischaemic stroke reduces severe complications but not cerebral blood flow: a randomized controlled pilot trial.Clin Rehabil. 2012; 26:451–459. doi: 10.1177/0269215511425541.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar11. Cumming TB, Thrift AG, Collier JM, Churilov L, Dewey HM, Donnan GA, et al. Very early mobilization after stroke fast-tracks return to walking: further results from the phase II AVERT randomized controlled trial.Stroke. 2011; 42:153–158. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.110.594598.LinkGoogle Scholar12. Tay-Teo K, Moodie M, Bernhardt J, Thrift AG, Collier J, Donnan G, et al. Economic evaluation alongside a phase II, multi-centre, randomised controlled trial of very early rehabilitation after stroke (AVERT).Cerebrovasc Dis. 2008; 26:475–481. doi: 10.1159/000155984.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar13. Craig LE, Bernhardt J, Langhorne P, Wu O. Early mobilization after stroke: an example of an individual patient data meta-analysis of a complex intervention.Stroke. 2010; 41:2632–2636. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.110.588244.LinkGoogle Scholar14. Zhang WW, Speare S, Churilov L, Thuy M, Donnan G, Bernhardt J. Stroke rehabilitation in China: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Int J Stroke. 2014; 9:494–502. doi: 10.1111/ijs.12029.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar15. Liu N, Cadilhac DA, Andrew NE, Zeng L, Li Z, Li J, et al. Randomized controlled trial of early rehabilitation after intracerebral hemorrhage stroke: difference in outcomes within 6 months of stroke.Stroke. 2014; 45:3502–3507. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.114.005661.LinkGoogle Scholar16. Pollock A, Campbell P, Baer G, Choo PL, Forster A, Morris J, et al. Challenges in integrating international evidence relating to stroke rehabilitation: experiences from a Cochrane systematic review.Int J Stroke. 2014; 9:965–967. doi: 10.1111/ijs.12339.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar17. Bamford J, Dennis M, Sandercock P, Burn J, Warlow C. The frequency, causes and timing of death within 30 days of a first stroke: the Oxfordshire Community Stroke Project.J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1990; 53:824–829.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar18. Ivey FM, Hafer-Macko CE, Macko RF. Exercise rehabilitation after stroke.NeuroRx. 2006; 3:439–450. doi: 10.1016/j.nurx.2006.07.011.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar19. Govan L, Langhorne P, Weir CJ; Stroke Unit Trialists Collaboration. Does the prevention of complications explain the survival benefit of organized inpatient (stroke unit) care?: further analysis of a systematic review.Stroke. 2007; 38:2536–2540. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.106.478842.LinkGoogle Scholar20. Askim T, Bernhardt J, Løge AD, Indredavik B. Stroke patients do not need to be inactive in the first two-weeks after stroke: results from a stroke unit focused on early rehabilitation.Int J Stroke. 2012; 7:25–31. doi: 10.1111/j.1747-4949.2011.00697.x.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar21. West T, Bernhardt J. Physical activity i
Referência(s)