Next Article in Journal
Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio and Platelet-to-Lymphocyte Ratio as Prognostic Markers for Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Treated with Immunotherapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Previous Article in Journal
Infections in Burn Patients: A Retrospective View over Seven Years
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Medicina
Volume 58
Issue 8
10.3390/medicina58081068
medicina-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

A Global Survey on Diagnostic, Therapeutic and Preventive Strategies in Intensive Care Unit—Acquired Weakness

by
Felix Klawitter
1,*,
Marie-Christine Oppitz
1,
Nicolai Goettel
2,3,
Mette M. Berger
4,
Carol Hodgson
5,6,
Steffen Weber-Carstens
7,
Stefan J. Schaller
8,9,† and
Johannes Ehler
1,†
1
Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, University Medical Center Rostock, 18057 Rostock, Germany
2
Department of Anesthesiology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL 32610, USA
3
Department of Clinical Research, University of Basel, 4031 Basel, Switzerland
4
Service of Adult Intensive Care, Lausanne University Hospital (CHUV), 1011 Lausanne, Switzerland
5
Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Research Centre, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC 3004, Australia
6
Department of Intensive Care and Hyperbaric Medicine, The Alfred, Melbourne, VIC 3004, Australia
7
Department of Anesthesiology and Operative Intensive Care Medicine (CCM/CVK), Charité—Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13357 Berlin, Germany
8
Department of Anesthesiology and Operative Intensive Care Medicine (CVK/CCM), Charité—Universitätsmedizin Berlin, 10117 Berlin, Germany
9
Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, Klinikum Rechts der Isar, School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, 81675 Munich, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Medicina 2022, 58(8), 1068; https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina58081068
Submission received: 9 July 2022 / Revised: 27 July 2022 / Accepted: 27 July 2022 / Published: 8 August 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Intensive Care/ Anesthesiology)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Background and Objectives: Intensive care unit-acquired weakness (ICU-AW) is one of the most frequent neuromuscular complications in critically ill patients. We conducted a global survey to evaluate the current practices of diagnostics, treatment and prevention in patients with ICU-AW. Materials and Methods: A pre-survey was created with international experts. After revision, the final survey was endorsed by the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM) using the online platform SurveyMonkey®. In 27 items, we addressed strategies of diagnostics, therapy and prevention. An invitation link was sent by email to all ESICM members. Furthermore, the survey was available on the ESICM homepage. Results: A total of 154 healthcare professionals from 39 countries participated in the survey. An ICU-AW screening protocol was used by 20% (28/140) of participants. Forty-four percent (62/141) of all participants reported performing routine screening for ICU-AW, using clinical examination as the method of choice (124/141, 87.9%). Almost 63% (84/134) of the participants reported using current treatment strategies for patients with ICU-AW. The use of treatment and prevention strategies differed between intensivists and non-intensivists regarding the reduction in sedatives (80.0% vs. 52.6%, p = 0.002), neuromuscular blocking agents (76.4% vs. 50%, p = 0.004), corticosteroids (69.1% vs. 37.2%, p < 0.001) and glycemic control regimes (50.9% vs. 23.1%, p = 0.002). Mobilization and physical activity are the most frequently reported treatment strategies for ICU-AW (111/134, 82.9%). The availability of physiotherapists (92/134, 68.7%) and the lack of knowledge about ICU-AW within the medical team (83/134, 61.9%) were the main obstacles to the implementation of the strategies. The necessity to develop guidelines for the screening, diagnosing, treatment and prevention of ICU-AW was recognized by 95% (127/133) of participants. Conclusions: A great heterogeneity regarding diagnostics, treatment and prevention of ICU-AW was reported internationally. Comprehensive guidelines with evidence-based recommendations for ICU-AW management are needed.

1. Introduction

Intensive care unit-acquired weakness (ICU-AW) is one of the most frequent neuromuscular complications associated with prolonged intensive care treatment lasting up to several days, increased morbidity and mortality [1,2]. Furthermore, the quality of life is severely affected even months after hospital discharge in patients with ICU-AW [3]. Hallmark symptoms include a symmetric, flaccid palsy, reduced muscle tone as well as reduced or absent muscle reflexes [4]. By definition, ICU-AW is clinically diagnosed by the determination of typical neurological symptoms combined with a Medical Research Council—sum score (MRC-SS) < 48 [5]. Current evidence demonstrates that an MRC-SS < 55 is associated with relevant neuromuscular dysfunction and results in a poorer patient outcome [6,7]. Many different approaches for diagnostics, treatment and prevention have been published in recent years, but little is known about their implementation and acceptance in daily intensive care practice [4,8,9,10,11,12]. Early mobilization and physiotherapy have been identified as cornerstones in the treatment and prevention of ICU-AW [11,13,14]. However, recent evidence suggests a significant heterogeneity in the regional intensive care medicine of patients with ICU-AW as well as insufficient knowledge about the syndrome itself [15]. Furthermore, evidence-based recommendations for the management of ICU-AW are lacking, potentially resulting in the heterogeneity of medical care in patients with ICU-AW depending on individual expertise and available resources. We therefore conducted an international survey to evaluate the current clinical practice of diagnostics, monitoring, treatment and prevention strategies in patients with ICU-AW.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Questionnaire and Study Participation

We conducted an international cross-sectional online survey between July and November 2021, adhering to the published Consensus-Based Checklist for Reporting of Survey Studies (CROSS) [16]. The survey was endorsed by the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM) and approved by the local ethics committee of the University of Rostock (A 2021-0111). Based on current scientific literature, we developed a new questionnaire containing 27 items organized into three categories: (1) “basic demographic data”, (2) “diagnostic and monitoring strategies” and (3) “treatment and prevention strategies” (Figure 1) [7,9,17]. Single and multiple answer questions as well as one open-ended question were included. The first version (V. 1.0) of the questionnaire was reviewed and revised four times (V. 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4) in total by F.K., J.E. and S.J.S. Members of the steering committee (N.G., C.H., M.M.B. and S.W.C.) who had not drafted the first version pre-tested the questionnaire (V. 1.4) afterwards. Building up on these reviews, we developed the final questionnaire (V. 2.0), which was lastly reviewed and approved by all members of the steering committee (Supplementary File S1). The survey was addressed to all healthcare professionals working with intensive care patients. A sampling of study participants was performed in two simultaneously operating ways: (1) the questionnaire was freely accessible online through the ESICM homepage at SurveyMonkey® (Momentive Inc., San Mateo, CA, USA) and (2) an email containing a link to the survey was sent out by the ESICM inviting all registered members to participate in the study. Furthermore, the ESICM re-sent two invitation emails calling for study participation in August and October 2021. Study participation was voluntary and no prior registration was necessary for study participation. Within the survey, no personal data were collected and backtracking of study participants was not possible. The survey data were collected on external password-secured servers and access was granted only to members of the steering committee.

2.2. Statistical Analysis

For statistical analysis, we used MS-Excel 2010 (Microsoft, Redmond, WA, USA) and IBM SPSS Statistics (Version 25, IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). Data are presented as sum (percent) or mean (standard deviation). Chi-square test with Yates correction was used for all categorical variables. In case of expected values of <5 in the 2 × 2 contingency table, we used the Fisher’s exact test. Statistical significance was indicated by a p value < 0.05.

3. Results

3.1. Part One: Basic Demographic Data

In total, we received 154 questionnaires from 146 different ICUs in 39 countries around the world (the distribution of participating countries is listed in Supplementary File S2). The basic demographic data are provided in Table 1. Not all questions were answered by all participants, as indicated by different absolute counts. The most frequent primary medical specialties of the participants included intensivists (study participants with the primary medical specialty ‘Intensive Care Medicine’; 64/153, 41.8%) and non-intensivists (89/153, 58.2%, including study participants with the primary medical specialty ‘Physiotherapy’ (30/89, 33.7%), ‘Anesthesiology’ (29/89, 32.6%) and others, such as ‘Nursing’, ‘Neurology’, ‘Internal Medicine and Surgery’ (all together 30/89, 33.7%)). Seventy-seven percent (110/142) of all participating healthcare professionals worked as consultant/medical specialist or as Chief/Head of Department. Almost two-thirds of all study participants (96/152, 63.2%) practiced for more than 10 years in their profession. The number of differently sized ICUs was almost equally distributed. The majority (120/153, 78.4%) were interdisciplinary (medical and surgical) ICUs. About sixty-three percent (95/152) of all study participants worked on an ICU at a university hospital. About two-thirds of the study participants (103/152, 67.8%) reported neuromuscular complications, including ICU-AW, to be a relevant research topic.

3.2. Part Two: Diagnostic and Monitoring Strategies

A standardized protocol for the screening and detection of patients with ICU-AW was reported to be used by 20% of study participants (28/140). In particular, clinical examination (124/141, 87.9%) as well as selective scores (46/141, 32.6%) and electrophysiological methods (46/141, 32.6%), such as electroneurography (ENG) and electromyography (EMG), were reported as the most frequently used diagnostic tests (Table 2). We found no significant differences between university and non-university hospitals or intensivists and non-intensivists regarding the screening strategy. Furthermore, most clinicians reported that they started screening for ICU-AW in patients with higher disease severity assuming a higher ICU-AW probability (72/141, 51.1%). Routine screening for ICU-AW independently from disease severity was declared to be initiated by 44% (62/141) of all study participants. Physicians were, among the different groups of healthcare professionals, the most likely to perform the initial screening (73/141, 51.8%). This was confirmed by 70.9% (100/141) of participants who reported that physicians performed the daily screening at their ICU. Fifty-six percent (80/141) of participants performed screening tests for the presence of ICU-AW once a day. After the detection of ICU-AW, the preferred following method to verify the diagnosis was ENG/EMG (63/140, 45.0%). According to 35.7% (50/140) of responders, a neurologist was consulted to confirm the diagnosis of ICU-AW. In 27.9% (39/140) of responders, no further diagnostic was applied. The majority (70/141, 49.6%) of participants did not use scores for the assessment of physical deficits in ICU patients. The modified Rankin scale (mRS) was, if scores were performed in the ICU, the most frequently reported score to assess the functional disability.

3.3. Part Three: Treatment and Prevention Strategies

In total, 62.7% (84/134) of all study participants reported the availability of specific treatment strategies for ICU-AW within their ICU. In particular, the most frequently applied strategies were the beginning or intensifying of mobilization and physical activity (111/134, 82.8%), the reduction or avoidance of sedatives (85/134, 63.4%) and the reduction or avoidance of neuromuscular blocking agents (81/134, 60.4%) (Table 3). We found no significant differences between university and non-university hospitals in terms of mobilization and physical activity. However, intensivists and non-intensivists significantly differed in their statements about applied treatment and prevention strategies regarding the reduction in sedatives (80.0% vs. 52.6%, p = 0.002), neuromuscular blocking agents (76.4% vs. 50%, p = 0.004), corticosteroids (69.1% vs. 37.2%, p < 0.001) and strict glycemic control regimes (50.9% vs. 23.1%, p = 0.002, Figure 2). In more than half of all cases, physiotherapy and mobilization was reported to be performed once a day (73/134, 54.5%), and in 32.8% (44/134) of cases, multiple times per day. The three main reported barriers to the treatment of ICU-AW patients were: (1) the availability of physiotherapists (92/134, 68.7%), (2) the lack of knowledge about ICU-AW among the medical staff (83/134, 61.9%) and (3) the availability of diagnostic/therapeutic approaches (81/134, 60.4%). We found no significant differences between university and non-university hospitals or intensivists and non-intensivists in their opinion about deficits in medical care. Most participants (100/134, 74.6%) reported that the family members of patients with ICU-AW were informed about possible long-term physical disability, 22.4% (30/134) were not informed and 3% (4/134) were not certain whether family members were informed about possible long-term consequences of ICU-AW. The diagnosis of ICU-AW was reported to be listed in the medical history of patients by 65.7% (88/134) of responders compared to 30.6% (41/134) of responders, where the ICU-AW was not listed.
Forty-seven percent (63/134) of participants reported that their patients with ICU-AW were transferred to a neurological rehabilitation center after hospital discharge, but 48.5% (65/134) did not. The great majority (127/133, 95.5%) of all study participants supported the development of evidence-based guidelines for the diagnosis, monitoring, treatment and prevention of ICU-AW to improve patient care.

4. Discussion

The present survey was the first worldwide approach to systemically depict the current global state of care in patients with ICU-AW. The results from this survey represent different levels of experience from a broad spectrum of healthcare professionals with short- and long-term clinical practices in intensive care medicine.
Our results indicate a great heterogeneity in the screening, diagnostic, treatment and prevention strategies worldwide, as well as the presence of multiple barriers against the implementation of strategies to mitigate ICU-AW. A well-structured concept for the management of ICU-AW was implemented in a minority of ICUs.

4.1. Diagnostic and Monitoring Strategies

Only 20% of participants stated that a standardized approach to screen for and diagnose ICU-AW was implemented at their ICU, suggesting significant barriers in clinical practice. According to our data, the clinical examination was the preferred screening method for ICU-AW. Only one-third of participants used the MRC-SS for the screening of ICU-AW. Recently, Van Aerde et al. reported on a correlation between even subtle changes detected with the MRC-SS and patient outcome, which underlines the importance of using validated scores such as the MRC-SS in the clinical setting [6]. However, a certain level of patient compliance is mandatory for a reliable clinical examination, including muscle strength assessment, which is often difficult to perform in the early stages of critical illness due to the sedation and mechanical ventilation [18]. To date, compliance-independent measures of muscle force remain experimental and need further validation before a broad implementation in daily clinical practice [19]. Furthermore, recent emerging methods such as selective risk scores, body fluid biomarkers, simplified electroneurography or neuromuscular ultrasound are interesting new attempts in the screening for ICU-AW, especially in the context of a compliance-independent assessment [8,20,21,22,23]. However, according to our study, they are only partially used in clinical practice. A possible explanation could be the lack of randomized validation studies or a missing correlation with patient outcome within the methods mentioned above. The early detection of physical disability in ICU patients is assumed to be an important cornerstone for the initiation of treatment strategies, as suggested by studies comparing the effect of early versus late mobilization [14]. This is in accordance with our data, where screening for ICU-AW would be initiated mostly in patients with a corresponding risk profile, even before the occurrence of symptoms.
To differentiate the cause of the neuromuscular dysfunction, further electrophysiologic diagnostics are recommended after diagnosing ICU-AW [5]. In our study, only 45% of participants used ENG or EMG, one-third consulted a neurologist and nearly 28 percent did not use any further diagnostics. A distinction between these pathological entities seems reasonable, since it could provide prognostic information on the clinical course of physical disability and the rehabilitation success [24]. Other methods such as muscle/nerve biopsies, body fluid biomarkers or neuromuscular imaging seem negligible in further diagnostics after detecting ICU-AW, perhaps due to their invasiveness, costs and inability to differentiate nervous and muscular damage [25].
Scoring systems assessing the physical function of critically ill patients could help to objectify the extent of functional disability and to monitor the success of mobilization and physiotherapy [26]. However, according to our results, they are not widely used in current clinical practice to monitor patients with ICU-AW. This may be due to the fact that many of these detailed scores appear impracticable and time consuming in daily practice or mostly depend on patient cooperation, which can be difficult in the presence of sedation or prolonged cognitive impairment.

4.2. Treatment and Prevention Strategies

Only two-thirds of all participating ICUs applied specific treatment and prevention strategies for critically ill patients at risk for ICU-AW. With the exception of mobilization and physiotherapy, none of the other treatment and prevention strategies were broadly established in daily practice. Physiotherapy and mobilization have been shown to improve muscle strength and may improve functional patient outcome [11]. The time frame for starting physical treatment also seems to play an important role. Recent evidence describes a potential benefit of early mobilization to prevent and improve outcomes in ICU-AW, especially when started within the first 48–72 h [13,27,28,29]. Furthermore, early mobilization has been shown to be safe even in patients with a reduced level of consciousness [16]. According to the present survey, the physiotherapy or mobilization of patients with ICU-AW was reported to occur mostly once a day. Current evidence indicates an impact of the dosage of mobilization on patient outcome, i.e., intensified physiotherapy and mobilization regimes would be desirable in intensive care medicine [30,31].
Furthermore, a subgroup analysis of the different medical specialties revealed that a reported reduction or avoidance of sedatives, neuromuscular blocking agents and corticosteroids as well as glycemic control were significantly less often performed by non-intensivists compared to intensivists, suggesting an influence of the primary medical specialty on the strategies or the relevance and attention attributed to the ICU-AW. There is strong evidence that extensive sedation leads to prolonged immobilization, invasive ventilation and a higher morbidity and mortality [32,33,34]. The impact of sedatives as a risk factor for ICU-AW was recently highlighted [35]. Therefore, national and international guidelines recommend the critical evaluation and reduction of sedation to a needed minimum [36,37].
Hyperglycemia has been considered as another risk factor for ICU-AW [9,38,39]. However, the quality of evidence suggesting a positive effect of strict glycemic control on the prevention of neuromuscular complications remains limited with only a few studies evaluating this topic [40,41,42].
The effects of neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs) on the development of ICU-AW remain controversial. Price et al. reviewed numerous articles, concluding a moderate association with ICU-AW, but pointed out a possible reporting bias in many of these studies [43]. A meta-analysis by Yang et al. identified NMBA as a clear trigger factor for ICU-AW in a multiple regression analysis, whereas recent evidence suggested an increased risk only for the development of critical illness polyneuropathy in septic shock patients [44,45]. Lyu et al. highlighted no clear association between NMBA and ICU-AW [46].
The impact of corticosteroid use on the development of ICU-AW is also controversially discussed in the literature. Hermans et al. reviewed prospective studies of mixed quality indicating a more complex interplay of corticosteroids and muscle damage related to the dose and the time period of drug administration [47]. In contrast, a recent meta-analysis suggested that corticosteroid use is strongly associated with clinically detectable muscle weakness, but not with electrophysiological changes [44]. Therefore, current evidence seems too heterogeneous to give a clear statement.

4.3. Barriers and Deficits

Based on the present survey, the main reported barriers and deficits associated with ICU-AW management were the lack of available physiotherapists and diagnostic/therapeutic approaches. In the context of the increasing numbers of ICU patients and shortages of medical staff, it is comprehensible that more staff resources are needed to provide adequate intensive care. This is supported by Penoyer et al., showing a correlation between intensive care outcome and the availability of nursing staff [48]. The implementation of specific prevention and treatment strategies such as early mobilization programs and intensified physiotherapy seems evidently only practicable with an increase in trained medical staff. This may inevitably come with increased costs in personal and material resources and to date, to our best knowledge, no sufficient data are available on the cost-effectiveness of early rehabilitation programs in patients with ICU-AW. Future studies evaluating this important issue are desirable. However, from a medical perspective and supported by the strong evidence listed above, early rehabilitation efforts seem clearly beneficial to improve patient outcome and quality of life.
Congruent with recent evidence, our data indicate that a lack of knowledge about ICU-AW among the medical staff is one of the major issues in clinical practice [15]. Failure to address muscle weakness in the ICU is concerning, considering that the higher associated mortality and the negative long-term effects lasting up to 5 years after the ICU remain, independently of the underlying disease [6,7,49,50]. On the other hand, it was positively surprising that in most ICUs worldwide, the diagnosis of ICU-AW was reported to be listed in the medical history; furthermore, family members were informed about possible long-term physical disability due to ICU-AW. Appropriate informational exchange with the family of the critically ill patients has been shown to strengthen social backup and resilience factors regarding the burden of critical illness [51].
It is noteworthy that the above-mentioned issues presented in our study as well as other potential barriers, such as inconsistent nomenclature, lack of facilities and equipment or a failed implementation of preventive strategies have already been identified about ten years ago [52]. This underlines the need for appropriate educational programs, sophisticating human resources management and high-quality evidence to improve medical care for critically ill patients who developed or are at risk of developing ICU-AW.

4.4. Strengths and Limitations

The present study assembles the current practices in the diagnosis, monitoring, treatment and prevention of ICU-AW from a broad basis of different ICUs and countries around the world, with results not limited by certain geographic areas. We included different medical professionals (physicians, physiotherapists, nurses), which together with the broad geographical representation, increased the generalizability of our results. Within the study, we adhered to the published criteria for reporting surveys and pre-tested the questionnaire [17].
Some limitations of the study need discussion. First, the relatively small number of responding ICUs limits the generalizability of the survey. Because the survey access was freely available online, we cannot provide a response rate. Due to the small number of participating ICUs in some countries, the results here may not fully depict the current state of the art. Otherwise, there was a lack of information regarding diagnostic and therapeutic attempts for the management of ICU-AW, which makes the results of the present study valuable. Confirmation in appropriate observational studies is nevertheless warranted. The reported results within the present survey need to be confirmed in future observational studies. Second, we did not cover in detail the full range of possible issues associated with ICU-AW, such as associated dysphagia or ventilator-induced diaphragmatic dysfunction. For the sake of practicability, we tried to include the most essential core topics of this severe complication in an easy and rapidly answerable questionnaire. Third, due to technical aspects, we were not able to fully exclude duplicated answers.

5. Conclusions

The present study reported current daily practices in the management of ICU-AW. Screening, diagnostic tests, treatment and prevention strategies for ICU-AW are heterogeneous and not standardized, although long-term consequences are evident. Comprehensive guidelines with evidence-based recommendations are needed and recommended by most healthcare professionals for the implementation of structured approaches to ICU-AW.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/medicina58081068/s1, Supplementary File S1: Survey questionnaire. Supplementary File S2: Table S1: Listing of participating countries within the survey.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, F.K., J.E. and S.J.S.; methodology, F.K., J.E. and S.J.S.; validation, N.G., C.H., M.M.B. and S.W.-C.; formal analysis, F.K. and M.-C.O.; data curation, F.K. and J.E.; writing—original draft preparation, F.K., J.E. and S.J.S.; writing—review and editing, N.G., C.H., M.M.B., M.-C.O. and S.W.-C.; visualization, F.K.; supervision, J.E.; project administration, F.K., J.E. and S.J.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Rostock (A 2021-0111, date of approval: 19 May 2021) and does not involve any studies on humans or animals. Participation in the present survey was anonymous and voluntary.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The dataset used and/or analyzed within the present study is available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to gratefully thank the ESICM for endorsing the present survey.

Conflicts of Interest

N.G. received consulting fees from PIPRA AG, Zurich, Switzerland, unrelated to this work. M.M.B. reports personal fees from Nestlé Health Care, personal fees from Fresenius Kabi and personal fees from Baxter, outside the submitted work. S.J.S. reports grants from MSD (Haar, Germany), grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Fresenius (Bad Homburg, Germany), grants and non-financial support from Liberate Medical LLC (Crestwood, USA), grants and non-financial support from STIMIT AG (Nidau, Switzerland), non-financial support from Technical University of Munich (Munich, Germany), grants and non-financial support from National and international societies (and their congress organizers) in the field of anesthesiology and intensive care medicine, grants from Reactive Robotics (Munich, Germany) and grants and non-financial support from STIMIT AG (Biel, Switzerland), outside the submitted work. S.J.S. held stocks in small amounts from Rhön-Klinikum AG and holds stocks in small amounts from Alphabeth Inc., Bayer AG and Siemens AG; these holdings have not affected any decisions regarding his research or this study. F.K., M.-C.O., C.H., S.W.-C. and J.E. declare that they have no competing interests within the present study.

References

  1. Ali, N.A.; O’Brien, J.M.; Hoffmann, S.P.; Phillips, G.; Garland, A.; Finley, J.C.W.; Almoosa, K.; Hejal, R.; Wolf, K.M.; Lemeshow, S.; et al. Acquired Weakness, Handgrip Strength, and Mortality in Critically Ill Patients. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2008, 178, 261–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Sharshar, T.; Bastuji-Garin, S.; Stevens, R.D.; Durand, M.-C.; Malissin, I.; Rodriguez, P.; Cerf, C.; Outin, H.; De Jonghe, B. Presence and severity of intensive care unit-acquired paresis at time of awakening are associated with increased intensive care unit and hospital mortality. Crit. Care Med. 2009, 37, 3047–3053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Sidiras, G.; Patsaki, I.; Karatzanos, E.; Dakoutrou, M.; Kouvarakos, A.; Mitsiou, G.; Routsi, C.; Stranjalis, G.; Nanas, S.; Gerovasili, V. Long term follow-up of quality of life and functional ability in patients with ICU acquired Weakness—A post hoc analysis. J. Crit. Care 2019, 53, 223–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Friedrich, O.; Reid, M.B.; Berghe, G.V.D.; Vanhorebeek, I.; Hermans, G.; Rich, M.M.; Larsson, L. The Sick and the Weak: Neuropathies/Myopathies in the Critically Ill. Physiol. Rev. 2015, 95, 1025–1109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  5. Stevens, R.D.; Marshall, S.A.; Cornblath, D.R.; Hoke, A.; Needham, D.M.; De Jonghe, B.; Ali, N.; Sharshar, T. A framework for diagnosing and classifying intensive care unit-acquired weakness. Crit. Care Med. 2009, 37, S299–S308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Van Aerde, N.; Meersseman, P.; Debaveye, Y.; Wilmer, A.; Gunst, J.; Casaer, M.P.; Bruyninckx, F.; Wouters, P.J.; Gosselink, R.; Berghe, G.V.D.; et al. Five-year impact of ICU-acquired neuromuscular complications: A prospective, observational study. Intensiv. Care Med. 2020, 46, 1184–1193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Van Aerde, N.; Meersseman, P.; Debaveye, Y.; Wilmer, A.; Casaer, M.P.; Gunst, J.; Wauters, J.; Wouters, P.J.; Goetschalckx, K.; Gosselink, R.; et al. Aerobic exercise capacity in long-term survivors of critical illness: Secondary analysis of the post-EPaNIC follow-up study. Intensiv. Care Med. 2021, 47, 1462–1471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Nakanishi, N.; Tsutsumi, R.; Hara, K.; Takashima, T.; Nakataki, E.; Itagaki, T.; Matsuo, M.; Oto, J.; Sakaue, H. Urinary Titin Is a Novel Biomarker for Muscle Atrophy in Nonsurgical Critically Ill Patients: A Two-Center, Prospective Observational Study. Crit. Care Med. 2020, 48, 1327–1333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Vanhorebeek, I.; Latronico, N.; Berghe, G.V.D. ICU-acquired weakness. Intensiv. Care Med. 2020, 46, 637–653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Connolly, B.; Salisbury, L.; O’Neill, B.; Geneen, L.; Douiri, A.; Grocott, M.; Hart, N.; Walsh, T.S.; Blackwood, B. Exercise rehabilitation following intensive care unit discharge for recovery from critical illness: Executive summary of a Cochrane Collaboration systematic review. J. Cachex Sarcopenia Muscle 2016, 7, 520–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Hodgson, C.; Tipping, C.J. Physiotherapy management of intensive care unit-acquired weakness. J. Physiother. 2017, 63, 4–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Liu, M.; Luo, J.; Zhou, J.; Zhu, X. Intervention effect of neuromuscular electrical stimulation on ICU acquired weakness: A meta-analysis. Int. J. Nurs. Sci. 2020, 7, 228–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Ding, N.; Zhang, Z.; Zhang, C.; Yao, L.; Yang, L.; Jiang, B.; Wu, Y.; Jiang, L.; Tian, J. What is the optimum time for initiation of early mobilization in mechanically ventilated patients? A network meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0223151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Schaller, S.J.; Anstey, M.; Blobner, M.; Edrich, T.; Grabitz, S.D.; Gradwohl-Matis, I.; Heim, M.; Houle, T.; Kurth, T.; Latronico, N.; et al. Early, goal-directed mobilisation in the surgical intensive care unit: A randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2016, 388, 1377–1388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Wu, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Jiang, B.; Wang, G.; Wei, H.; Li, B.; Shen, X.; Zhang, C. Current practice and barriers to ICU-acquired weakness assessment: A cross-sectional survey. Physiotherapy 2021, 112, 135–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Sharma, A.; Duc, N.T.M.; Thang, T.L.L.; Nam, N.H.; Ng, S.J.; Abbas, K.S.; Huy, N.T.; Marušić, A.; Paul, C.L.; Kwok, J.; et al. A Consensus-Based Checklist for Reporting of Survey Studies (CROSS). J. Gen. Intern. Med. 2021, 36, 3179–3187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Schaller, S.J.; Scheffenbichler, F.T.; Bose, S.; Mazwi, N.; Deng, H.; Krebs, F.; Seifert, C.L.; Kasotakis, G.; Grabitz, S.D.; Latronico, N.; et al. Influence of the initial level of consciousness on early, goal-directed mobilization: A post hoc analysis. Intensiv. Care Med. 2019, 45, 201–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Hough, C.L.; Lieu, B.K.; Caldwell, E.S. Manual muscle strength testing of critically ill patients: Feasibility and interobserver agreement. Crit. Care 2011, 15, R43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Kennouche, D.; Luneau, E.; Lapole, T.; Morel, J.; Millet, G.Y.; Gondin, J. Bedside voluntary and evoked forces evaluation in intensive care unit patients: A narrative review. Crit. Care 2021, 25, 157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Zhang, W.; Wu, J.; Gu, Q.; Gu, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Ge, X.; Sun, X.; Lian, J.; Zeng, Q. Changes in muscle ultrasound for the diagnosis of intensive care unit acquired weakness in critically ill patients. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 18280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Fisse, A.L.; May, C.; Motte, J.; Pedreiturria, X.; Breuer, T.G.K.; Schneider-Gold, C.; Marcus, K.; Gold, R.; Yoon, M.-S.; Pitarokoili, K. New Approaches to Critical Illness Polyneuromyopathy: High-Resolution Neuromuscular Ultrasound Characteristics and Cytokine Profiling. Neurocritical Care 2020, 35, 139–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Latronico, N.; Bertolini, G.; Guarneri, B.; Botteri, M.; Peli, E.; Andreoletti, S.; Bera, P.; Luciani, D.; Nardella, A.; Vittorielli, E.; et al. Simplified electrophysiological evaluation of peripheral nerves in critically ill patients: The Italian multi-centre CRIMYNE study. Crit. Care 2007, 11, R11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  23. Patejdl, R.; Walter, U.; Rosener, S.; Sauer, M.; Reuter, D.A.; Ehler, J. Muscular Ultrasound, Syndecan-1 and Procalcitonin Serum Levels to Assess Intensive Care Unit-Acquired Weakness. Can. J. Neurol. Sci./J. Can. Sci. Neurol. 2019, 46, 234–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Guarneri, B.; Bertolini, G.; Latronico, N. Long-term outcome in patients with critical illness myopathy or neuropathy: The Italian multicentre CRIMYNE study. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry 2008, 79, 838–841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Jolley, S.E.; Bunnell, A.E.; Hough, C.L. ICU-Acquired Weakness. Chest 2016, 150, 1129–1140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  26. D’Andrea, A.; Le Peillet, D.; Fassier, T.; Prendki, V.; Trombert, V.; Reny, J.-L.; Roux, X. Functional Independence Measure score is associated with mortality in critically ill elderly patients admitted to an intermediate care unit. BMC Geriatr. 2020, 20, 334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Menges, D.; Seiler, B.; Tomonaga, Y.; Schwenkglenks, M.; Puhan, M.A.; Yebyo, H.G. Systematic early versus late mobilization or standard early mobilization in mechanically ventilated adult ICU patients: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit. Care 2021, 25, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Anekwe, D.E.; Milner, S.C.; Bussières, A.; de Marchie, M.; Spahija, J. Intensive care unit clinicians identify many barriers to, and facilitators of, early mobilisation: A qualitative study using the Theoretical Domains Framework. J. Physiother. 2020, 66, 120–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Zhang, L.; Hu, W.; Cai, Z.; Liu, J.; Wu, J.; Deng, Y.; Yu, K.; Chen, X.; Zhu, L.; Ma, J.; et al. Early mobilization of critically ill patients in the intensive care unit: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0223185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Paton, M.; Lane, R.; Paul, E.; Cuthburtson, G.A.; Hodgson, C.L. Mobilization During Critical Illness: A Higher Level of Mobilization Improves Health Status at 6 Months, a Secondary Analysis of a Prospective Cohort Study. Crit. Care Med. 2021, 49, e860–e869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Scheffenbichler, F.T.; Teja, B.; Wongtangman, K.; Mazwi, N.; Waak, K.; Schaller, S.J.; Xu, X.; Barbieri, S.; Fagoni, N.; Cassavaugh, J.; et al. Effects of the Level and Duration of Mobilization Therapy in the Surgical ICU on the Loss of the Ability to Live Independently: An International Prospective Cohort Study. Crit. Care Med. 2021, 49, e247–e257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Kamdar, B.B.; Combs, M.P.; Colantuoni, E.; King, L.M.; Niessen, T.; Neufeld, K.; Collop, N.A.; Needham, D.M. The association of sleep quality, delirium, and sedation status with daily participation in physical therapy in the ICU. Crit. Care 2016, 20, 261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Shehabi, Y.; Chan, L.; Kadiman, S.; Alias, A.; Ismail, W.N.; Tan, M.A.T.I.; Khoo, T.M.; Ali, S.B.; Saman, M.A.; Shaltut, A.; et al. The Sedation Practice in Intensive Care Evaluation (SPICE) Study Group investigators. Sedation depth and long-term mortality in mechanically ventilated critically ill adults: A prospective longitudinal multicentre cohort study. Intensiv. Care Med. 2013, 39, 910–918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Strøm, T.; Martinussen, T.; Toft, P. A protocol of no sedation for critically ill patients receiving mechanical ventilation: A randomised trial. Lancet 2010, 375, 475–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Piva, S.; Fagoni, N.; Latronico, N. Intensive care unit–acquired weakness: Unanswered questions and targets for future research. F1000Research 2019, 8, 508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Baron, R.; Binder, A.; Biniek, R.; Braune, S.; Buerkle, H.; Dall, P.; Demirakca, S.; Eckardt, R.; Eggers, V.; Eichler, I.; et al. Evidence and consensus based guideline for the management of delirium, analgesia, and sedation in intensive care medicine. Revision 2015 (DAS-Guideline 2015)—short version. Ger. Med. Sci. 2015, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Devlin, J.W.; Skrobik, Y.; Gélinas, C.; Needham, D.M.; Slooter, A.J.C.; Pandharipande, P.; Watson, P.L.; Weinhouse, G.L.; Nunnally, M.E.; Rochwerg, B.; et al. Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Prevention and Management of Pain, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium, Immobility, and Sleep Disruption in Adult Patients in the ICU. Crit. Care Med. 2018, 46, e825–e873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Wang, W.; Xu, C.; Ma, X.; Zhang, X.; Xie, P. Intensive Care Unit-Acquired Weakness: A Review of Recent Progress With a Look Toward the Future. Front. Med. 2020, 7, 671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Yang, T.; Li, Z.; Jiang, L.; Wang, Y.; Xi, X. Risk factors for intensive care unit-acquired weakness: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Neurol. Scand. 2018, 138, 104–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Hermans, G.; Wilmer, A.; Meersseman, W.; Milants, I.; Wouters, P.J.; Bobbaers, H.; Bruyninckx, F.; Berghe, G.V.D. Impact of Intensive Insulin Therapy on Neuromuscular Complications and Ventilator Dependency in the Medical Intensive Care Unit. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2007, 175, 480–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Van Den Berghe, G.; Schoonheydt, K.; Becx, P.; Bruyninckx, F.; Wouters, P.J. Insulin therapy protects the central and peripheral nervous system of intensive care patients. Neurology 2005, 64, 1348–1353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Hermans, G.; De Jonghe, B.; Bruyninckx, F.; Berghe, G.V.D. Interventions for preventing critical illness polyneuropathy and critical illness myopathy. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2014, 2014, CD006832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Price, D.R.; Mikkelsen, M.E.; Umscheid, C.A.; Armstrong, E.J. Neuromuscular Blocking Agents and Neuromuscular Dysfunction Acquired in Critical Illness. Crit. Care Med. 2016, 44, 2070–2078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Yang, T.; Li, Z.; Jiang, L.; Xi, X. Corticosteroid use and intensive care unit-acquired weakness: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit. Care 2018, 22, 187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Renew, J.R.; Ratzlaff, R.; Hernandez-Torres, V.; Brull, S.J.; Prielipp, R.C. Neuromuscular blockade management in the critically Ill patient. J. Intensiv. Care 2020, 8, 37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Lyu, T.; Lee, Y.S.; Dhanvijay, S.; Freebairn, R. The effect of neuromuscular blocking agents uses in acute respiratory distress syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Minerva Anestesiol. 2021, 87, 341–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Hermans, G.; van den Berghe, G. Clinical review: Intensive care unit acquired weakness. Crit. Care 2015, 19, 274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Penoyer, D.A. Nurse staffing and patient outcomes in critical care: A concise review. Crit. Care Med. 2010, 38, 1521–1528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Hermans, G.; Van Mechelen, H.; Clerckx, B.; Vanhullebusch, T.; Mesotten, D.; Wilmer, A.; Casaer, M.P.; Meersseman, P.; Debaveye, Y.; Van Cromphaut, S.; et al. Acute Outcomes and 1-Year Mortality of Intensive Care Unit–acquired Weakness. A Cohort Study and Propensity-matched Analysis. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2014, 190, 410–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Herridge, M.S.; Tansey, C.M.; Matté, A.; Tomlinson, G.; Diaz-Granados, N.; Cooper, A.; Guest, C.B.; Mazer, C.D.; Mehta, S.; Stewart, T.E.; et al. Functional Disability 5 Years after Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome. N. Engl. J. Med. 2011, 364, 1293–1304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Hart, J.L.; Taylor, S.P. Family Presence for Critically Ill Patients During a Pandemic. Chest 2021, 160, 549–557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Lee, C.M.; Fan, E. ICU-acquired weakness: What is preventing its rehabilitation in critically ill patients? BMC Med. 2012, 10, 115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Medicina 58 01068 g001 550
Figure 1. Study flow chart.
Figure 1. Study flow chart.
Medicina 58 01068 g001
Medicina 58 01068 g002 550
Figure 2. Treatment and prevention strategies between intensivists (primary specialty) and non-intensivists. **: p < 0.01. ***: p < 0.001.
Figure 2. Treatment and prevention strategies between intensivists (primary specialty) and non-intensivists. **: p < 0.01. ***: p < 0.001.
Medicina 58 01068 g002
Table
Table 1. Basic demographic data. Absolute counts indicate all participants who chose the particular answer of the corresponding question. Total counts indicate all study participants who answered the question at all. Relative counts indicate the ratio of absolute to total counts in percentages.
Table 1. Basic demographic data. Absolute counts indicate all participants who chose the particular answer of the corresponding question. Total counts indicate all study participants who answered the question at all. Relative counts indicate the ratio of absolute to total counts in percentages.
Primary medical specialty (SC)Absolute/Total (n/153)Relative (%)
(a) Intensive Care Medicine6441.8
(b) Anesthesiology2919.0
(c) Internal Medicine1610.5
(d) Surgery10.7
(e) Neurology21.3
(f) Nursing42.6
(g) Physiotherapy3019.6
(h) Other74.6
Medical training status (SC)Absolute/Total (n/142)Relative (%)
(a) Resident/in-training107.0
(b) Fellow/training completed2215.5
(c) Consultant/medical specialist7754.2
(d) Chief/Head of Department3323.2
Years of intensive care practice (SC)Absolute/Total (n/152)Relative (%)
(a) <51811.8
(b) 5–103825.0
(c) 11–152516.4
(d) 16–202717.8
(e) >204428.9
Type of hospital (SC)Absolute/Total (n/152)Relative (%)
(a) University hospital9562.5
(b) Non-university hospital5737.5
Number of ICU beds (SC)Absolute/Total (n/153)Relative (%)
(a) <10106.5
(b) 10–204932.0
(c) 21–505133.3
(d) >504328.1
Type of ICU specialty (MC)Absolute/Total (n/153)Relative (%)
(a) Perioperative (surgical/anesthesiological)159.8
(b) Internal medicine117.2
(c) Neurologic ICU53.3
(d) Pediatric ICU21.3
(e) Interdisciplinary (medical and surgical) ICU12078.4
Is research on ICU-AW a topic for you? (SC)Absolute/Total (n/152)Relative (%)
YES10367.8
NO4529.6
I don’t know42.6
ICU: intensive care unit. ICU-AW: intensive care unit-acquired weakness. MC: multiple-choice question. SC: single-choice questions.
Table
Table 2. Screening, diagnostics and monitoring of ICU-AW. Absolute counts indicate all participants who chose the particular answer of the corresponding question. Total counts indicate all study participants who answered the question at all. Relative counts indicate the ratio of absolute to total counts in percent.
Table 2. Screening, diagnostics and monitoring of ICU-AW. Absolute counts indicate all participants who chose the particular answer of the corresponding question. Total counts indicate all study participants who answered the question at all. Relative counts indicate the ratio of absolute to total counts in percent.
Is a standard I
in-house protocol used for the screening of ICU-AW? (SC)		Absolute/Total (n/140)Relative (%)
(a) Yes2820.0
(b) No11280.0
(c) I don’t know00
Routinely used screening methods (MC)Absolute/Total (n/141)Relative (%)
(a) Clinical examination12487.9
(b) Selective scores (e.g., Medical Research Council—sum score, MRC-SS)4632.6
(c) Electrophysiology (electroneurography/electromyography)4632.6
(d) Neuromuscular ultrasound107.1
(e) Laboratory diagnostics including body fluid biomarkers85.7
(f) Muscle/nerve biopsy64.3
(g) No screening is performed1812.8
(h) I do not know42.8
(i) Other21.4
Most likely circumstances of screening for ICU-AW (MC)Absolute/Total (n/141)Relative (%)
(a) Routinely, within the daily clinical examinations6244.0
(b) Occasionally, when ICU-AW seems likely according to disease severity and clinical course7251.1
(c) Occasionally, when my patient shows no spontaneous limb movements or inadequate motoric responses over a period of time5035.5
(d) Occasionally, after the first failed weaning from the respirator2316.3
(e) Screening for ICU-AW is not performed64.3
(f) Other42.8
Who should primarily screen? (SC)Absolute/Total (n/141)Relative (%)
(a) Physicians7351.8
(b) Nurses1812.8
(c) Physiotherapists4632.6
(d) I don’t know42.8
Who is screening? (MC)Absolute/Total (n/141)Relative (%)
(a) Physicians10070.9
(b) Nurses3827.0
(c) Physiotherapists6244.0
(d) I don’t know75.0
Screening intervals used (SC)Absolute/Total (n/141)Relative (%)
(a) Once per patient stay139.2
(b) Once daily8056.7
(c) Once per ICU shift96.4
(d) None of the above mentioned2920.6
(e) Never107.1
Diagnostics after detection of ICU-AW (MC)Absolute/Total (n/140)Relative (%)
(a) Electrophysiology (electroneurography/electromyography)6345.0
(b) Neuromuscular ultrasound96.4
(c) Muscle/nerve biopsy53.6
(d) Consultation by an expert neurologist5035.7
(e) Laboratory diagnostics including body fluid biomarkers117.9
(f) Further diagnostic is not performed3927.9
(g) I don’t know96.4
(h) Other10.7
Functional disability scores (MC)Absolute/Total (n/141)Relative (%)
(a) Modified Rankin scale (mRS)3222.7
(b) Barthel Index (BI)2316.3
(c) Functional independence measure (FIM)64.3
(d) Physical function in the ICU test (PFIT)64.3
(e) Functional status score for ICU (FSS-ICU)85.7
(f) Acute Care Index of Function (ACIF)42.8
(g) Scores are not used7049.6
(h) I don’t know96.4
(i) Other149.9
ICU: intensive care unit. ICU-AW: intensive care unit-acquired weakness. MC: multiple-choice question. SC: single-choice question.
Table
Table 3. Treatment and prevention strategies. Absolute counts indicate all participants who chose the particular answer of the corresponding question. Total counts indicate all study participants who answered the question at all. Relative counts indicate the ratio of absolute to total counts in percentages.
Table 3. Treatment and prevention strategies. Absolute counts indicate all participants who chose the particular answer of the corresponding question. Total counts indicate all study participants who answered the question at all. Relative counts indicate the ratio of absolute to total counts in percentages.
Are treatment strategies available at your ICU? (SC)Absolute/Total (n/134)Relative (%)
(a) Yes8462.7
(b) No4432.8
(c) I don’t know64.5
What specific treatment/prevention strategies do you use? (MC)Absolute/Total (n/134)Relative (%)
(a) Starting or intensifying controlled mobilization and physical activity11182.8
(b) Transcutaneous electrical stimulation (TENS)/neuromuscular electrical stimulation96.7
(c) Strict glycaemic control via intensified insulin treatment4634.3
(d) Reduction or avoidance of neuromuscular blocking agents8160.4
(e) Reduction or avoidance of corticosteroids6750.0
(f) Reduction or avoidance of sedatives8563.4
(g) We apply no specific treatment strategies after diagnosing ICU-AW1914.2
(h) Other32.2
Specify the frequency of physiotherapeutic treatment at your ICU. (SC)Absolute/Total (n/134)Relative (%)
(a) Once a day7354.5
(b) Once a working shift2317.2
(c) Multiple times per working shift2115.7
(d) No regular intervals1410.4
(e) Never/none32.2
Which deficits in regard to medical care of ICU-AW patients exist? (MC)Absolute/Total (n/134)Relative (%)
(a) Availability of diagnostic/therapeutic approaches8160.4
(b) Not enough physiotherapists available9268.7
(c) Not enough nurses available4231.3
(d) Not enough physicians available129.0
(e) Not enough knowledge about ICU-AW within medical staff8361.9
(f) Not enough time to care about patients with ICU-AW within the medical staff5440.3
(g) There are no deficits10.7
(h) I don’t know21.5
(i) Other64.5
ICU: intensive care unit. ICU-AW: intensive care unit-acquired weakness. MC: multiple-choice question. SC: single-choice question.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Klawitter, F.; Oppitz, M.-C.; Goettel, N.; Berger, M.M.; Hodgson, C.; Weber-Carstens, S.; Schaller, S.J.; Ehler, J. A Global Survey on Diagnostic, Therapeutic and Preventive Strategies in Intensive Care Unit—Acquired Weakness. Medicina 2022, 58, 1068. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina58081068

AMA Style

Klawitter F, Oppitz M-C, Goettel N, Berger MM, Hodgson C, Weber-Carstens S, Schaller SJ, Ehler J. A Global Survey on Diagnostic, Therapeutic and Preventive Strategies in Intensive Care Unit—Acquired Weakness. Medicina. 2022; 58(8):1068. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina58081068

Chicago/Turabian Style

Klawitter, Felix, Marie-Christine Oppitz, Nicolai Goettel, Mette M. Berger, Carol Hodgson, Steffen Weber-Carstens, Stefan J. Schaller, and Johannes Ehler. 2022. "A Global Survey on Diagnostic, Therapeutic and Preventive Strategies in Intensive Care Unit—Acquired Weakness" Medicina 58, no. 8: 1068. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina58081068

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop