Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 22 Documents
Search

The Comprehensive Systematic Review of Impact of Early Mobilization on Long-term Outcomes in ICU Patients Mohamad Fadli; Raka Jati Prasetya; Mutia Juliana
The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 32 No. 1 (2026): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research
Publisher : International Medical Journal Corp. Ltd

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.70070/7xkp5b59

Abstract

Introduction: Early mobilization in intensive care unit (ICU) patients has been proposed to mitigate the deleterious effects of critical illness, yet its impact on long-term outcomes remains uncertain. This systematic review comprehensively evaluates the effects of early mobilization on long-term functional, cognitive, quality of life, and healthcare utilization outcomes in adult ICU patients. Methods: A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. We included randomized controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, cohort studies, case-control studies, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses involving adult ICU patients (≥18 years) who received early mobilization (initiated within 72 hours of ICU admission or mechanical ventilation) compared to standard care or delayed mobilization. Long-term outcomes were defined as those measured at least 30 days post-ICU or hospital discharge. Data were extracted on patient characteristics, mobilization protocols, long-term outcomes, safety, and study quality. Results: Sixty-eight studies were included, comprising over 30,000 patients. Early mobilization consistently improved short-term functional outcomes, including muscle strength (mean difference 4.47-8.62 points on MRC scale), reduced ICU-acquired weakness (OR 2.04-2.7 for independent functional status), and increased likelihood of walking independently at discharge (OR 2.13) (Patel et al., 2023; Tipping et al., 2017; Hu et al., 2019). However, large randomized controlled trials found no significant improvement in long-term mortality (Hodgson et al., 2022) or quality of life at 6-12 months (Higgins et al., 2025). Notably, one trial demonstrated reduced cognitive impairment at 1 year (24% vs 43%, p=0.0043) (Patel et al., 2023). Subgroup analyses revealed potential harm in diabetic patients receiving high-intensity mobilization (adjusted OR 3.47 for 180-day mortality) (Serpa Neto et al., 2024). Adverse event rates were low (<3%), though the TEAM trial reported more events in the intervention group (9.2% vs 4.1%, p=0.005) (Hodgson et al., 2022). Discussion: The evidence presents a complex picture where early mobilization yields clear short-term functional benefits that do not consistently translate into improved long-term survival or quality of life. Heterogeneity in protocols, patient populations, and outcome measures limits definitive conclusions. Conclusion: Early mobilization safely improves in-hospital functional outcomes and reduces healthcare utilization. However, long-term benefits beyond hospital discharge remain unproven, and high-intensity protocols may harm specific subgroups. Individualized, progressive mobilization strategies are recommended.
A Comprehensive Systematic Review of The Role of Vasopressors in Early Management of Hemorrhagic Shock Mohamad Fadli; Raka Jati Prasetya; Mutia Juliana
The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 32 No. 1 (2026): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research
Publisher : International Medical Journal Corp. Ltd

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.70070/wf2brc56

Abstract

Introduction: The role of vasopressors in the early management of hemorrhagic shock remains controversial, with conflicting evidence from observational studies and randomized controlled trials. This systematic review aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of early vasopressor administration in adult patients with hemorrhagic shock. Methods: A systematic review was conducted screening studies based on predefined criteria: adult patients with hemorrhagic shock from any cause, evaluation of any vasopressor agent within the first 24 hours, comparative study designs reporting clinically relevant outcomes. Fifty-eight sources were identified including randomized controlled trials, observational studies, and systematic reviews. Data were extracted on patient populations, vasopressor interventions, mortality outcomes, hemodynamic effects, fluid requirements, and adverse events. Results: Randomized controlled trials demonstrated that low-dose norepinephrine (<0.3 µg/kg/min) concurrent with fluid resuscitation significantly reduced 24-hour mortality (3% vs 13%, p<0.05) and in-hospital mortality (9% vs 21%, p<0.05) (Mohamed et al., 2024). The AVERT-Shock trial found no mortality difference with low-dose vasopressin but showed reduced blood product requirements (1.4 L vs 2.9 L, p=0.01) (Sims et al., 2019). Observational studies consistently associated vasopressor use with increased mortality (Aoki et al., 2018; Plurad et al., 2011; Fisher et al., 2020), though propensity-score analyses attenuated this association (Gauss et al., 2018). Vasopressors consistently achieved hemodynamic stabilization with improved mean arterial pressure and reduced fluid requirements. Adverse event profiles were similar between groups, with vasopressin associated with fewer deep venous thromboses (Sims et al., 2019). Discussion: The apparent contradiction between observational and randomized evidence is explained by confounding by indication, where sicker patients preferentially receive vasopressors. Context-dependent effects, agent-specific considerations, and timing of administration significantly influence outcomes. Low-dose vasopressors appear safe when used as adjuncts to—not replacements for—hemorrhage control and volume resuscitation. Conclusion: Early low-dose vasopressor administration, particularly norepinephrine and vasopressin, may be beneficial in selected patients with hemorrhagic shock, improving hemodynamic stability and reducing transfusion requirements without increasing mortality. Further research is needed to optimize agent selection, dosing strategies, and timing of initiation.