Use the Back button in your browser to see the other results of your search or to select another record.

Detailed Search Results

An augmented prescribed exercise program (APEP) to improve mobility of older acute medical patients -- a randomized, controlled pilot and feasibility trial
Braun T, Gruneberg C, Susmilch K, Wiessmeier M, Schwenk I, Eggert S, Machleit-Ebner A, Harras I, Thiel C
BMC Geriatrics 2019 Aug 30;19(240):Epub
clinical trial
7/10 [Eligibility criteria: Yes; Random allocation: Yes; Concealed allocation: Yes; Baseline comparability: Yes; Blind subjects: No; Blind therapists: No; Blind assessors: Yes; Adequate follow-up: No; Intention-to-treat analysis: Yes; Between-group comparisons: Yes; Point estimates and variability: Yes. Note: Eligibility criteria item does not contribute to total score] *This score has been confirmed*

BACKGROUND: There is inconclusive evidence for the effectiveness of additional exercise in older hospital patients. The aims of this study were (1) to assess the feasibility of an augmented prescribed exercise program (APEP) in older acute medical patients and (2) to measure the potential effects of APEP on mobility capacity in order to assess the feasibility of a large full-scale study. METHODS: We conducted a single-center, prospective, parallel-group, single-blinded, randomized (1:1) controlled pilot and feasibility trial. Participants were recruited from acute geriatric wards of a general hospital. Key inclusion criteria were: age >= 65 years and walking ability. Key exclusion criteria were severe cognitive impairment and medical restriction for physical exercise interventions. Both groups received usual care, including physiotherapy. Intervention group participants were scheduled for additional exercise sessions (20 to 30 min, 4 to 5x/week). Feasibility of the trial design was assessed along pre-defined criteria for process, resources and management. Feasibility of the APEP intervention was analyzed by means of adherence, compliance and safety. Outcomes were measured at baseline and prior to hospital discharge. The primary outcome was mobility capacity (de Morton Mobility Index; DEMMI). Secondary outcomes were walking ability, physical endurance, fear of falling, frailty and length of stay. RESULTS: Thirty-five participants were recruited (recruitment rate 20.3%). We lost 7 participants to follow-up (retention rate: 80%). Intervention group participants (n = 17) each participated in 5.3 +/- 2.2 additional exercise sessions (mean duration 23.2 +/- 4.0 min; mean adherence rate 78% +/- 26%). No severe adverse events occurred during study assessments or APEP sessions. There were no statistically significant differences in mean change scores in any outcome measure. A sample of 124 participants would be required to detect a difference of 4 DEMMI points (ES 0.45) with a power of 80%. CONCLUSIONS: This small feasibility RCT indicates that an APEP intervention may be safe and feasible in older acute medical patients. APEP may possibly induce small to moderate effects on mobility, but the clinical relevance of these effects may be limited. These results inform the planning of a larger-scale phase III study. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00011262). Registered 27 October 2016.

Full text (sometimes free) may be available at these link(s):      help