Recovery and Long Term Functional Outcome in Subjects With Critical Illness Polyneuropathy and Myopathy: a Scoping Review

Domenico Intiso,Marco Centra,Michelangelo Bartolo,Maria Teresa Gatta,Michele Gravina,Filomena Di Rienzo
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-952062/v1
2021-10-21
Abstract:Abstract Background : Intensive care unit acquired weakness (ICUAW), embraces an array of disorders labeled “critical illness polyneuropathy” (CIP), “critical illness myopathy” (CIM) or “critical illness polyneuromyopathy” (CIPNM). Several studies have addressed the various characteristics of CIPNM, but the recovery is still unclear. Objective : The present review investigated the recovery and the long-term functional outcome of subjects with CIPNM, whether the types of CIPNM have different outcomes and whether there is any supporting evidence. Methods: Literature search was performed from MEDLINE/PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, PeDro, Web of Science and Scopus. Inclusion criteria were: i) sample size including five or more subjects; ii) subjects who suffered from CIPNM and/or CIP, CIM and CIP/CIM; iii) CIPNM ascertained by EMG. Follow-ups longer than one year were defined as long-term. Results : Twenty-nine studies met the inclusion criteria. In total, 788 subjects with CIPNM were enrolled: 159 (20.1%) died and 588 (74.6%) were followed. Of all the included patients, 613 (77.7%) had CIP, 82 (10.4%) CIM and 56 (7.1%) CIP/CIM. Overall, 70.3% of the subjects with CIPNM fully recovered. Seven (24.1%) studies had a follow-up longer than 1 year (range 2-8) with 173 (21.9%) subjects enrolled globally and 108 followed. Of these subjects, 88.8% gained full recovery. Most of the studies did not use proper functional scales and only 4 and 3 studies employed the Barthel scale and the FIM scale. Differentiation between the types of CIPNM was performed in 7 studies, but only 3 studies reported that subjects with CIM had a better prognosis and earlier recovery than subjects with CIP/CIM. Conclusions : Subjects with CIPNM could achieve good recovery and could further improve at follow-up. The quality of the published studies due to short follow-ups and the paucity of defined outcome measures limit the evidence.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?