Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Pilot study evaluates portable treadmill ambulation feasibility in ICU patients, indicating potential benefits for mobilization efforts.
Background and Purpose: Mobilization of patients with critical illness in the intensive care unit (ICU) is often hindered by the complexity of managing multiple life-support and monitoring devices, leading to limited ambulation opportunities. The purpose of this pilot study was to evaluate the feasibility of portable treadmill ambulation for patients requiring life-support and monitoring devices. Methods: Six participants (age 37-80 years) admitted to the cardiac ICU with critical illness requiring numerous life-support and monitoring devices ambulated on a portable treadmill under the supervision of a physical therapist. Setup time, staffing requirements, walking duration, ambulation distance, vital signs, and adverse events were recorded. Data were analyzed descriptively using medians and interquartile ranges (IQRs). Results: Participants had a median of 9 life-support and monitoring devices. Ambulation required a median of 1 physical therapist (IQR 1-2), with a median setup time of 6.5 minutes (IQR 4.9-7.8). The median walking distance was 42.7 m (IQR 13.7-56.8; range 6.1-91.4), and the median treadmill time was 5.1 minutes (IQR 3.1-6.9). No major adverse events occurred, and 1 minor adverse event was documented across all treadmill trials. Discussion and Conclusions: Based on our pilot study, the use of portable treadmill ambulation in the ICU appears to be feasible and well tolerated as an adjunct to traditional overground walking, even among patients with substantial life-support and monitoring device burdens. This approach may help streamline mobilization efforts, reduce staff demands, and support continuous physiological monitoring. Future studies should compare portable treadmill and overground ambulation outcomes and evaluate clinical effectiveness in larger, multicenter cohorts.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jordan et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: