Early mobilization for mechanical ventilation for sepsis or acute respiratory failure (EVER): a multicenter randomized controlled trial with 12-month outcomes
In brief
Early mobilization program does not improve ICU discharge function in ventilated patients
In a Korean multicenter RCT of 169 adults on ventilation for sepsis or respiratory failure, a structured six-step mobilization protocol started earlier and delivered more sessions but did not raise the Functional Status Score at ICU discharge compared with usual care. Functional recovery and quality-of-life measures remained similar through 12 months, questioning routine early-mobility mandates.
- Journal
- Intensive care medicine (Q1)
- Published
- 26 August 2026
- Study design
- Randomized controlled trial
- Evidence level
- Level 1, High (CEBM 1b)
- Authors
- Chi Ryang Chung, Suk-Kyung Hong, Danbee Kang, Ryoung-Eun Ko, Juhee Cho, Won Kim, et al.
- PMID
- 42645557
- DOI
- 10.1007/s00134-026-08598-w
Why clinicians should know about it
- Picked for Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine (top studies of the week, 30 August 2026): Early mobilization RCT did not improve functional status at ICU
Abstract
PURPOSE: Early mobilization is recommended for adults on mechanical ventilation, but the timing, the dose, and the real-world effectiveness, particularly in Asian ICUs, remain unclear. We assessed whether a structured six-step early mobilization programme enhances functional status at ICU discharge and longer-term recovery. METHODS: A multicenter, randomized, open-label study was conducted across five tertiary hospitals in South Korea (September 2020 to July 2024). Adult patients with sepsis or respiratory failure anticipated to require invasive ventilation for ≥ 48 h were randomly assigned (1:1) to the intervention or usual care. The primary outcome was the FSS-ICU at ICU discharge. Secondary outcomes included in-hospital mortality, muscle strength, physical performance, and patient-reported outcomes evaluated at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. Analyses followed the intention-to-treat principle. RESULTS: We enrolled 169 participants (93 intervention; 76 usual care). At ICU discharge, the FSS-ICU did not differ between groups (mean 23.6 [SD 11.8] vs. 22.2 [SD 10.8]; P = 0.44). The intervention group began mobilization earlier (median 30.0 vs. 45.9 h), underwent more sessions (median 11 vs. 4), and accumulated more mobilization time (median 330 vs. 120 min). Patients achieving mobilization Step ≥ 4 (sit to stand or higher) had higher FSS-ICU at ICU discharge compared with matched usual care (mean 30.6 vs. 23.3; P < 0.01). Long-term outcomes (EQ-5D, SF-36 PCS/MCS, IES-R-K, MoCA-BLIND, and PICS) improved similarly in both groups over 12 months without significant differences. CONCLUSIONS: In this multicenter randomized controlled trial of mechanically ventilated patients with sepsis or acute respiratory failure, a protocolized early mobilization program did not improve functional status at ICU discharge or at 12 months compared with usual care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04582760, registered 12 October 2020.
Abstract as published, via PubMed.
For healthcare professionals. The summary is generated by AI from the published abstract, and the evidence level is assigned automatically from the study design on the Oxford CEBM hierarchy. Neither is medical advice. Read the full paper before changing practice.