1). The mean age of the sample was 57 years, and 61% were selleck chemicals 17-AAG male. Both groups had a median ICU length of stay of 6 days and median hospital length of stay of 18.5 days. The overall median period of mechanical ventilation was 90 hours, with a mean Day 1 APACHE II score of 19.5. Fifty-five percent of participants had a non-operative diagnosis. The most prevalent APACHE III diagnostic groups on admission were gastrointestinal (30%), respiratory (24%) and cardiovascular (20%), with 8% sepsis and 6% trauma diagnoses. The baseline (Week 1) mean norm-based PF scores were 27.1 and 28.8 for the intervention and control groups respectively, and the 6MWT distance was 291 and 324 metres (Table (Table1).1). Physical functioning at baseline did not differ significantly between those with complete and incomplete data (P = 0.

86).Table 1Sample baseline characteristicsThere were no significant group effects or group by time interactions (see Table Table2)2) for PF, and no significant covariates after adjusting for baseline PF. This was also the case for 6MWT, MCS and PCS (Table (Table2).2). The time effect was significant for PF (P = 0.034) and 6MWT (P = 0.0003), but not for PCS (P = 0.06) or MCS (P = 0.97). Both control and intervention groups showed similar improvements between Week 1 and Week 8, and Week 1 and Week 26 for the PF and 6MWT, and the PCS and MCS (see Table Table3).3). Clinically important change scores of 12 (control) and 13 (intervention) for the mean PF were noted at eight weeks. The change scores between weeks 1 to 26 were 14 and 15 respectively, with little additional improvement from the eight-week assessment.

Other domains for SF-36 were also comparable between groups at all time points (Table (Table44 details the domain scores for the two groups). Change scores for 6MWT distance were 80 and 89 metres at 8 weeks, and 116 and 126 metres at 26 weeks, for the control and intervention groups respectively (Table (Table3).3). Effect sizes for the impact of the intervention were very small for all measures at 8 and 26 weeks (Table (Table3),3), consistent with the mixed linear regression models (Table (Table22).Table 2Mixed linear regression model: mean outcomes adjusted for Week 1 (baseline) levelsTable 3Mean change from baseline and effect size at 8 and 26 weeks following dischargeTable 4Mean norm-basedaSF-36 scores by assessment time point and groupDiscussionMajor findingsOur main findings were that this home-based rehabilitation intervention had no significant effect on physical recovery and functional status, when compared to significant improvements over time, particularly during the first eight weeks post-hospital discharge. Both groups improved their physical endurance and HRQOL with a similar trajectory at Anacetrapib 8 and 26 weeks.