Abstract
BACKGROUND: There are limiting factors that influence the assessment of mobility after cardiac surgery. Therefore, the Perme intensive care unit mobility score scale becomes more appropriate because it analyzes physical and psychological limitations in the intensive care unit (ICU), taking into account extrinsic problems. OBJECTIVE: Describe the behavior of the Perme scale and its correlation with clinical outcomes in the postoperative stage of cardiac surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a prospective cohort study. The patients were evaluated in four moments, to analyze the perception of pain, the degree of dyspnea, muscle strength, and functionality according to the Perme scale which ranges from 0 to 32 points. It was applied at hospital admission, ICU discharge, admission to the ward (UI), and hospital discharge. Values expressed as Delta 1 (d1) and Delta 2 (d2) were used to determine the comparison of preoperative and hospital discharge, respectively. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients were included. Among the correlation variables at the different moments, it was perceived that cardiopulmonary bypass time d1 (r = 0.19; p = 0.42); d2 (r = 0.07; p = 0.98); ICU time d1 (r = 0.34; p = 0.17); d2 (r = 0.35; p = 0.16); hospital time d1 (r = 0.17; p = 0.54); d2 (r = 0.21; p = 0.47) and mechanical ventilation (MV) time d1 (r = 0.09; p = 0.70); d2 (r = 0.44; p = 0.06) showed no statistically significant difference. The variables hospital admission (31 ± 1) and ICU discharge (20 ± 4) showed significant losses in the length of stay in these units. CONCLUSION: The evaluation performed with the Perme scale showed significance when comparing the values between ICU admission and discharge. However, in relation to the clinical outcomes of this study, no relevant correlations were proven. HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE: Cordeiro ALL, Mascarenhas H, Soares LO, Pimentel V, Gomes E, Pinto L, et al. Behavior of the Perme Scale and Correlation with Clinical Outcomes in the Postoperative of Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting. Indian J Crit Care Med 2025;29(3):273-277.