Reidar Kvåle1, Atle Ulvik2, Hans Flaatten2. 1. Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Haukeland University Hospital, 5021, Bergen, Norway. reidar.kvale@helse-bergen.no. 2. Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Haukeland University Hospital, 5021, Bergen, Norway.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To study health problems, quality of life, functional status, and memory after intensive care. SETTING: Adult patients ( n=346) discharged from a university hospital ICU. DESIGN AND METHODS: Prospective cohort study. Follow-up patients were found using the ICU database and the Peoples Registry. Quality of life (QOL) was measured with the Short Form 36 (SF-36) 6 months after ICU discharge. Semi-structured interviews, questionnaires, Glasgow Outcome Score (recovery), and Karnofsky Index (functional status) were used at consultations 7-8 months after ICU discharge. RESULTS: The SF-36 response rate was 64.5%, with scores significantly lower than population scores. Consultation patients ( n=136) did not differ from the rest ( n=210) regarding age, SAPS II scores, length of stay (LOS), and reasons for ICU admission. At follow-up 67.6% of consultation patients continued most activities, 75% looked after themselves, and 64.7% were non-workers, compared to 40.4% before the ICU admission. During and after the ICU stay, 40% lost more than 10 kg body weight. Fifty-eight (43%) could not remember anything from their ICU stay. At follow-up only 22 (16%) could remember having received information during their ICU stay. Three patients needed referral to other specialties. CONCLUSIONS: We should focus more on optimizing symptom management and giving repeated information after ICU discharge. Nutritional status and weight loss is another area of concern. More research is needed to find out how the broad range of psychosocial and physical problems following an ICU stay relates to the stay.
OBJECTIVES: To study health problems, quality of life, functional status, and memory after intensive care. SETTING: Adult patients ( n=346) discharged from a university hospital ICU. DESIGN AND METHODS: Prospective cohort study. Follow-up patients were found using the ICU database and the Peoples Registry. Quality of life (QOL) was measured with the Short Form 36 (SF-36) 6 months after ICU discharge. Semi-structured interviews, questionnaires, Glasgow Outcome Score (recovery), and Karnofsky Index (functional status) were used at consultations 7-8 months after ICU discharge. RESULTS: The SF-36 response rate was 64.5%, with scores significantly lower than population scores. Consultation patients ( n=136) did not differ from the rest ( n=210) regarding age, SAPS II scores, length of stay (LOS), and reasons for ICU admission. At follow-up 67.6% of consultation patients continued most activities, 75% looked after themselves, and 64.7% were non-workers, compared to 40.4% before the ICU admission. During and after the ICU stay, 40% lost more than 10 kg body weight. Fifty-eight (43%) could not remember anything from their ICU stay. At follow-up only 22 (16%) could remember having received information during their ICU stay. Three patients needed referral to other specialties. CONCLUSIONS: We should focus more on optimizing symptom management and giving repeated information after ICU discharge. Nutritional status and weight loss is another area of concern. More research is needed to find out how the broad range of psychosocial and physical problems following an ICU stay relates to the stay.
Authors: Edward Abraham; Peter Andrews; Massimo Antonelli; Laurent Brochard; Christian Brun-Buisson; Geoffrey Dobb; Jean-Yves Fagon; Johan Groeneveld; Jordi Mancebo; Philipp Metnitz; Stefano Nava; Michael Pinsky; Peter Radermacher; Marco Ranieri; Christian Richard; Robert Tasker; Benoit Vallet Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2004-06-26 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: David W Dowdy; Mark P Eid; Artyom Sedrakyan; Pedro A Mendez-Tellez; Peter J Pronovost; Margaret S Herridge; Dale M Needham Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2005-04-01 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Lotti Orwelius; Carl Bäckman; Mats Fredrikson; Eva Simonsson; Peter Nordlund; Anders Samuelsson; Folke Sjöberg Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2011-02-12 Impact factor: 17.440