Janet F Jensen1, Ingrid Egerod2, Morten H Bestle3, Doris F Christensen3, Ask Elklit4, Randi L Hansen3, Heidi Knudsen5, Louise B Grode6, Dorthe Overgaard7. 1. Department of Anesthesiology, Nordsjællands Hospital, University of Copenhagen, 3400, Hilleroed, Denmark. janet.froulund.jensen@regionh.dk. 2. Neurointensive Care Unit, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen and Health & Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, 2100, Copenhagen, Denmark. 3. Department of Anesthesiology, Nordsjællands Hospital, University of Copenhagen, 3400, Hilleroed, Denmark. 4. Department of Psychology, University of Southern Denmark, Campusvej 55, 5230, Odense M, Denmark. 5. Department of Anesthesiology, Herlev Hospital, University of Copenhagen, 2730, Herlev, Denmark. 6. Department of Anesthesiology, Hospital of Horsens, 8700, Horsens, Denmark. 7. Research Unit, Nordsjællands Hospital, and Department of Nursing, Metropolitan University College, 2200, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this randomized controlled trial (RCT) was to test the effectiveness of a post-ICU recovery program compared to standard care during the first year after ICU discharge. METHODS: A pragmatic, non-blinded, multicenter, parallel-group RCT was conducted between December 2012 and December 2015, at ten intensive care units (ICUs) in Denmark. We randomly assigned 386 adult patients (≥18 years) after receivingmechanical ventilation (≥48 h) to standard care (SC) plus a nurse-led intensive care recovery program or standard care alone after ICU discharge (190 intervention, 196 SC). Primary outcome was health-related quality of life (HRQOL) at 12 months. Secondary outcomes were sense of coherence (SOC), anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) assessed at 3 and 12 months after ICU discharge including utilization of healthcare services at 12 months. RESULTS: At 12 months, we found no differences in HRQOL between groups (mean difference in the Physical Component Summary score, 1.41 [95 % CI, -1.53 to 4.35; p = 0.35] (n = 235); and in the Mental Component Summary score, 1.92 [95 % CI, -1.06 to 4.90; p = 0.11] (n = 235). No differences were found on self-reported SOC (p = 0.63), anxiety (p = 0.68), depression (p = 0.67), PTSD (p = 0.27), or the utilization of healthcare services including rehabilitation. We found a difference on anxiety, when a cut-off point ≥11 was applied, in per protocol analysis of complete cases at 3 months favoring the intervention (8.8 % vs. 16.2 %, p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: The tested recovery program was not superior to standard care during the first 12 months post-ICU. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is registered at Clinicaltrials.gov, identification no. NCT01721239.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: The aim of this randomized controlled trial (RCT) was to test the effectiveness of a post-ICU recovery program compared to standard care during the first year after ICU discharge. METHODS: A pragmatic, non-blinded, multicenter, parallel-group RCT was conducted between December 2012 and December 2015, at ten intensive care units (ICUs) in Denmark. We randomly assigned 386 adult patients (≥18 years) after receiving mechanical ventilation (≥48 h) to standard care (SC) plus a nurse-led intensive care recovery program or standard care alone after ICU discharge (190 intervention, 196 SC). Primary outcome was health-related quality of life (HRQOL) at 12 months. Secondary outcomes were sense of coherence (SOC), anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) assessed at 3 and 12 months after ICU discharge including utilization of healthcare services at 12 months. RESULTS: At 12 months, we found no differences in HRQOL between groups (mean difference in the Physical Component Summary score, 1.41 [95 % CI, -1.53 to 4.35; p = 0.35] (n = 235); and in the Mental Component Summary score, 1.92 [95 % CI, -1.06 to 4.90; p = 0.11] (n = 235). No differences were found on self-reported SOC (p = 0.63), anxiety (p = 0.68), depression (p = 0.67), PTSD (p = 0.27), or the utilization of healthcare services including rehabilitation. We found a difference on anxiety, when a cut-off point ≥11 was applied, in per protocol analysis of complete cases at 3 months favoring the intervention (8.8 % vs. 16.2 %, p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: The tested recovery program was not superior to standard care during the first 12 months post-ICU. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is registered at Clinicaltrials.gov, identification no. NCT01721239.
Authors: Claudia Rutherford; Daniel Costa; Rebecca Mercieca-Bebber; Holly Rice; Liam Gabb; Madeleine King Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2015-09-03 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Neil P Roberts; Neil J Kitchiner; Justin Kenardy; Lindsay Robertson; Catrin Lewis; Jonathan I Bisson Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2019-08-08
Authors: Carla M Sevin; Sarah L Bloom; James C Jackson; Li Wang; E Wesley Ely; Joanna L Stollings Journal: J Crit Care Date: 2018-08 Impact factor: 3.425
Authors: Bharath Kumar Tirupakuzhi Vijayaraghavan; Xavier Willaert; Brian H Cuthbertson Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2018-07-27 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Jeffrey L Birk; Jennifer A Sumner; Mytra Haerizadeh; Reuben Heyman-Kantor; Louise Falzon; Christopher Gonzalez; Liliya Gershengoren; Peter Shapiro; Donald Edmondson; Ian M Kronish Journal: J Anxiety Disord Date: 2019-03-20
Authors: Dorothy M Wade; Paul R Mouncey; Alvin Richards-Belle; Jerome Wulff; David A Harrison; M Zia Sadique; Richard D Grieve; Lydia M Emerson; Alexina J Mason; David Aaronovitch; Nicole Als; Chris R Brewin; Sheila E Harvey; David C J Howell; Nicholas Hudson; Monty G Mythen; Deborah Smyth; John Weinman; John Welch; Chris Whitman; Kathryn M Rowan Journal: JAMA Date: 2019-02-19 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Joanna L Stollings; Sarah L Bloom; Li Wang; E Wesley Ely; James C Jackson; Carla M Sevin Journal: Ann Pharmacother Date: 2018-02-18 Impact factor: 3.154