Victoria Bion1, Alex Sw Lowe2, Zudin Puthucheary3,4, Hugh Montgomery1,4. 1. Intensive Care Unit, Whittington Hospital, London, UK. 2. 2Neurology Department, Homerton University Hospital, London, UK. 3. 3Adult Intensive Care Unit, Royal Brompton Hospital, London, UK. 4. University College London, Centre for Sports, Exercise and Health; Institute for Sport Exercise and Health, London, UK.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Sleep disturbance is common in intensive care units. It is associated with detrimental psychological impacts and has potential to worsen outcome. Irregular exposure to sound and light may disrupt circadian rhythm and cause frequent arousals from sleep. We sought to review the efficacy of environmental interventions to reduce sound and light exposure with the aim of improving patient sleep on adult intensive care units. METHODS: We searched both PubMed (1966-30 May 2017) and Embase (1974-30 May 2017) for all relevant human (adult) studies and meta-analyses published in English using search terms ((intensive care OR critical care), AND (sleep OR sleep disorders), AND (light OR noise OR sound)). Bibliographies were explored. Articles were included if reporting change in patient sleep in response to an intervention to reduce disruptive intensive care unit sound /light exposure. RESULTS: Fifteen studies were identified. Nine assessed mechanical interventions, four of which used polysomnography to assess sleep. Five studies looked at environmental measures to facilitate sleep and a further two (one already included as assessing a mechanical intervention) studied the use of sound to promote sleep. Most studies found a positive impact of the intervention on sleep. However, few studies used objective sleep assessments, sample sizes were small, methodologies sometimes imperfect and analysis limited. Data are substantially derived from specialist (neurosurgical, post-operative, cardiothoracic and cardiological) centres. Patients were often at the 'less sick' end of the spectrum in a variety of settings (open ward beds or side rooms). CONCLUSIONS: Simple measures to reduce intensive care unit patient sound/light exposure appear effective. However, larger and more inclusive high-quality studies are required in order to identify the measures most effective in different patient groups and any impacts on outcome.
PURPOSE: Sleep disturbance is common in intensive care units. It is associated with detrimental psychological impacts and has potential to worsen outcome. Irregular exposure to sound and light may disrupt circadian rhythm and cause frequent arousals from sleep. We sought to review the efficacy of environmental interventions to reduce sound and light exposure with the aim of improving patient sleep on adult intensive care units. METHODS: We searched both PubMed (1966-30 May 2017) and Embase (1974-30 May 2017) for all relevant human (adult) studies and meta-analyses published in English using search terms ((intensive care OR critical care), AND (sleep OR sleep disorders), AND (light OR noise OR sound)). Bibliographies were explored. Articles were included if reporting change in patient sleep in response to an intervention to reduce disruptive intensive care unit sound /light exposure. RESULTS: Fifteen studies were identified. Nine assessed mechanical interventions, four of which used polysomnography to assess sleep. Five studies looked at environmental measures to facilitate sleep and a further two (one already included as assessing a mechanical intervention) studied the use of sound to promote sleep. Most studies found a positive impact of the intervention on sleep. However, few studies used objective sleep assessments, sample sizes were small, methodologies sometimes imperfect and analysis limited. Data are substantially derived from specialist (neurosurgical, post-operative, cardiothoracic and cardiological) centres. Patients were often at the 'less sick' end of the spectrum in a variety of settings (open ward beds or side rooms). CONCLUSIONS: Simple measures to reduce intensive care unit patient sound/light exposure appear effective. However, larger and more inclusive high-quality studies are required in order to identify the measures most effective in different patient groups and any impacts on outcome.
Authors: Alina I Palimaru; Ryan A Brown; Wendy M Troxel; Daniel L Dickerson; Carrie L Johnson; Elizabeth J D'Amico Journal: Sleep Health Date: 2020-06-08
Authors: Matthew B Maas; Bryan D Lizza; Sabra M Abbott; Eric M Liotta; Maged Gendy; John Eed; Andrew M Naidech; Kathryn J Reid; Phyllis C Zee Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2020-06 Impact factor: 7.598