Mobile critical care recovery program (m-CCRP) for acute respiratory failure survivors: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Khan, Sikandar; Biju, Ashok; Wang, Sophia; Gao, Sujuan; Irfan, Omar; Harrawood, Amanda; Brewer, E. Cobham; Perkins, Anthony J.; Unverzagt, Frederick W.; Lasiter, Sue; Zarzaur, Ben L.; Rahman, Omar; Boustani, Malaz; Khan, Babar

doi:10.1186/s13063-018-2449-2

Cited by 15 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 62 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Currently, many of the available programs are in large urban centers and are associated with large academic medical centers. Innovative aftercare delivery models are being explored to address these barriers such as the use of mobile ICU recovery programs [30] or the use of telemedicine services for ICU survivors.…”

Section: Future Directions For Icu Aftercarementioning

confidence: 99%

Caring for Survivors of Critical Illness: Current Practices and the Role of the Nurse in Intensive Care Unit Aftercare

Eaton¹,

McPeake²,

Rogan³

et al. 2019

Am J Crit Care

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The success of critical care medicine has historically been gauged by short-term mortality outcome. With technological advances, many patients now survive what were previously fatal critical illnesses, generating an expanding population of critical care survivors. Many survivors suffer with new or worsening impairments in physical, cognitive or mental health status arising after a critical illness and persisting beyond acute care hospitalization which has been termed Post Intensive Care Syndrome (PICS) [1]. This term can be applied to a survivor or a family member who often experiences significant social & psychiatric burdens caring for a survivor of critical illness [1 2]. It is estimated that PICS develops in greater than 2.4 million Americans who survive critical illness each year, including approximately two-thirds of Medicare beneficiaries who survive critical illness [3]. As a consequence of

show abstract

Section: Future Directions For Icu Aftercarementioning

confidence: 99%

Caring for Survivors of Critical Illness: Current Practices and the Role of the Nurse in Intensive Care Unit Aftercare

Eaton¹,

McPeake²,

Rogan³

et al. 2019

Am J Crit Care

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Because the use of MV at a minimum of 3 days is an inclusion criterion enabling the selection of patients with severe critical illness, the results will be obtained from a representative population at risk of developing PICS. Its results could be then compared with those of ongoing trials assessing the benefit of telehealth [ 51 ], combined physical and cognitive training [ 52 ], or multidisciplinary personalized follow-up [ 53 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of a Postintensive Care Unit Multidisciplinary Follow-up on the Quality of Life (SUIVI-REA): Protocol for a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial

Friedman¹,

Grimaldi-Bensouda²,

Cariou³

et al. 2022

JMIR Res Protoc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Critically ill patients are at risk of developing a postintensive care syndrome (PICS), which is characterized by physical, psychological, and cognitive impairments and which dramatically impacts the patient’s quality of life (QoL). No intervention has been shown to improve QoL. We hypothesized that a medical, psychological, and social follow-up would improve QoL by mitigating the PICS. Objective This multicenter, randomized controlled trial (SUIVI-REA) aims to compare a multidisciplinary follow-up with a standard postintensive care unit (ICU) follow-up. Methods Patients were randomized to the control or intervention arm. In the intervention arm, multidisciplinary follow-up involved medical, psychological, and social evaluation at ICU discharge and at 3, 6, and 12 months thereafter. In the placebo group, patients were seen only at 12 months by the multidisciplinary team. Baseline characteristics at ICU discharge were collected for all patients. The primary outcome was QoL at 1 year, assessed using the Euro Quality of Life-5 dimensions (EQ5D). Secondary outcomes were mortality, cognitive, psychological, and functional status; social and professional reintegration; and the rate of rehospitalization and outpatient consultations at 1 year. Results The study was funded by the Ministry of Health in June 2010. It was approved by the Ethics Committee on July 8, 2011. The first and last patient were randomized on December 20, 2012, and September 1, 2017, respectively. A total of 546 patients were enrolled across 11 ICUs. At present, data management is ongoing, and all parties involved in the trial remain blinded. Conclusions The SUVI-REA multicenter randomized controlled trial aims to assess whether a post-ICU multidisciplinary follow-up improves QoL at 1 year. Trial Registration Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01796509; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01796509 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) DERR1-10.2196/30496

show abstract

“…Since 12 of the included studies did not include results ( Chen et al, 2022 ; Ewens et al, 2019 ; Friedman et al, 2022 ; Gawlytta et al, 2020 ; Gawlytta et al, 2017 ; Haines et al, 2019 ; Khan et al, 2018 ; Moulaert et al, 2015 ; Ojeda et al, 2021 ; Rohr et al, 2021 ) ( NCT03431493 , NCT03926533 , NCT04329702 ), we included 15 studies for quantitative analysis. Of these 15 studies, 11 focused on patients ( Abdelhamid et al, 2021 ; Bloom et al, 2019 ; Cox et al, 2018 ; Cox et al, 2019 ; Cuthbertson et al, 2009 ; Daly et al, 2005 ; Douglas et al, 2005 ; Douglas et al, 2007 ; Hernández et al, 2014 ; Kredentser et al, 2018 ; McWilliams, Benington & Atkinson, 2016 ; Schmidt et al, 2016 ; Schmidt et al, 2020 ; Valsøet al, 2020 ; Vlake et al, 2021 ), two focused on informal caregivers ( Ågren et al, 2019 ; Kentish-Barnes et al, 2017 ), and two focused on both patients and informal caregivers ( Bohart et al, 2019 ; Jensen et al, 2016 ; Jones et al, 2004 ; Jones et al, 2003 ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Follow-up focused on psychological intervention initiated after intensive care unit in adult patients and informal caregivers: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Yoshihiro

Taito

Yamauchi

et al. 2023

PeerJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Psychological dysfunction is one of the considerable health-related outcomes among critically-ill patients and their informal caregivers. Follow-up of intensive care unit (ICU) survivors has been conducted in a variety of different ways, with different timing after discharge, targets of interest (physical, psychological, social) and measures used. Of diverse ICU follow-up, the effects of follow-ups which focused on psychological interventions are unknown. Our research question was whether follow-up with patients and their informal caregivers after ICU discharge improved mental health compared to usual care. We published a protocol for this systematic review and meta-analysis in https://www.protocols.io/ (https://dx.doi.org/10.17504/protocols.io.bvjwn4pe). We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycInfo from their inception to May 2022. We included randomized controlled trials for follow-ups after ICU discharge and focused on psychological intervention for critically ill adult patients and their informal caregivers. We synthesized primary outcomes, including depression, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and adverse events using the random-effects method. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to rate the certainty of evidence. From the 10,471 records, we identified 13 studies (n = 3, 366) focusing on patients and four (n = 538) focusing on informal caregivers. ICU follow-up for patients resulted in little to no difference in the prevalence of depression (RR 0.89, 95% CI [0.59–1.34]; low-certainty evidence) and PTSD (RR 0.84, 95% CI [0.55–1.30]; low-certainty evidence) among patients; however, it increased the prevalence of depression (RR 1.58 95% CI [1.01–2.46]; very low-certainty evidence), PTSD (RR 1.36, 95% CI [0.91–2.03]; very low-certainty evidence) among informal caregivers. The evidence for the effect of ICU follow-up on adverse events among patients was insufficient. Eligible studies for informal caregivers did not define any adverse event. The effect of follow-ups after ICU discharge that focused on psychological intervention should be uncertain.

show abstract

Mobile critical care recovery program (m-CCRP) for acute respiratory failure survivors: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Cited by 15 publications

References 62 publications

Caring for Survivors of Critical Illness: Current Practices and the Role of the Nurse in Intensive Care Unit Aftercare

Caring for Survivors of Critical Illness: Current Practices and the Role of the Nurse in Intensive Care Unit Aftercare

Impact of a Postintensive Care Unit Multidisciplinary Follow-up on the Quality of Life (SUIVI-REA): Protocol for a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial

Follow-up focused on psychological intervention initiated after intensive care unit in adult patients and informal caregivers: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About