Objectives: Data show that family members of ICU patients may have high levels of anxiety, depression, posttraumatic stress disorders, and/or complicated grief. This was previously referred to as post-intensive care syndrome-family. We systematically review randomized controlled trials for post-intensive care syndrome-family. Data Sources: Systematic research in databases (Pubmed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINHAL for articles published between January 2000 and October 2019). Study Selection: Interventions in randomized controlled trials for post-intensive care syndrome-family in relatives of adult ICU patients. Data Extraction: Review, quality assessment, and risk assessment for bias of eligible publications were performed along recommended guidelines for each investigation. Quality assessment graded studies into “strong” (n = 5), “moderate” (n = 4), and “weak” (n = 2). Data Synthesis: Out of 2,399 publications, 11 investigations were found eligible (3,183 relatives of ICU patients). Studies addressed interventions during ICU stay (n = 6), during the post-ICU period (n = 4), or both (n = 1). Two studies included relatives of dying/deceased patients. One study implemented end-of-life conferences and showed reduced prevalence of posttraumatic stress disorder (45% vs 69%; p = 0.01), anxiety (45% vs 67%; p = 0.02), and depression (29% vs 56%; p = 0.003). Family conferences with a physician and proactive participation of a nurse reduced anxiety-scores (p = 0.01) without reducing anxiety prevalence (33.3% vs 52.3%; p = 0.08). Other studies failed to improve symptoms or reduce prevalence of post-intensive care syndrome-family. Interestingly, condolence letters may even increase prevalence of posttraumatic stress disorder (52.4% vs 37.1%; p = 0.03). Meetings without the presence of ICU physicians were shown to increase Impact of Event Scale-Revised scores (25.9 vs 21.3; p = 0.0495). Conclusions: Only few data are available on interventions for post-intensive care syndrome-family. It appears that proactive communication and provision of information seems pivotal for post-intensive care syndrome-family treatment. Interestingly, some interventions may even worsen post-intensive care syndrome-family. In the light of the relevance of post-intensive care syndrome-family in daily ICU care, more high-quality data seems urgently needed.

Background Recent evidence suggests that acetate-buffered infusions result in better hemodynamic stabilization than 0.9% saline in patients undergoing major surgery. The choice of buffer in balanced crystalloid solutions may modify their hemodynamic effects. We therefore compared the inopressor requirements of Ringer’s acetate and lactate for perioperative fluid management in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Methods Using a randomized controlled double-blind design, we compared Ringer’s acetate (RA) to Ringer’s lactate (RL) with respect to the average rate of inopressor administered until postoperative hemodynamic stabilization was achieved. Secondary outcomes were the cumulative dose of inopressors, the duration of inopressor administration, the total fluid volume administered, and the changes in acid-base homeostasis. Patients undergoing elective valvular cardiac surgery were included. Patients with severe cardiac, renal, or liver disease were excluded from the study. Results Seventy-five patients were randomly allocated to the RA arm, 73 to the RL. The hemodynamic profiles were comparable between the groups. The groups did not differ with respect to the average rate of inopressors (RA 2.1 mcg/kg/h, IQR 0.5–8.1 vs. RL 1.7 mcg/kg/h, IQR 0.7–8.2, p = 0.989). Cumulative doses of inopressors and time on individual and combined inopressors did not differ between the groups. No differences were found in acid-base parameters and their evolution over time. Conclusion In this study, hemodynamic profiles of patients receiving Ringer’s lactate and Ringer’s acetate were comparable, and the evolution of acid-base parameters was similar. These study findings should be evaluated in larger, multi-center studies. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02895659 . Registered 16 September 2016. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13054-019-2423-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background Noise levels on intensive care units (ICUs) are typically elevated. While many studies reported negative effects of ICU ambient sounds on patients, only few investigated noise as a factor to influence well-being or performance in healthcare professionals. Methods An online survey in the German-speaking part of Switzerland was conducted to assess how ICU soundscapes are subjectively perceived by healthcare professionals. The questionnaire was answered by 348 participants. Additionally, effects of noise on working memory performance were evaluated in an experimental noise exposure setting. Twenty-six healthcare professionals and 27 healthy controls performed a 2-back object-location task while being exposed to either ICU or pink noise. Results Survey results demonstrate that a majority of participants was aware of heightened noise levels. Participants reported that mostly well-being, performance, and attention could be reduced, along with subjective annoyance and fatigue by ICU ambient sounds. Although no significant effects of noise exposure on working memory performance was observed, self-assessments revealed significantly higher stress levels, increased annoyance and distraction ratings as well as decreased confidence in performance after ICU-noise exposure. Conclusion Subjective assessments indicate that heightened noise levels on ICUs induce annoyance, with heightened stress levels, impaired well-being, and reduced performance being potential consequences. Empirical evidence with objective and physiological measures is warranted.