Objectives: To evaluate the effect of ICU diaries on posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms in ICU survivors and their relatives. Secondary objectives were to determine the effect on anxiety, depression, and health-related quality of life in patients and their relatives. Data Sources: We searched online databases, trial registries, and references of relevant articles. Study Selection: Studies were included if there was an ICU diary intervention group which was compared with a group without a diary. Data Extraction: Titles, abstracts, and full-text articles were reviewed independently by two authors. Data was abstracted using a structured template. Data Synthesis: Our search identified 1,790 articles and retained eight studies for inclusion in the analysis. Pooled results found no significant reduction in patients’ posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms with ICU diaries (risk ratio, 0.75 [0.3–1.73]; p = 0.5; n = 3 studies); however, there was a significant improvement in patients’ anxiety (risk ratio, 0.32 [0.12, 0.86]; p = 0.02; n = 2 studies) and depression (risk ratio, 0.39 [0.17–0.87]; p = 0.02; n = 2 studies) symptoms. Two studies reported significant improvement in posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms of relatives of ICU survivors; however, these results could not be pooled due to reporting differences. One study reported no significant improvement in either anxiety (risk ratio, 0.94; 95% [0.66–1.33]; p = 0.72) or depression (risk ratio, 0.98; 95% [0.5–1.9]; p = 0.95) in relatives. There was a significant improvement in health-related quality of life of patients with a mean increase in the Short Form-36 general health score by 11.46 (95% CI, 5.87–17.05; p ≤ 0.0001; n = 2 studies). No studies addressed health-related quality of life of relatives. Conclusions: ICU diaries decrease anxiety and depression and improve health-related quality of life, but not posttraumatic stress disorder among ICU survivors and may result in less posttraumatic stress disorder among relatives of ICU patients. Multicenter trials with larger sample sizes are necessary to confirm these findings.
Purpose The Acute Disease Quality Initiative (ADQI) Workgroup recently released a consensus definition of sepsis-associated acute kidney injury (SA-AKI), combining Sepsis-3 and Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) AKI criteria. This study aims to describe the epidemiology of SA-AKI. Methods This is a retrospective cohort study carried out in 12 intensive care units (ICUs) from 2015 to 2021. We studied the incidence, patient characteristics, timing, trajectory, treatment, and associated outcomes of SA-AKI based on the ADQI definition. Results Out of 84,528 admissions, 13,451 met the SA-AKI criteria with its incidence peaking at 18% in 2021. SA-AKI patients were typically admitted from home via the emergency department (ED) with a median time to SA-AKI diagnosis of 1 day (interquartile range (IQR) 1–1) from ICU admission. At diagnosis, most SA-AKI patients (54%) had a stage 1 AKI, mostly due to the low urinary output (UO) criterion only (65%). Compared to diagnosis by creatinine alone, or by both UO and creatinine criteria, patients diagnosed by UO alone had lower renal replacement therapy (RRT) requirements (2.8% vs 18% vs 50%; p < 0.001), which was consistent across all stages of AKI. SA-AKI hospital mortality was 18% and SA-AKI was independently associated with increased mortality. In SA-AKI, diagnosis by low UO only, compared to creatinine alone or to both UO and creatinine criteria, carried an odds ratio of 0.34 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.32–0.36) for mortality. Conclusion SA-AKI occurs in 1 in 6 ICU patients, is diagnosed on day 1 and carries significant morbidity and mortality risk with patients mostly admitted from home via the ED. However, most SA-AKI is stage 1 and mostly due to low UO, which carries much lower risk than diagnosis by other criteria. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00134-023-07138-0.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.