Bradt Joke, Dileo Cheryl
Department of Creative Arts Therapies, College of Nursing and Health Professions, Drexel University, 1601 Cherry Street, room 7112, Philadelphia, PA, 19102, USA.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;2014(12):CD006902. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006902.pub3. Epub 2014 Dec 9.
Mechanical ventilation often causes major distress and anxiety in patients. The sensation of breathlessness, frequent suctioning, inability to talk, uncertainty regarding surroundings or condition, discomfort, isolation from others, and fear contribute to high levels of anxiety. Side effects of analgesia and sedation may lead to the prolongation of mechanical ventilation and, subsequently, to a longer length of hospitalization and increased cost. Therefore, non-pharmacological interventions should be considered for anxiety and stress management. Music interventions have been used to reduce anxiety and distress and improve physiological functioning in medical patients; however, their efficacy for mechanically ventilated patients needs to be evaluated. This review was originally published in 2010 and was updated in 2014.
To update the previously published review that examined the effects of music therapy or music medicine interventions (as defined by the authors) on anxiety and other outcomes in mechanically ventilated patients. Specifically, the following objectives are addressed in this review.1. To conduct a meta-analysis to compare the effects of participation in standard care combined with music therapy or music medicine interventions with standard care alone.2. To compare the effects of patient-selected music with researcher-selected music.3. To compare the effects of different types of music interventions (e.g., music therapy versus music medicine).
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 2), MEDLINE (1950 to March 2014), CINAHL (1980 to March 2014), EMBASE (1980 to March 2014), PsycINFO (1967 to March 2014), LILACS (1982 to March 2014), Science Citation Index (1980 to March 2014), www.musictherapyworld.net (1 March 2008) (database is no longer functional), CAIRSS for Music (to March 2014), Proquest Digital Dissertations (1980 to March 2014), ClinicalTrials.gov (2000 to March 2014), Current Controlled Trials (1998 to March 2014), the National Research Register (2000 to September 2007), and NIH CRISP (all to March 2014). We handsearched music therapy journals and reference lists, and contacted relevant experts to identify unpublished manuscripts. There was no language restriction. The original search was performed in January 2010.
We included all randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials that compared music interventions and standard care with standard care alone for mechanically ventilated patients.
Two review authors independently extracted the data and assessed the methodological quality of included studies. We contacted authors to obtain missing data where needed. Where possible, results for continuous outcomes were presented in meta-analyses using mean differences and standardized mean differences. Post-test scores were used. In cases of significant baseline difference, we used change scores. For dichotomous outcomes, we presented the results as risk ratios.
We identified six new trials for this update. In total, the evidence for this review rests on 14 trials (805 participants). Music listening was the main intervention used, and 13 of the studies did not include a trained music therapist. Results indicated that music listening may be beneficial for anxiety reduction in mechanically ventilated patients. Specifically, music listening resulted, on average, in an anxiety reduction that was 1.11 standard deviation units greater (95% CI -1.75 to -0.47, P = 0.0006) than in the standard care group. This is considered a large and clinically significant effect. Findings indicated that listening to music consistently reduced respiratory rate and systolic blood pressure, suggesting a relaxation response. Furthermore, one large-scale study reported greater reductions in sedative and analgesic intake in the music listening group compared to the control group, and two other studies reported trends for reduction in sedative and analgesic intake for the music group. One study found significantly higher sedation scores in the music listening group compared to the control group.No strong evidence was found for reduction in diastolic blood pressure and mean arterial pressure. Furthermore, inconsistent results were found for reduction in heart rate with seven studies reporting greater heart rate reductions in the music listening group and one study a slightly greater reduction in the control group. Music listening did not improve oxygen saturation levels.Four studies examined the effects of music listening on hormone levels but the results were mixed and no conclusions could be drawn.No strong evidence was found for an effect of music listening on mortality rate but this evidence rested on only two trials.Most trials were assessed to be at high risk of bias because of lack of blinding. Blinding of outcome assessors is often impossible in music therapy and music medicine studies that use subjective outcomes, unless the music intervention is compared to another treatment intervention. Because of the high risk of bias, these results need to be interpreted with caution.No studies could be found that examined the effects of music interventions on quality of life, patient satisfaction, post-discharge outcomes, or cost-effectiveness. No adverse events were identified.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This updated systematic review indicates that music listening may have a beneficial effect on anxiety in mechanically ventilated patients. These findings are consistent with the findings of three other Cochrane systematic reviews on the use of music interventions for anxiety reduction in medical patients. The review furthermore suggests that music listening consistently reduces respiratory rate and systolic blood pressure. Finally, results indicate a possible beneficial impact on the consumption of sedatives and analgesics. Therefore, we conclude that music interventions may provide a viable anxiety management option to mechanically ventilated patients.
机械通气常给患者带来极大痛苦和焦虑。呼吸困难的感觉、频繁吸痰、无法交谈、对周围环境或自身状况的不确定、不适、与他人隔离以及恐惧等因素导致患者焦虑水平较高。镇痛和镇静的副作用可能导致机械通气时间延长,进而住院时间延长和费用增加。因此,应考虑采用非药物干预措施来管理焦虑和压力。音乐干预已被用于减轻医学患者的焦虑和痛苦,并改善其生理功能;然而,其对机械通气患者的疗效尚需评估。本综述最初发表于2010年,并于2014年更新。
更新之前发表的综述,该综述探讨了音乐疗法或音乐医学干预(作者定义)对机械通气患者焦虑及其他结局的影响。具体而言,本综述涉及以下目的。1. 进行荟萃分析,比较标准护理联合音乐疗法或音乐医学干预与单纯标准护理的效果。2. 比较患者选择的音乐与研究者选择的音乐的效果。3. 比较不同类型音乐干预(如音乐疗法与音乐医学)的效果。
我们检索了Cochrane对照试验中心注册库(CENTRAL)(《Cochrane图书馆》2014年第2期)、MEDLINE(1950年至2014年3月)、CINAHL(1980年至2014年3月)、EMBASE(1980年至2014年3月)、PsycINFO(1967年至2014年3月)、LILACS(1982年至2014年3月)、科学引文索引(1980年至2014年3月)、www.musictherapyworld.net(2008年3月1日)(该数据库已不再可用)、CAIRSS for Music(截至2014年3月)、Proquest Digital Dissertations(1980年至2014年3月)、ClinicalTrials.gov(2000年至2014年3月)、Current Controlled Trials(1998年至2014年3月)、国家研究注册库(2000年至2007年9月)以及NIH CRISP(均截至2014年3月)。我们手工检索了音乐疗法期刊和参考文献列表,并联系相关专家以识别未发表的手稿。无语言限制。最初的检索于2010年1月进行。
我们纳入了所有比较音乐干预和标准护理与单纯标准护理对机械通气患者效果的随机和半随机对照试验。
两位综述作者独立提取数据并评估纳入研究的方法学质量。必要时,我们联系作者以获取缺失数据。在可能的情况下,连续结局的结果在荟萃分析中采用均数差值和标准化均数差值呈现。使用测试后分数。在基线差异显著的情况下,我们使用变化分数。对于二分结局,我们将结果呈现为风险比。
本次更新我们识别出六项新试验。本综述的证据总共基于14项试验(805名参与者)。聆听音乐是主要的干预方式,其中13项研究未包括受过培训的音乐治疗师。结果表明,聆听音乐可能有助于减轻机械通气患者的焦虑。具体而言,聆听音乐导致的焦虑减轻程度平均比标准护理组大1.11个标准差单位(95%可信区间 -1.75至 -0.47,P = 0.0006)。这被认为是一个较大且具有临床意义的效果。研究结果表明,聆听音乐持续降低呼吸频率和收缩压,提示有放松反应。此外,一项大规模研究报告称,与对照组相比,聆听音乐组的镇静剂和镇痛药摄入量减少更多,另外两项研究报告了音乐组镇静剂和镇痛药摄入量减少的趋势。一项研究发现,与对照组相比,聆听音乐组的镇静评分显著更高。未发现聆听音乐可降低舒张压和平均动脉压的有力证据。此外,关于心率降低的结果不一致,七项研究报告聆听音乐组心率降低更多,一项研究报告对照组心率降低略多。聆听音乐未改善血氧饱和度水平。四项研究考察了聆听音乐对激素水平的影响,但结果不一,无法得出结论。未发现聆听音乐对死亡率有影响的有力证据,但此证据仅基于两项试验。由于缺乏盲法,大多数试验被评估为存在高偏倚风险。在使用主观结局的音乐疗法和音乐医学研究中,除非将音乐干预与另一种治疗干预进行比较,否则结局评估者的盲法往往是不可能的。由于存在高偏倚风险,这些结果需要谨慎解读。未找到考察音乐干预对生活质量、患者满意度、出院后结局或成本效益影响的研究。未识别出不良事件。
本次更新的系统综述表明,聆听音乐可能对机械通气患者的焦虑有有益影响。这些发现与其他三项关于使用音乐干预减轻医学患者焦虑的Cochrane系统综述的结果一致。该综述还表明,聆听音乐持续降低呼吸频率和收缩压。最后,结果表明对镇静剂和镇痛药的使用可能有有益影响。因此,我们得出结论,音乐干预可能为机械通气患者提供一种可行的焦虑管理选择。