Suppr超能文献

成人重症监护病房谵妄的预防干预措施。

Interventions for preventing intensive care unit delirium in adults.

作者信息

Herling Suzanne Forsyth, Greve Ingrid E, Vasilevskis Eduard E, Egerod Ingrid, Bekker Mortensen Camilla, Møller Ann Merete, Svenningsen Helle, Thomsen Thordis

机构信息

The Neuroscience Centre, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Blegdamsvej 9, Copenhagen, Denmark, 2100.

出版信息

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Nov 23;11(11):CD009783. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009783.pub2.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Delirium is defined as a disturbance in attention, awareness and cognition with reduced ability to direct, focus, sustain and shift attention, and reduced orientation to the environment. Critically ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) frequently develop ICU delirium. It can profoundly affect both them and their families because it is associated with increased mortality, longer duration of mechanical ventilation, longer hospital and ICU stay and long-term cognitive impairment. It also results in increased costs for society.

OBJECTIVES

To assess existing evidence for the effect of preventive interventions on ICU delirium, in-hospital mortality, the number of delirium- and coma-free days, ventilator-free days, length of stay in the ICU and cognitive impairment.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, BIOSIS, International Web of Science, Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, CINAHL from 1980 to 11 April 2018 without any language limits. We adapted the MEDLINE search for searching the other databases. Furthermore, we checked references, searched citations and contacted study authors to identify additional studies. We also checked the following trial registries: Current Controlled Trials; ClinicalTrials.gov; and CenterWatch.com (all on 24 April 2018).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of adult medical or surgical ICU patients receiving any intervention for preventing ICU delirium. The control could be standard ICU care, placebo or both. We assessed the quality of evidence with GRADE.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We checked titles and abstracts to exclude obviously irrelevant studies and obtained full reports on potentially relevant ones. Two review authors independently extracted data. If possible we conducted meta-analyses, otherwise we synthesized data narratively.

MAIN RESULTS

The electronic search yielded 8746 records. We included 12 RCTs (3885 participants) comparing usual care with the following interventions: commonly used drugs (four studies); sedation regimens (four studies); physical therapy or cognitive therapy, or both (one study); environmental interventions (two studies); and preventive nursing care (one study). We found 15 ongoing studies and five studies awaiting classification. The participants were 48 to 70 years old; 48% to 74% were male; the mean acute physiology and chronic health evaluation (APACHE II) score was 14 to 28 (range 0 to 71; higher scores correspond to more severe disease and a higher risk of death). With the exception of one study, all participants were mechanically ventilated in medical or surgical ICUs or mixed. The studies were overall at low risk of bias. Six studies were at high risk of detection bias due to lack of blinding of outcome assessors. We report results for the two most commonly explored approaches to delirium prevention: pharmacologic and a non-pharmacologic intervention.Haloperidol versus placebo (two RCTs, 1580 participants)The event rate of ICU delirium was measured in one study including 1439 participants. No difference was identified between groups, (risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87 to 1.17) (moderate-quality evidence). Haloperidol versus placebo neither reduced or increased in-hospital mortality, (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.22; 2 studies; 1580 participants (moderate-quality evidence)); the number of delirium- and coma-free days, (mean difference (MD) -0.60, 95% CI -1.37 to 0.17; 2 studies, 1580 participants (moderate-quality of evidence)); number of ventilator-free days (mean 23.8 (MD -0.30, 95% CI -0.93 to 0.33) 1 study; 1439 participants, (high-quality evidence)); length of ICU stay, (MD 0.18, 95% CI -0.60 to 0.97); 2 studies, 1580 participants; high-quality evidence). None of the studies measured cognitive impairment. In one study there were three serious adverse events in the intervention group and five in the placebo group; in the other there were five serious adverse events and three patients died, one in each group. None of the serious adverse events were judged to be related to interventions received (moderate-quality evidence).Physical and cognitive therapy interventions (one study, 65 participants)The study did not measure the event rate of ICU delirium. A physical and cognitive therapy intervention versus standard care neither reduced nor increased in-hospital mortality, (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.40 to 2.20, I² = 0; 1 study, 65 participants; very low-quality evidence); the number of delirium- and coma-free days, (MD -2.8, 95% CI -10.1 to 4.6, I² = 0; 1 study, 65 participants; very low-quality evidence); the number of ventilator-free days (within the first 28/30 days) was median 27.4 (IQR 0 to 29.2) and 25 (IQR 0 to 28.9); 1 study, 65 participants; very low-quality evidence, length of ICU stay, (MD 1.23, 95% CI -0.68 to 3.14, I² = 0; 1 study, 65 participants; very low-quality evidence); cognitive impairment measured by the MMSE: Mini-Mental State Examination with higher scores indicating better function, (MD 0.97, 95% CI -0.19 to 2.13, I² = 0; 1 study, 30 participants; very low-quality evidence); or measured by the Dysexecutive questionnaire (DEX) with lower scores indicating better function (MD -8.76, 95% CI -19.06 to 1.54, I² = 0; 1 study, 30 participants; very low-quality evidence). One patient experienced acute back pain accompanied by hypotensive urgency during physical therapy.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is probably little or no difference between haloperidol and placebo for preventing ICU delirium but further studies are needed to increase our confidence in the findings. There is insufficient evidence to determine the effects of physical and cognitive intervention on delirium. The effects of other pharmacological interventions, sedation, environmental, and preventive nursing interventions are unclear and warrant further investigation in large multicentre studies. Five studies are awaiting classification and we identified 15 ongoing studies, evaluating pharmacological interventions, sedation regimens, physical and occupational therapy combined or separately, and environmental interventions, that may alter the conclusions of the review in future.

摘要

背景

谵妄被定义为注意力、意识和认知方面的障碍,表现为注意力的指向、集中、维持和转移能力下降,以及对环境的定向力减弱。重症监护病房(ICU)中的重症患者经常会发生ICU谵妄。它会对患者及其家属产生深远影响,因为它与死亡率增加、机械通气时间延长、住院和ICU停留时间延长以及长期认知障碍有关。它还会导致社会成本增加。

目的

评估预防性干预措施对ICU谵妄、院内死亡率、无谵妄和无昏迷天数、无呼吸机天数、ICU住院时间和认知障碍影响的现有证据。

检索方法

我们检索了1980年至2018年4月11日的CENTRAL、MEDLINE、Embase、BIOSIS、国际科学网、拉丁美洲和加勒比卫生科学文献、CINAHL,没有任何语言限制。我们对MEDLINE检索进行了调整以用于检索其他数据库。此外,我们检查了参考文献,检索了引文并联系了研究作者以识别其他研究。我们还检查了以下试验注册库:当前对照试验;ClinicalTrials.gov;以及CenterWatch.com(均在2018年4月24日)。

选择标准

我们纳入了接受任何预防ICU谵妄干预措施的成年内科或外科ICU患者的随机对照试验(RCT)。对照可以是标准ICU护理、安慰剂或两者。我们使用GRADE评估证据质量。

数据收集与分析

我们检查标题和摘要以排除明显不相关的研究,并获取了可能相关研究的完整报告。两位综述作者独立提取数据。如果可能,我们进行了荟萃分析,否则我们进行了叙述性数据综合。

主要结果

电子检索产生了8746条记录。我们纳入了12项RCT(3885名参与者),比较常规护理与以下干预措施:常用药物(四项研究);镇静方案(四项研究);物理治疗或认知治疗,或两者(一项研究);环境干预(两项研究);以及预防性护理(一项研究)。我们发现了15项正在进行的研究和5项等待分类的研究。参与者年龄在48至70岁之间;48%至74%为男性;急性生理与慢性健康评估(APACHE II)平均评分为14至28(范围为0至71;分数越高表明疾病越严重,死亡风险越高)。除一项研究外,所有参与者均在医疗或外科ICU或混合ICU中接受机械通气。这些研究总体上偏倚风险较低。由于结局评估者缺乏盲法,六项研究存在较高的检测偏倚风险。我们报告了两种最常探讨的谵妄预防方法的结果:药物治疗和非药物干预。

氟哌啶醇与安慰剂(两项RCT,1580名参与者)

在一项包括1439名参与者的研究中测量了ICU谵妄的事件发生率。两组之间未发现差异,(风险比(RR)1.01,95%置信区间(CI)0.87至1.17)(中等质量证据)。氟哌啶醇与安慰剂均未降低或增加院内死亡率,(RR 0.98,95%CI 0.80至1.22;两项研究;1580名参与者(中等质量证据));无谵妄和无昏迷天数,(平均差(MD)-0.60,95%CI -1.37至0.17;两项研究,1580名参与者(中等质量证据));无呼吸机天数(平均23.8(MD -0.30,95%CI -0.93至0.33)一项研究;1439名参与者,(高质量证据));ICU住院时间,(MD 0.18,95%CI -0.60至0.97);两项研究,1580名参与者;高质量证据)。没有研究测量认知障碍。在一项研究中,干预组有3例严重不良事件,安慰剂组有5例;在另一项研究中有五例严重不良事件,三名患者死亡,每组各一例。没有严重不良事件被判定与所接受的干预措施有关(中等质量证据)。

物理和认知治疗干预(一项研究,65名参与者)

该研究未测量ICU谵妄的事件发生率。物理和认知治疗干预与标准护理相比,既未降低也未增加院内死亡率,(RR 0.94,95%CI 0.40至2.20,I² = 0;一项研究,65名参与者;极低质量证据);无谵妄和无昏迷天数,(MD -2.8,95%CI -10.1至4.6,I² = 0;一项研究,65名参与者;极低质量证据);无呼吸机天数(在前第28/30天内)中位数为27.4(四分位间距0至29.2)和25(四分位间距0至28.9);一项研究,65名参与者;极低质量证据,ICU住院时间,(MD 1.23,95%CI -0.68至3.14,I² = 0;一项研究,65名参与者;极低质量证据);通过简易精神状态检查表(MMSE)测量的认知障碍:分数越高表明功能越好,(MD 0.97,95%CI -0.19至2.13,I² = 0;一项研究,30名参与者;极低质量证据);或通过执行功能障碍问卷(DEX)测量,分数越低表明功能越好(MD -8.76,95%CI -19.06至1.54,I² = 0;一项研究,30名参与者;极低质量证据)。一名患者在物理治疗期间经历了急性背痛并伴有低血压紧急情况。

作者结论

在预防ICU谵妄方面,氟哌啶醇与安慰剂之间可能几乎没有差异,但需要进一步研究以增强我们对研究结果的信心。没有足够的证据来确定物理和认知干预对谵妄的影响。其他药物干预、镇静、环境和预防性护理干预的效果尚不清楚,需要在大型多中心研究中进一步调查。有五项研究等待分类,我们确定了15项正在进行的研究,评估药物干预、镇静方案、物理和职业治疗联合或单独使用以及环境干预,这些研究可能会在未来改变本综述的结论。

相似文献

1
Interventions for preventing intensive care unit delirium in adults.成人重症监护病房谵妄的预防干预措施。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Nov 23;11(11):CD009783. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009783.pub2.
8
Non-pharmacological interventions for sleep promotion in the intensive care unit.重症监护病房促进睡眠的非药物干预措施。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Oct 6;2015(10):CD008808. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008808.pub2.
9
Drug therapy for delirium in terminally ill adults.晚期成年患者谵妄的药物治疗
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Jan 21;1(1):CD004770. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004770.pub3.

引用本文的文献

5
Mobilization in Neurocritical Care: Challenges and Opportunities.神经重症监护中的活动动员:挑战与机遇
Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep. 2024 Dec 26;25(1):13. doi: 10.1007/s11910-024-01399-y.
6
Delirium in the ICU: how much do we know? A narrative review.ICU 相关性谵妄:我们了解多少?一篇综述。
Ann Med. 2024 Dec;56(1):2405072. doi: 10.1080/07853890.2024.2405072. Epub 2024 Sep 23.
8
[Therapeutic healthcare professional staffing requirements in intensive care units].[重症监护病房的治疗性医疗专业人员配备要求]
Med Klin Intensivmed Notfmed. 2024 Oct;119(7):581-585. doi: 10.1007/s00063-024-01125-z. Epub 2024 Mar 28.

本文引用的文献

2
Quetiapine for delirium prophylaxis in high-risk critically ill patients.喹硫平用于高危重症患者谵妄的预防
Surgeon. 2021 Apr;19(2):65-71. doi: 10.1016/j.surge.2020.02.002. Epub 2020 Mar 23.
10

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验