Effect of flexible family visitation on delirium among patients in the Intensive Care Unit: the ICU visits randomized clinical trial

Fernando Augusto Bozza. Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Nacional de Infectologia Evandro Chagas. Documento produzido em parceria ou por autor vinculado à Fiocruz, mas não consta a informação no documento.Intensive Care Unit, Hospital Moinhos de Vento (HMV), Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil (Rosa, D. B. da Silva, Eugênio, Haack, Medeiros, Tonietto, Teixeira); Research Projects Office, HMV, Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil (Rosa, Falavigna, D. B. da Silva, Sganzerla, Santos, Kochhann, de Moura, Eugênio, Haack, Barbosa, Robinson, Schneider, de Oliveira, Jeffman, Medeiros, Hammes); Brazilian Research in Intensive Care Network (BRICNet), São Paulo, São Paulo (Rosa, Cavalcanti, Machado, Azevedo, Salluh, Nobre, Bozza, Teixeira); HCor Research Institute, São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil (Cavalcanti); Department of Anesthesiology, Pain and Intensive Care, Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP), São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil (Machado); Intensive Care Unit, Hospital Sírio-Libanês, São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil (Azevedo); Department of Critical Care, Instituto D’Or de Pesquisa e Ensino, Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (Salluh, Mesquita, Bozza); Intensive Care Unit, Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre (HCPA), Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil (Pellegrini, Moraes); Intensive Care Unit, Hospital Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz do Sul, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil (Foernges); Intensive Care Unit, Hospital Santa Rita, Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil (Torelly); Intensive Care Unit, Hospital Universitário do Oeste do Paraná, Cascavel, Paraná, Brazil (Ayres, Duarte); Intensive Care Unit, Hospital do Câncer de Cascavel, Cascavel, Paraná, Brazil (Duarte); Intensive Care Unit, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirão Preto, Ribeirão Preto, São Paulo, Brazil (Lovato); Intensive Care Unit, Santa Casa de Misericórdia de Feira de Santana, Feira de Santana, Bahia, Brazil (Sampaio); Intensive Care Unit, Hospital Geral Clériston Andrade, Feira de Santana, Bahia, Brazil (de Oliveira Júnior); Intensive Care Unit, Santa Casa de Misericórdia de São João Del Rei, São João Del Rei, Minas Gerais, Brazil (Paranhos); Intensive Care Unit, Hospital Regional Doutor Deoclécio Marques de Lucena, Parnamirim, Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil (Dantas, de Brito); Intensive Care Unit, Fundação Hospital Adriano Jorge, Manaus, Amazonas, Brazil (Paulo); Intensive Care Unit, Hospital Agamenon Magalhães, Recife, Pernambuco, Brazil (Gallindo); Intensive Care Unit, Hospital da Cidade, Passo Fundo, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil (Pilau); Intensive Care Unit, Hospital Mãe de Deus, Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil (Valentim); Intensive Care Unit, Hospital de Urgências de Goiânia, Goiânia, Goiânia, Brazil (Meira Teles); Intensive Care Unit, Hospital das Clínicas, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG), Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil (Nobre); Intensive Care Unit, Pavilhão Pereira Filho, Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil (Birriel); Intensive Care Unit, Hospital Regional do Baixo Amazonas, Santarém, Pará, Brazil (Corrêa e Castro); Intensive Care Unit, Hospital Nossa Senhora da Conceição, Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil (Specht); School of Medicine, Universidade Federal de Ciências da Saúde de Porto Alegre (UFCSPA), Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil (N. B. da Silva); Department of Public Health Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston (Korte); Unit of Pediatric Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Ospedale dei Bambini—ASST Spedali Civili, Brescia, Italy (Giannini); Oswaldo Cruz Foundation (FIOCRUZ), Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (Bozza).Submitted by Janaína Nascimento ([email protected]) on 2019-09-11T14:37:38Z No. of bitstreams: 1 ve_Rosa_Regis_etal_INI_2019.pdf: 616825 bytes, checksum: 2aae5be305137324e272a08cc32e9270 (MD5)Approved for entry into archive by Janaína Nascimento ([email protected]) on 2019-09-11T14:52:11Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 ve_Rosa_Regis_etal_INI_2019.pdf: 616825 bytes, checksum: 2aae5be305137324e272a08cc32e9270 (MD5)Made available in DSpace on 2019-09-11T14:52:11Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ve_Rosa_Regis_etal_INI_2019.pdf: 616825 bytes, checksum: 2aae5be305137324e272a08cc32e9270 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2019Múltipla - Ver em Notas.IMPORTANCE: The effects of intensive care unit (ICU) visiting hours remain uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a flexible family visitation policy in the ICU reduces the incidence of delirium. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Cluster-crossover randomized clinical trial involving patients, family members, and clinicians from 36 adult ICUs with restricted visiting hours (<4.5 hours per day) in Brazil. Participants were recruited from April 2017 to June 2018, with follow-up until July 2018. INTERVENTIONS: Flexible visitation (up to 12 hours per day) supported by family education (n = 837 patients, 652 family members, and 435 clinicians) or usual restricted visitation (median, 1.5 hours per day; n = 848 patients, 643 family members, and 391 clinicians). Nineteen ICUs started with flexible visitation, and 17 started with restricted visitation. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Primary outcome was incidence of delirium during ICU stay, assessed using the CAM-ICU. Secondary outcomes included ICU-acquired infections for patients; symptoms of anxiety and depression assessed using the HADS (range, 0 [best] to 21 [worst]) for family members; and burnout for ICU staff (Maslach Burnout Inventory). RESULTS: Among 1685 patients, 1295 family members, and 826 clinicians enrolled, 1685 patients (100%) (mean age, 58.5 years; 47.2% women), 1060 family members (81.8%) (mean age, 45.2 years; 70.3% women), and 737 clinicians (89.2%) (mean age, 35.5 years; 72.9% women) completed the trial. The mean daily duration of visits was significantly higher with flexible visitation (4.8 vs 1.4 hours; adjusted difference, 3.4 hours [95% CI, 2.8 to 3.9]; P < .001). The incidence of delirium during ICU stay was not significantly different between flexible and restricted visitation (18.9% vs 20.1%; adjusted difference, −1.7% [95% CI, −6.1% to 2.7%]; P = .44). Among 9 prespecified secondary outcomes, 6 did not differ significantly between flexible and restricted visitation, including ICU-acquired infections (3.7% vs 4.5%; adjusted difference, −0.8% [95% CI, −2.1% to 1.0%]; P = .38) and staff burnout (22.0% vs 24.8%; adjusted difference, −3.8% [95% CI, −4.8% to 12.5%]; P = .36). For family members, median anxiety (6.0 vs 7.0; adjusted difference, −1.6 [95% CI, −2.3 to −0.9]; P < .001) and depression scores (4.0 vs 5.0; adjusted difference, −1.2 [95% CI, −2.0 to −0.4]; P = .003) were significantly better with flexible visitation. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among patients in the ICU, a flexible family visitation policy, vs standard restricted visiting hours, did not significantly reduce the incidence of delirium

Geoeconomic variations in epidemiology, ventilation management, and outcomes in invasively ventilated intensive care unit patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome: a pooled analysis of four observational studies

Background: Geoeconomic variations in epidemiology, the practice of ventilation, and outcome in invasively ventilated intensive care unit (ICU) patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) remain unexplored. In this analysis we aim to address these gaps using individual patient data of four large observational studies. Methods: In this pooled analysis we harmonised individual patient data from the ERICC, LUNG SAFE, PRoVENT, and PRoVENT-iMiC prospective observational studies, which were conducted from June, 2011, to December, 2018, in 534 ICUs in 54 countries. We used the 2016 World Bank classification to define two geoeconomic regions: middle-income countries (MICs) and high-income countries (HICs). ARDS was defined according to the Berlin criteria. Descriptive statistics were used to compare patients in MICs versus HICs. The primary outcome was the use of low tidal volume ventilation (LTVV) for the first 3 days of mechanical ventilation. Secondary outcomes were key ventilation parameters (tidal volume size, positive end-expiratory pressure, fraction of inspired oxygen, peak pressure, plateau pressure, driving pressure, and respiratory rate), patient characteristics, the risk for and actual development of acute respiratory distress syndrome after the first day of ventilation, duration of ventilation, ICU length of stay, and ICU mortality. Findings: Of the 7608 patients included in the original studies, this analysis included 3852 patients without ARDS, of whom 2345 were from MICs and 1507 were from HICs. Patients in MICs were younger, shorter and with a slightly lower body-mass index, more often had diabetes and active cancer, but less often chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and heart failure than patients from HICs. Sequential organ failure assessment scores were similar in MICs and HICs. Use of LTVV in MICs and HICs was comparable (42·4% vs 44·2%; absolute difference -1·69 [-9·58 to 6·11] p=0·67; data available in 3174 [82%] of 3852 patients). The median applied positive end expiratory pressure was lower in MICs than in HICs (5 [IQR 5-8] vs 6 [5-8] cm H2O; p=0·0011). ICU mortality was higher in MICs than in HICs (30·5% vs 19·9%; p=0·0004; adjusted effect 16·41% [95% CI 9·52-23·52]; p&lt;0·0001) and was inversely associated with gross domestic product (adjusted odds ratio for a US$10 000 increase per capita 0·80 [95% CI 0·75-0·86]; p&lt;0·0001). Interpretation: Despite similar disease severity and ventilation management, ICU mortality in patients without ARDS is higher in MICs than in HICs, with a strong association with country-level economic status