Article

Quality of life after intensive care: A systematic review of the literature

Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Ghent University Hospital, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Critical care medicine (Impact Factor: 6.15). 12/2010; 38(12):2386-400. DOI: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181f3dec5
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To evaluate quality of life at least 12 months after discharge from the intensive care unit of adult critically ill patients, to evaluate the methodology used to assess long-term quality of life, and to give an overview of factors influencing quality of life.
EMBASE-PubMed, MEDLINE (OVID), SCI/Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and personal files.
Data extraction was performed independently and cross-checked by two reviewers using a predefined data extraction form. Eligible studies were published between 1999 and 2009 and assessed quality of life ≥12 months after intensive care unit discharge by means of the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short Form Health Survey, the RAND 36-Item Health Survey, EuroQol-5D, and/or the Nottingham Health Profile in adult intensive care unit patients.
Fifty-three articles (10 multicenters) were included, with the majority of studies performed in Europe (68%). The Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short Form Health Survey was used in 55%, and the EuroQol-5D, the Nottingham Health Profile, the RAND 36-Item Health Survey, or a combination was used in 21%, 9%, 8%, or 8%, respectively. A response rate of ≥80% was attained in 26 studies (49%). Critically ill patients had a lower quality of life than an age- and gender-matched population, but quality of life tended to improve over years. The worst reductions in quality of life were seen in cases of severe acute respiratory distress syndrome, prolonged mechanical ventilation, severe trauma, and severe sepsis. Study quality criteria, defined as a baseline quality of life assessment, the absence of major exclusion criteria, a description of nonresponders, and a comparison with a reference population were met in only four studies (8%). Results concerning the influence of severity of illness, comorbidity, preadmission quality of life, age, gender, or acquired complications were conflicting.
Quality of life differed on diagnostic category but, overall, critically ill patients had a lower quality of life than an age- and gender-matched population. A minority of studies met the predefined methodologic quality criteria. Results concerning the influence of the patients' characteristics and illnesses on long-term quality of life were conflicting.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Dominique M Vandijck, Jul 02, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
212 Views
  • Source
    Nursing in Critical Care 05/2015; 20(3):113-4. DOI:10.1111/nicc.12176
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Abstract Background: Muscle wasting in critical illness has been identified as a major clinical concern which can lead to persistent muscle weakness, impede recovery and limit physical function and quality of life in survivors. Neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) has been suggested as an alternative to active exercise in critically ill patients. Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy of NMES in critically ill patients by evaluating the research literature. Methods: Structured database searches of the Cochrane Library, Ovid (Medline), CINHAL, Scopus and PEDro were completed. Results: Eight papers were retrieved and methodological quality evaluated using the Critical Appraisal and Skills Program tool. The NMES protocols, outcomes and findings were analysed and, given the methodological heterogeneity, the study findings were synthesised as a narrative. Analysis showed minimal adverse effects in the use of NMES and some potential benefits of NMES on preservation of muscle strength, decreased duration of mechanical ventilation and shorter Intensive Care Unit (ICU) length of stay. Conclusions: Evidence of the clinical benefits of NMES in the ICU is inconclusive and provides minimal guidance for use in clinical practice. There is a need for further research in this area.
    Physiotherapy Theory and Practice 07/2013; DOI:10.3109/09593985.2013.811567
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To assess the functional and psychological features of patients immediately after discharge from the intensive care unit. Prospective cohort study. Questionnaires and scales assessing the degree of dependence and functional capacity (modified Barthel and Karnofsky scales) and psychological problems (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale), in addition to the Epworth Sleepiness Scale, were administered during interviews conducted over the first week after intensive care unit discharge, to all survivors who had been admitted to this service from August to November 2012 and had remained longer than 72 hours. The degree of dependence as measured by the modified Barthel scale increased after intensive care unit discharge compared with the data before admission (57±30 versus 47±36; p<0.001) in all 79 participants. This impairment was homogeneous among all the categories in the modified Barthel scale (p<0.001) in the 64 participants who were independent or partially dependent (Karnofsky score ≥40) before admission. The impairment affected the categories of personal hygiene (p=0.01) and stair climbing (p=0.04) only in the 15 participants who were highly dependent (Karnofsky score <40) before admission. Assessment of the psychological changes identified mood disorders (anxiety and/or depression) in 31% of the sample, whereas sleep disorders occurred in 43.3%. Patients who remained in an intensive care unit for 72 hours or longer exhibited a reduced functional capacity and an increased degree of dependence during the first week after intensive care unit discharge. In addition, the incidence of depressive symptoms, anxiety, and sleep disorders was high among that population.
    01/2013; 25(3):218-224. DOI:10.5935/0103-507X.20130038