Understanding Health Professionals about Preservation of Silence in the Intensive Care Unit During the Post-Heart Surgery Surgery: a Systematic Review

Cardiac surgery patients infrequently mobilize during their hospital stay. It is unclear for patients why mobilization is important, and exact progress of mobilization activities is not available. The aim of this study was to select and evaluate accelerometers for objective qualification of in-hospital mobilization after cardiac surgery. Six static and dynamic patient activities were defined to measure patient mobilization during the postoperative hospital stay. Device requirements were formulated, and the available devices reviewed. A triaxial accelerometer (AX3, Axivity) was selected for a clinical pilot in a heart surgery ward and placed on both the upper arm and upper leg. An artificial neural network algorithm was applied to classify lying in bed, sitting in a chair, standing, walking, cycling on an exercise bike, and walking the stairs. The primary endpoint was the daily amount of each activity performed between 7 a.m. and 11 p.m. The secondary endpoints were length of intensive care unit stay and surgical ward stay. A subgroup analysis for male and female patients was planned. In total, 29 patients were classified after cardiac surgery with an intensive care unit stay of 1 (1 to 2) night and surgical ward stay of 5 (3 to 6) nights. Patients spent 41 (20 to 62) min less time in bed for each consecutive hospital day, as determined by a mixed-model analysis (p < 0.001). Standing, walking, and walking the stairs increased during the hospital stay. No differences between men (n = 22) and women (n = 7) were observed for all endpoints in this study. The approach presented in this study is applicable for measuring all six activities and for monitoring postoperative recovery of cardiac surgery patients. A next step is to provide feedback to patients and healthcare professionals, to speed up recovery.

Download Full-text

Safety and efficacy of routine diagnostic test reduction interventions in patients admitted to the intensive care unit: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Anaesthesia and Intensive Care ◽

10.1177/0310057x20962113 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 49 (1) ◽

pp. 23-34

Author(s):

Katherine P Hooper ◽

Matthew H Anstey ◽

Edward Litton

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Intensive Care Unit ◽

Intensive Care ◽

Hospital Mortality ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Diagnostic Testing ◽

Intervention Group ◽

Cochrane Central Register ◽

Safety And Efficacy ◽

Significant Difference

Reducing unnecessary routine diagnostic testing has been identified as a strategy to curb wasteful healthcare. However, the safety and efficacy of targeted diagnostic testing strategies are uncertain. The aim of this study was to systematically review interventions designed to reduce pathology and chest radiograph testing in patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). A predetermined protocol and search strategy included OVID MEDLINE, OVID EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception until 20 November 2019. Eligible publications included interventional studies of patients admitted to an ICU. There were no language restrictions. The primary outcomes were in-hospital mortality and test reduction. Key secondary outcomes included ICU mortality, length of stay, costs and adverse events. This systematic review analysed 26 studies (with more than 44,00 patients) reporting an intervention to reduce one or more diagnostic tests. No studies were at low risk of bias. In-hospital mortality, reported in seven studies, was not significantly different in the post-implementation group (829 of 9815 patients, 8.4%) compared with the pre-intervention group (1007 of 9848 patients, 10.2%), (relative risk 0.89, 95% confidence intervals 0.79 to 1.01, P = 0.06, I2 39%). Of the 18 studies reporting a difference in testing rates, all reported a decrease associated with targeted testing (range 6%–72%), with 14 (82%) studies reporting >20% reduction in one or more tests. Studies of ICU targeted test interventions are generally of low quality. The majority report substantial decreases in testing without evidence of a significant difference in hospital mortality.

Download Full-text