Effect of intensive care unit-specific virtual reality (ICU-VR) to improve psychological well-being in ICU survivors: study protocol for an international, multicentre, randomised controlled trial-the HORIZON-IC study.

INTRODUCTION: A substantial proportion of intensive care unit (ICU) survivors develop psychological impairments after ICU treatment, part of the postintensive care syndrome, resulting in a decreased quality of life. Recent data suggest that an ICU-specific virtual reality intervention (ICU-VR) for post-ICU patients is feasible and safe, improves satisfaction with ICU aftercare, and might improve psychological sequelae. In the present trial, we firstly aim to determine whether ICU-VR is effective in mitigating post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)-related symptoms and secondly to determine the optimal timing for initiation with ICU-VR. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This international, multicentre, randomised controlled trial will be conducted in 10 hospitals. Between December 2021 and April 2023, we aim to include 300 patients who have been admitted to the ICU ≥72 hours and were mechanically ventilated ≥24 hours. Patients will be followed for 12 consecutive months. Patients will be randomised in a 1:1:1 ratio to the early ICU-VR group, the late ICU-VR group, or the usual care group. All patients will receive usual care, including a mandatory ICU follow-up clinic visit 3 months after ICU discharge. Patients in the early ICU-VR group will receive ICU-VR within 2 weeks after ICU discharge. Patients in the late VR group will receive ICU-VR during the post-ICU follow-up visit. The primary objective is to assess the effect of ICU-VR on PTSD-related symptoms. Secondary objectives are to determine optimal timing for ICU-VR, to assess the effects on anxiety-related and depression-related symptoms and health-related quality of life, and to assess patient satisfaction with ICU aftercare and perspectives on ICU-VR. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Medical Ethics Committee United, Nieuwegein, the Netherlands, approved this study and local approval was obtained from each participating centre (NL78555.100.21). Our findings will be disseminated by presentation of the results at (inter)national conferences and publication in scientific, peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NL9812.

Prevalence and management of delirium in intensive care units in the Netherlands: An observational multicentre study.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine the prevalence, risk factors of delirium and current practice of delirium management in intensive care units of various levels of care. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY/DESIGN: Prospective multicentre cohort study. SETTING: In all adult patients admitted to one of the participating intensive care units on World Delirium Awareness Day 2018, delirium point and period prevalence rates were measured between ICU admission and seven days after the index day. RESULTS: In total, 28 (33%) Dutch intensive care units participated in this study. Point-prevalence was 23% (range 41), and period-prevalence was 42% (range 70). University intensive care units had a significantly higher delirium point-prevalence compared with non-university units (26% vs.15%, p = 0.02). No significant difference were found in period prevalence (50% vs. 39%, p = 0.09). Precipitating risk factors, infection and mechanical ventilation differed significantly between delirium and non-delirium patients. No differences were observed for predisposing risk factors. A delirium protocol was present in 89% of the ICUs. Mean delirium assessment compliance measured was 84% (±19) in 14 units and estimated 59% (±29) in the other 14. CONCLUSION: Delirium prevalence in Dutch intensive care units is substantial and occurs with a large variation, with the highest prevalence in university units. Precipitating risk factors were more frequent in patients with delirium. In the majority of units a delirium management protocol is in place.

Effects of decontamination of the oropharynx and intestinal tract on antibiotic resistance in ICUs: a randomized clinical trial.

IMPORTANCE: Selective decontamination of the digestive tract (SDD) and selective oropharyngeal decontamination (SOD) are prophylactic antibiotic regimens used in intensive care units (ICUs) and associated with improved patient outcome. Controversy exists regarding the relative effects of both measures on patient outcome and antibiotic resistance. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of SDD and SOD, applied as unit-wide interventions, on antibiotic resistance and patient outcome. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Pragmatic, cluster randomized crossover trial comparing 12 months of SOD with 12 months of SDD in 16 Dutch ICUs between August 1, 2009, and February 1, 2013. Patients with an expected length of ICU stay longer than 48 hours were eligible to receive the regimens, and 5881 and 6116 patients were included in the clinical outcome analysis for SOD and SDD, respectively. INTERVENTIONS: Intensive care units were randomized to administer either SDD or SOD. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Unit-wide prevalence of antibiotic-resistant gram-negative bacteria. Secondary outcomes were day-28 mortality, ICU-acquired bacteremia, and length of ICU stay. RESULTS: In point-prevalence surveys, prevalences of antibiotic-resistant gram-negative bacteria in perianal swabs were significantly lower during SDD compared with SOD; for aminoglycoside resistance, average prevalence was 5.6% (95% CI, 4.6%-6.7%) during SDD and 11.8% (95% CI, 10.3%-13.2%) during SOD (P < .001). During both interventions the prevalence of rectal carriage of aminoglycoside-resistant gram-negative bacteria increased 7% per month (95% CI, 1%-13%) during SDD (P = .02) and 4% per month (95% CI, 0%-8%) during SOD (P = .046; P = .40 for difference). Day 28-mortality was 25.4% and 24.1% during SOD and SDD, respectively (adjusted odds ratio, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.88-1.06]; P = .42), and there were no statistically significant differences in other outcome parameters or between surgical and nonsurgical patients. Intensive care unit-acquired bacteremia occurred in 5.9% and 4.6% of the patients during SOD and SDD, respectively (odds ratio, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.65-0.91]; P = .002; number needed to treat, 77). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Unit-wide application of SDD and SOD was associated with low levels of antibiotic resistance and no differences in day-28 mortality. Compared with SOD, SDD was associated with lower rectal carriage of antibiotic-resistant gram-negative bacteria and ICU-acquired bacteremia but a more pronounced gradual increase in aminoglycoside-resistant gram-negative bacteria. TRIAL REGISTRATION: trialregister.nlIdentifier: NTR1780.