RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Lack of restorative sleep and altered sleep-wake cycle is a frequent problem among patients admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). This study was conducted to estimate the prevalence of poor sleep and patient's perspective of factors governing poor sleep in the ICU. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study was performed in medical ICU of a tertiary care hospital. A total of 32 patients admitted to the ICU for at least 24 h were recruited. A 72-h actigraphy was done followed by a subjective assessment of sleep quality by the Richards-Campbell Sleep Questionnaire (RCSQ). Patient's perspective of sleep quality and quantity and possible risk factors for poor sleep were recorded. RESULTS: Poor sleep (defined as RCSQ <50, sensitivity 88% and specificity 87%) was found in 15 out of the 32 patients (47%). The prevalence of poor sleep was higher among patients on mechanical ventilation (n = 15) (66.7% vs. 33.3%, P < 0.05). Patients with poor sleep had higher age (median age [in years] 42.8 vs. 31.4, P = 0.008), acute physiology, and chronic health evaluation II score (mean 14 ± 5.15 vs. 9.3 ± 5.64, P = 0.02), SAPS 3 score (62.7 ± 8.9 vs. 45.6 ± 10.5, P ≤ 0.0001), and worse actigraphy parameters. Only 55.63% of total sleep time was in the night (2200-0600). All patients had discomfort from indwelling catheters and suctioning of endotracheal tubes. All patients suggested that there be a minimum interruption in the sleep for interventions or medications. CONCLUSION: There is a high prevalence of poor sleep among patients admitted to the ICU. There is a dire need to minimize untimely interventions and design nonpharmacological techniques to allow patients to sleep comfortably.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: To assess the cost-effectiveness of addition of olanzapine to a prophylactic antiemetic regimen containing aprepitant, dexamethasone and ondansetron among children receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) in India, Bangladesh, Indonesia, the UK and the USA. METHODS: Health states were estimated using individual patient-level outcome data from a randomised trial. The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and net monetary benefit (NMB) were calculated from the patient perspective for India, Bangladesh, Indonesia, the UK and the USA. One-way sensitivity analysis was done by varying the cost of olanzapine, cost of hospitalisation and utility values by ±25%. RESULTS: The olanzapine arm had an increment of 0.0018 quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) over the control arm. The mean total expenditure in the olanzapine arm was greater by US$0.51, US$0.43, US$6.73, US$11.05 and US$12.35 in India, Bangladesh, Indonesia, the UK and the USA, respectively. The ICUR($/QALY) was US$282.60 in India, US$241.42 in Bangladesh, US$3755.93 in Indonesia, US$6161.83 in the UK and US$6887.41 in the USA. The NMB was US$9.86, US$10.12, US$14.08, US$44.74 and US$98.79 for India, Bangladesh, Indonesia, the UK and the USA, respectively. The ICUR estimates of the base case and sensitivity analysis were below the willingness-to-pay threshold in all scenarios. CONCLUSION: The addition of olanzapine as a fourth agent for antiemetic prophylaxis is cost-effective despite an increase in overall expenditure. Olanzapine should be uniformly considered for children receiving HEC.