A recovery program to improve quality of life, sense of coherence and psychological health in ICU survivors: a multicenter randomized controlled trial, the RAPIT study
- 2.5k Downloads
The aim of this randomized controlled trial (RCT) was to test the effectiveness of a post-ICU recovery program compared to standard care during the first year after ICU discharge.
A pragmatic, non-blinded, multicenter, parallel-group RCT was conducted between December 2012 and December 2015, at ten intensive care units (ICUs) in Denmark. We randomly assigned 386 adult patients (≥18 years) after receiving mechanical ventilation (≥48 h) to standard care (SC) plus a nurse-led intensive care recovery program or standard care alone after ICU discharge (190 intervention, 196 SC). Primary outcome was health-related quality of life (HRQOL) at 12 months. Secondary outcomes were sense of coherence (SOC), anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) assessed at 3 and 12 months after ICU discharge including utilization of healthcare services at 12 months.
At 12 months, we found no differences in HRQOL between groups (mean difference in the Physical Component Summary score, 1.41 [95 % CI, −1.53 to 4.35; p = 0.35] (n = 235); and in the Mental Component Summary score, 1.92 [95 % CI, −1.06 to 4.90; p = 0.11] (n = 235). No differences were found on self-reported SOC (p = 0.63), anxiety (p = 0.68), depression (p = 0.67), PTSD (p = 0.27), or the utilization of healthcare services including rehabilitation. We found a difference on anxiety, when a cut-off point ≥11 was applied, in per protocol analysis of complete cases at 3 months favoring the intervention (8.8 % vs. 16.2 %, p = 0.04).
The tested recovery program was not superior to standard care during the first 12 months post-ICU.
The trial is registered at Clinicaltrials.gov, identification no. NCT01721239.
KeywordsIntensive care Aftercare ICU clinic Follow-up Rehabilitation Multicenter randomized clinical controlled trial
We wish to thank all the patients and relatives for their participation in the RAPIT study and the nurses in RAPIT Group for their engagement and collaboration. The RAPIT Steering Committee: Jensen, Overgaard, Christensen, Bestle, and Egerod. RAPIT Group (in addition to the authors): Department of Anesthesiology: Kjerrumgård H, Nordsjælland Hospital, Copenhagen University Hospital; Figgé CFN, Østergaard K, Nykøbing Falster Hospital; Jeppesen MJ, Klausholm AD, Joergensen JV, Bødker K, Lehmkuhl L, Svendborg Hospital, Odense University Hospital; Pedersen ASB, Brix LD, Hospitalsenheden Horsens; Christoffersen S, Milling RW, Næstved Hospital, Copenhagen University Hospital; Wiborg E, Bundgaard BS, Aabenraa Hospital, South Jutland Hospital; Mortensen CB, Larsen CF, Herlev Hospital, Copenhagen University Hospital; Markussen HB, Eriksen C, Jensen U, Sønderborg Hospital, South Jutland Hospital; Nielsen S, Larsen MC, Heart Centre, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital; Skjølstrup KK, Knudsen B, Fischer S, Esbjerg, Sydvestjysk Hospital. We wish to thank statistician AEK Jensen, Section of Biostatistics, University of Copenhagen and Nordsjælland Hospital, Copenhagen University Hospital, and statistician T Lange, Section of Biostatistics, University of Copenhagen for their assistance.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflicts of interest
No conflicts of interest have been declared by the authors.
Source of funding
The study was supported by grants from the Danish Nursing Organization, The Novo Nordisk Foundation and Nordsjællands Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Denmark. None of these had any influence on the design or conduct of the study; data collection, data management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; or findings. They are not responsible for the content in this paper.
- 2.Cuthbertson BH, Rattray J, Campbell MK, Gager M, Roughton S, Smith A, Hull A, Breeman S, Norrie J, Jenkinson D, Hernandez R, Johnston M, Wilson E, Waldmann C (2009) The PRaCTICaL study of nurse led, intensive care follow-up programmes for improving long term outcomes from critical illness: a pragmatic randomised controlled trial. BMJ 339:b3723CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 4.NICE (2009) Rehabilitation after critical illness NICE clinical guidelines, no. 83. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (UK), LondonGoogle Scholar
- 9.Ministry of Social Affairs (2009) Guidelines on training in municipalities and regions. [Vejledning om træning i kommuner og regioner]. Ministeriet for Sundhed og Forebyggelse: Indenrigs- og Socialministeriet, 2009Google Scholar
- 10.Jensen JF, Overgaard D, Bestle M, Christensen D, I E (2012) Recovery and Aftercare in Post Intensive care Therapy patients—The RAPIT study. The effectiveness and experiences of a follow-up program for Danish mechanically ventilated ICU patients: a pragmatic randomized controlled multicentre trial. www.clinicaltrials.gov, ID no. NCT01721239
- 11.Antonovsky A (1987) Unraveling the mystery of health: how people manage stress and stay well. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, p 1–231Google Scholar
- 12.Frank AW (2013) The wounded storyteller: body, illness, and ethics. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 53–137Google Scholar
- 14.Bisson J, Andrew M (2007) Psychological treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Cochrane Database Syst Rev: CD003388Google Scholar
- 19.Association AP (2007) Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-IV-TRtm: text revision. American Psychiatric Association, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
- 25.Elliott D, McKinley S, Alison J, Aitken LM, King M, Leslie GD, Kenny P, Taylor P, Foley R, Burmeister E (2011) Health-related quality of life and physical recovery after a critical illness: a multi-centre randomised controlled trial of a home-based physical rehabilitation program. Crit Care 15:R142CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 26.Walsh TS, Salisbury LG, Merriweather JL, Boyd JA, Griffith DM, Huby G, Kean S, Mackenzie SJ, Krishan A, Lewis SC, Murray GD, Forbes JF, Smith J, Rattray JE, Hull AM, Ramsay P, RECOVER Investigators (2015) Increased hospital-based physical rehabilitation and information provision after intensive care unit discharge: the RECOVER randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med 175:901–910CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 27.Bjorner JB, Damsgaard MT, Watt T, Bech P, Rasmussen NK, Kristensen TS, Modvig J, Thunedborg K (1997) Dansk manual til SF-36. Et spõrgeskema om helbredsstatus. Lif Lëgemiddelindustriforeningen, Kõbenhavn, pp 69–89Google Scholar
- 35.Regions of Denmark (2014) The national survey of patient experience [LUP Den Landsdækkende Undersøgelse af Patientoplevelser]. Danske regioner, Copenhagen, pp 1–83Google Scholar
- 36.Peris A, Bonizzoli M, Iozzelli D, Migliaccio ML, Zagli G, Bacchereti A, Debolini M, Vannini E, Solaro M, Balzi I, Bendoni E, Bacchi I, Trevisan M, Giovannini V, Belloni L (2011) Early intra-intensive care unit psychological intervention promotes recovery from post traumatic stress disorders, anxiety and depression symptoms in critically ill patients. Crit Care 15:R41CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 38.Fayers PM, Machin D (2016) Quality of life: the assessment, analysis, and reporting of patient-reported outcomes. Wiley, Chichester, pp 1–42Google Scholar