Dataset Information

Virtual reality vs. Kalinox® for management of pain in intensive care unit after cardiac surgery: a randomized study.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

The management of pain and anxiety remains a challenge in the intensive care unit. By distracting patients, virtual reality (VR) may have a role in painful procedures. We compared VR vs. an inhaled equimolar mixture of N₂O and O₂ (Kalinox®) for pain and anxiety management during the removal of chest drains after cardiac surgery.

Methods

Prospective, non-inferiority, open-label study. Patients were randomized, for Kalinox® or VR session during drain removal. The analgesia/nociception index (ANI) was monitored during the procedure for objective assessment of pain and anxiety. The primary endpoint was the ΔANI (ANI_min - ANI₀) during the procedure, based on ANIm (average on 4 min). We prespecified VR as non-inferior to Kalinox® with a margin of 3 points. Self-reported pain and anxiety were also analysed using numeric rate scale (NRS).

Results

200 patients were included, 99 in the VR group and 101 in the Kalinox® group; 90 patients were analysed in both groups in per-protocol analysis. The median age was 68.0 years [60.0-74.8]. The ΔANI was - 15.1 ± 12.9 in the Kalinox® group and - 15.7 ± 11.6 in the VR group (NS). The mean difference was, therefore, - 0.6 [- 3.6 to 2.4], including the non-inferiority margin of 3. Patients in the VR group had a significantly higher pain NRS scale immediately after the drain removal, 5.0 [3.0-7.0] vs. 3.0 [2.0-6.0], p = 0.009, but no difference 10 min after. NRS of anxiety did not differ between the two groups.

Conclusion

Based on the ANI, the current study showed that VR did not reach the statistical requirements for a proven non-inferiority vs. Kalinox® in managing pain and anxiety during chest drain removal. Moreover, VR was less effective based on NRS. More studies are needed to determine if VR might have a place in the overall approach to pain and anxiety in intensive care units. Trial registration NCT, NCT03956264. Registered 20 May 2019, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03956264.

SUBMITTER: Laghlam D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8119554 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundVirtual reality (VR) is a computer technology that immerses a user in a completely different reality. The application of VR in acute pain settings is well established. However, in chronic pain, the applications and outcome parameters influenced by VR are less clear.ObjectiveThis review aimed to systematically identify all outcome parameters that are reported in relation to VR in patients with chronic pain.MethodsA total of 4 electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase) were searched for relevant studies. Multilevel random-effect meta-analyses were performed, whereby the standardized mean difference was chosen as the effect size to denote the difference between measurements before and after a VR intervention.ResultsThe initial database search identified 1430 studies, of which 41 (2.87%) were eventually included in the systematic review. Evidence has been found for the effects of VR on pain, functioning, mobility, functional capacity, psychological outcomes, quality of life, neuropsychological outcomes, and physical sensations. The overall effect size (a total of 194 effect sizes from 25 studies) based on a three level meta-analysis was estimated at 1.22 (95% CI 0.55-1.89; z=3.56; P<.001), in favor of improvements after a VR intervention. When categorizing effect sizes, the overall effect sizes were reported as follows: 1.60 (95% CI 0.83-2.36; z=4.09; P<.001) for the effect of VR on pain (n=31), 1.40 (95% CI 0.13-2.67; z=2.17; P=.03) for functioning (n=60), 0.49 (95% CI -0.71 to 1.68; z=0.80; P=.42) for mobility (n=24), and 0.34 (95% CI -1.52 to 2.20; z=0.36; P=.72) for functional capacity (n=21).ConclusionsThis systematic review revealed a broad range of outcome variables influenced by an intervention of VR technology, with statistically significant pain relief and improvements in functioning. These findings indicate that VR not only has applications in acute pain management but also in chronic pain settings, whereby VR might be able to become a promising first-line intervention as complementary therapy for patients with chronic pain.Trial registrationPROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42021227016; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=227016.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough psychological sequelae after intensive care unit (ICU) treatment are considered quite intrusive, robustly effective interventions to treat or prevent these long-term sequelae are lacking. Recently, it was demonstrated that ICU-specific virtual reality (ICU-VR) is a feasible and acceptable intervention with potential mental health benefits. However, its effect on mental health and ICU aftercare in COVID-19 ICU survivors is unknown.ObjectiveThis study aimed to explore the effects of ICU-VR on mental health and on patients' perceived quality of, satisfaction with, and rating of ICU aftercare among COVID-19 ICU survivors.MethodsThis was a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Patients were randomized to either the ICU-VR (intervention) or the control group. All patients were invited to an COVID-19 post-ICU follow-up clinic 3 months after hospital discharge, during which patients in the intervention group received ICU-VR. One month and 3 months later (4 and 6 months after hospital discharge), mental health, quality of life, perceived quality, satisfaction with, and rating of ICU aftercare were scored using questionnaires.ResultsEighty-nine patients (median age 58 years; 63 males, 70%) were included. The prevalence and severity of psychological distress were limited throughout follow-up, and no differences in psychological distress or quality of life were observed between the groups. ICU-VR improved satisfaction with (mean score 8.7, SD 1.6 vs 7.6, SD 1.6 [ICU-VR vs control]; t64=-2.82, P=.006) and overall rating of ICU aftercare (mean overall rating of aftercare 8.9, SD 0.9 vs 7.8, SD 1.7 [ICU-VR vs control]; t64=-3.25; P=.002) compared to controls. ICU-VR added to the quality of ICU aftercare according to 81% of the patients, and all patients would recommend ICU-VR to other ICU survivors.ConclusionsICU-VR is a feasible and acceptable innovative method to improve satisfaction with and rating of ICU aftercare and adds to its perceived quality. We observed a low prevalence of psychological distress after ICU treatment for COVID-19, and ICU-VR did not improve psychological recovery or quality of life. Future research is needed to confirm our results in other critical illness survivors to potentially facilitate ICU-VR's widespread availability and application during follow-up.Trial registrationNetherlands Trial Register NL8835; https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/8835.International registered report identifier (irrid)RR2-10.1186/s13063-021-05271-z.