Cognitive Rehabilitation Interventions in the Intensive Care Unit: A Systematic Integrative Review.

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Kamila C Lassen, Eva Laerkner, Janet F Jensen, Ingrid Egerod, Jan Christensen, Kasper Jørgensen, Rikke S Kjærgaard, Sepideh Olausson, Hilde Wøien, Anne H Nielsen, Maj-Brit N Kjær, Camilla R L Bruun, Hejdi Gamst-Jensen, Anders Perner, Marie O Collet
{"title":"Cognitive Rehabilitation Interventions in the Intensive Care Unit: A Systematic Integrative Review.","authors":"Kamila C Lassen, Eva Laerkner, Janet F Jensen, Ingrid Egerod, Jan Christensen, Kasper Jørgensen, Rikke S Kjærgaard, Sepideh Olausson, Hilde Wøien, Anne H Nielsen, Maj-Brit N Kjær, Camilla R L Bruun, Hejdi Gamst-Jensen, Anders Perner, Marie O Collet","doi":"10.1111/aas.70240","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Because critical illness, sedation, and ICU treatment commonly disrupt attention, memory, and executive function, early cognitive rehabilitation during the ICU stay may preserve or restore these capacities, reduce the delirium burden, and support engagement and recovery. Our primary aim was to identify and describe cognitive rehabilitation interventions delivered during the ICU stay and describe the healthcare professionals providing them. Secondarily, we summarized patient-important outcomes associated with these interventions and appraised study quality to inform future research.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We performed a systematic integrative review with searches in Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, and CENTRAL. Eligible studies included adult ICU patients receiving or healthcare professionals delivering early cognitive rehabilitation initiated in the ICU. Data synthesis followed PRISMA guidelines, and risk of bias was assessed using RoB2 and ROBINS-I and narratively described.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 27 studies: 10 randomized clinical trials, six cross-sectional studies, five cohort studies, three qualitative studies, three non-randomized trials, and one mixed-methods study. Four categories of interventions were identified: (1) orientation and multisensory stimulation, (2) activities of daily living (ADL)-focused functional occupational therapy, (3) early mobilization and physical rehabilitation, and (4) technology-based sensory and affective stimulation (music or virtual reality). Interventions were provided by nurses, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, research staff, and family members. Multi-component programs combining cognitive and physical elements indicated possible benefits for selected cognitive measures. Effects estimates on delirium and ADL were inconsistent and, in several studies, were based on secondary or exploratory outcomes analyses. Outcomes related to ventilator-free days, health-related quality of life, and survival were also inconsistent, with substantial heterogeneity in outcome definitions, measurement tools, and assessment time points.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Multi-component cognitive rehabilitation appeared clinically applicable, but effects on patient-important outcomes were uncertain. High-quality research is needed to assess whether interventions targeting the improvement of cognitive function benefit ICU patients.</p><p><strong>Editorial comment: </strong>This systematic review presents and update of published work on cognitive rehabilitation performed during ICU care and then also with assessments after critical illness in ICU survivors. The findings support the idea that this field need more robust clinical research to assess these different interventions in the ICU and their possible benefit and cost.</p>","PeriodicalId":6909,"journal":{"name":"Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica","volume":"70 6","pages":"e70240"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13109030/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/aas.70240","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Because critical illness, sedation, and ICU treatment commonly disrupt attention, memory, and executive function, early cognitive rehabilitation during the ICU stay may preserve or restore these capacities, reduce the delirium burden, and support engagement and recovery. Our primary aim was to identify and describe cognitive rehabilitation interventions delivered during the ICU stay and describe the healthcare professionals providing them. Secondarily, we summarized patient-important outcomes associated with these interventions and appraised study quality to inform future research.

Method: We performed a systematic integrative review with searches in Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, and CENTRAL. Eligible studies included adult ICU patients receiving or healthcare professionals delivering early cognitive rehabilitation initiated in the ICU. Data synthesis followed PRISMA guidelines, and risk of bias was assessed using RoB2 and ROBINS-I and narratively described.

Results: We included 27 studies: 10 randomized clinical trials, six cross-sectional studies, five cohort studies, three qualitative studies, three non-randomized trials, and one mixed-methods study. Four categories of interventions were identified: (1) orientation and multisensory stimulation, (2) activities of daily living (ADL)-focused functional occupational therapy, (3) early mobilization and physical rehabilitation, and (4) technology-based sensory and affective stimulation (music or virtual reality). Interventions were provided by nurses, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, research staff, and family members. Multi-component programs combining cognitive and physical elements indicated possible benefits for selected cognitive measures. Effects estimates on delirium and ADL were inconsistent and, in several studies, were based on secondary or exploratory outcomes analyses. Outcomes related to ventilator-free days, health-related quality of life, and survival were also inconsistent, with substantial heterogeneity in outcome definitions, measurement tools, and assessment time points.

Conclusion: Multi-component cognitive rehabilitation appeared clinically applicable, but effects on patient-important outcomes were uncertain. High-quality research is needed to assess whether interventions targeting the improvement of cognitive function benefit ICU patients.

Editorial comment: This systematic review presents and update of published work on cognitive rehabilitation performed during ICU care and then also with assessments after critical illness in ICU survivors. The findings support the idea that this field need more robust clinical research to assess these different interventions in the ICU and their possible benefit and cost.

重症监护病房的认知康复干预:一项系统的综合评价。
背景:由于危重疾病、镇静和ICU治疗通常会破坏注意力、记忆和执行功能,在ICU住院期间的早期认知康复可以保护或恢复这些能力,减少谵妄负担,并支持参与和恢复。我们的主要目的是识别和描述在ICU住院期间提供的认知康复干预措施,并描述提供这些干预措施的医疗保健专业人员。其次,我们总结了与这些干预措施相关的患者重要结果,并评估了研究质量,为未来的研究提供信息。方法:我们在Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL和CENTRAL中进行了系统的综合评价。符合条件的研究包括在ICU接受早期认知康复治疗的成年ICU患者或在ICU接受早期认知康复治疗的医护人员。数据综合遵循PRISMA指南,使用RoB2和ROBINS-I评估偏倚风险,并进行叙述性描述。结果:我们纳入了27项研究:10项随机临床试验、6项横断面研究、5项队列研究、3项定性研究、3项非随机试验和1项混合方法研究。研究确定了四类干预措施:(1)定向和多感官刺激;(2)以日常生活活动(ADL)为重点的功能职业治疗;(3)早期动员和身体康复;(4)基于技术的感官和情感刺激(音乐或虚拟现实)。干预措施由护士、物理治疗师、职业治疗师、研究人员和家庭成员提供。结合认知和身体因素的多组分方案表明,对选定的认知措施可能有益。对谵妄和ADL的影响估计不一致,在一些研究中,基于次要或探索性结果分析。与无呼吸机天数、健康相关生活质量和生存率相关的结果也不一致,结果定义、测量工具和评估时间点存在很大的异质性。结论:多组分认知康复在临床上是可行的,但对患者预后的影响尚不确定。需要高质量的研究来评估针对认知功能改善的干预措施是否有益于ICU患者。编者按:本系统综述介绍并更新了已发表的关于ICU护理期间认知康复的研究,以及ICU幸存者危重疾病后的评估。研究结果支持这一观点,即该领域需要更多强有力的临床研究来评估ICU中这些不同的干预措施及其可能的收益和成本。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
9.50%
发文量
157
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica publishes papers on original work in the fields of anaesthesiology, intensive care, pain, emergency medicine, and subjects related to their basic sciences, on condition that they are contributed exclusively to this Journal. Case reports and short communications may be considered for publication if of particular interest; also letters to the Editor, especially if related to already published material. The editorial board is free to discuss the publication of reviews on current topics, the choice of which, however, is the prerogative of the board. Every effort will be made by the Editors and selected experts to expedite a critical review of manuscripts in order to ensure rapid publication of papers of a high scientific standard.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书