-
Journal of Clinical Pharmacology Apr 2022This article discusses current literature on the use of 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA)-assisted psychotherapy in the treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
This article discusses current literature on the use of 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA)-assisted psychotherapy in the treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). MDMA, the intended active ingredient in illicit Ecstasy or Molly products, is a psychedelic that causes an elevated mood, feeling of bonding, and increased energy. In MDMA-assisted psychotherapy, patients are subjected to 2 or 3 multihour sessions of therapy with a team of psychiatrists. The dosing of MDMA is used to allow the therapist to probe the underlying trauma without causing emotional distress. The use of MDMA-assisted psychotherapy treatment reduced patient's Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale (CAPS) scores from baseline more than control psychotherapy (-22.03; 95%CI, -38.53 to -5.52) but with high statistical heterogeneity. MDMA-assisted psychotherapy enhanced the achievement of clinically significant reductions in CAPS scores (relative risk, 3.65; 95%CI, 2.39-5.57) and CAPS score reductions sufficient to no longer meet the definition of PTSD (relative risk, 2.10; 95%CI, 1.37-3.21) with no detected statistical heterogeneity. While therapy was generally safe and well tolerated, bruxism, anxiety, jitteriness, headache, and nausea are commonly reported. While MDMA-assisted psychotherapy has been shown to be an effective therapy for patients with PTSD with a reasonable safety profile, use of unregulated MDMA or use in the absence of a strongly controlled psychotherapeutic environment has considerable risks.
Topics: Combined Modality Therapy; Humans; N-Methyl-3,4-methylenedioxyamphetamine; Psychotherapy; Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34708874
DOI: 10.1002/jcph.1995 -
Psychopharmacology Jun 2022± 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) and psilocybin are currently moving through the US Food and Drug Administration's phased drug development process for... (Review)
Review
RATIONALE & OBJECTIVES
± 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) and psilocybin are currently moving through the US Food and Drug Administration's phased drug development process for psychiatric treatment indications: posttraumatic stress disorder and depression, respectively. The current standard of care for these disorders involves treatment with psychiatric medications (e.g., selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors), so it will be important to understand drug-drug interactions between MDMA or psilocybin and psychiatric medications.
METHODS
In accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we queried the MEDLINE database via PubMed for publications of human studies in English spanning between the first synthesis of psilocybin (1958) and December 2020. We used 163 search terms containing 22 psychiatric medication classes, 135 specific psychiatric medications, and 6 terms describing MDMA or psilocybin.
RESULTS
Forty publications were included in our systematic review: 26 reporting outcomes from randomized controlled studies with healthy adults, 3 epidemiologic studies, and 11 case reports. Publications of studies describe interactions between MDMA (N = 24) or psilocybin (N = 5) and medications from several psychiatric drug classes: adrenergic agents, antipsychotics, anxiolytics, mood stabilizers, NMDA antagonists, psychostimulants, and several classes of antidepressants. We focus our results on pharmacodynamic, physiological, and subjective outcomes of drug-drug interactions.
CONCLUSIONS
As MDMA and psilocybin continue to move through the FDA drug development process, this systematic review offers a compilation of existing research on psychiatric drug-drug interactions with MDMA or psilocybin.
Topics: Adult; Drug Interactions; Hallucinogens; Humans; N-Methyl-3,4-methylenedioxyamphetamine; Psilocybin; Psychotherapy; Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic
PubMed: 35253070
DOI: 10.1007/s00213-022-06083-y -
PLoS Medicine Aug 2020Complex traumatic events associated with armed conflict, forcible displacement, childhood sexual abuse, and domestic violence are increasingly prevalent. People exposed... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Psychological and pharmacological interventions for posttraumatic stress disorder and comorbid mental health problems following complex traumatic events: Systematic review and component network meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Complex traumatic events associated with armed conflict, forcible displacement, childhood sexual abuse, and domestic violence are increasingly prevalent. People exposed to complex traumatic events are at risk of not only posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) but also other mental health comorbidities. Whereas evidence-based psychological and pharmacological treatments are effective for single-event PTSD, it is not known if people who have experienced complex traumatic events can benefit and tolerate these commonly available treatments. Furthermore, it is not known which components of psychological interventions are most effective for managing PTSD in this population. We performed a systematic review and component network meta-analysis to assess the effectiveness of psychological and pharmacological interventions for managing mental health problems in people exposed to complex traumatic events.
METHODS AND FINDINGS
We searched CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, MEDLINE, Published International Literature on Traumatic Stress, PsycINFO, and Science Citation Index for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs of psychological and pharmacological treatments for PTSD symptoms in people exposed to complex traumatic events, published up to 25 October 2019. We adopted a nondiagnostic approach and included studies of adults who have experienced complex trauma. Complex-trauma subgroups included veterans; childhood sexual abuse; war-affected; refugees; and domestic violence. The primary outcome was reduction in PTSD symptoms. Secondary outcomes were depressive and anxiety symptoms, quality of life, sleep quality, and positive and negative affect. We included 116 studies, of which 50 were conducted in hospital settings, 24 were delivered in community settings, seven were delivered in military clinics for veterans or active military personnel, five were conducted in refugee camps, four used remote delivery via web-based or telephone platforms, four were conducted in specialist trauma clinics, two were delivered in home settings, and two were delivered in primary care clinics; clinical setting was not reported in 17 studies. Ninety-four RCTs, for a total of 6,158 participants, were included in meta-analyses across the primary and secondary outcomes; 18 RCTs for a total of 933 participants were included in the component network meta-analysis. The mean age of participants in the included RCTs was 42.6 ± 9.3 years, and 42% were male. Nine non-RCTs were included. The mean age of participants in the non-RCTs was 40.6 ± 9.4 years, and 47% were male. The average length of follow-up across all included studies at posttreatment for the primary outcome was 11.5 weeks. The pairwise meta-analysis showed that psychological interventions reduce PTSD symptoms more than inactive control (k = 46; n = 3,389; standardised mean difference [SMD] = -0.82, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.02 to -0.63) and active control (k-9; n = 662; SMD = -0.35, 95% CI -0.56 to -0.14) at posttreatment and also compared with inactive control at 6-month follow-up (k = 10; n = 738; SMD = -0.45, 95% CI -0.82 to -0.08). Psychological interventions reduced depressive symptoms (k = 31; n = 2,075; SMD = -0.87, 95% CI -1.11 to -0.63; I2 = 82.7%, p = 0.000) and anxiety (k = 15; n = 1,395; SMD = -1.03, 95% CI -1.44 to -0.61; p = 0.000) at posttreatment compared with inactive control. Sleep quality was significantly improved at posttreatment by psychological interventions compared with inactive control (k = 3; n = 111; SMD = -1.00, 95% CI -1.49 to -0.51; p = 0.245). There were no significant differences between psychological interventions and inactive control group at posttreatment for quality of life (k = 6; n = 401; SMD = 0.33, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.66; p = 0.021). Antipsychotic medicine (k = 5; n = 364; SMD = -0.45; -0.85 to -0.05; p = 0.085) and prazosin (k = 3; n = 110; SMD = -0.52; -1.03 to -0.02; p = 0.182) were effective in reducing PTSD symptoms. Phase-based psychological interventions that included skills-based strategies along with trauma-focused strategies were the most promising interventions for emotional dysregulation and interpersonal problems. Compared with pharmacological interventions, we observed that psychological interventions were associated with greater reductions in PTSD and depression symptoms and improved sleep quality. Sensitivity analysis showed that psychological interventions were acceptable with lower dropout, even in studies rated at low risk of attrition bias. Trauma-focused psychological interventions were superior to non-trauma-focused interventions across trauma subgroups for PTSD symptoms, but effects among veterans and war-affected populations were significantly reduced. The network meta-analysis showed that multicomponent interventions that included cognitive restructuring and imaginal exposure were the most effective for reducing PTSD symptoms (k = 17; n = 1,077; mean difference = -37.95, 95% CI -60.84 to -15.16). Our use of a non-diagnostic inclusion strategy may have overlooked certain complex-trauma populations with severe and enduring mental health comorbidities. Additionally, the relative contribution of skills-based intervention components was not feasibly evaluated in the network meta-analysis.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we observed that trauma-focused psychological interventions are effective for managing mental health problems and comorbidities in people exposed to complex trauma. Multicomponent interventions, which can include phase-based approaches, were the most effective treatment package for managing PTSD in complex trauma. Establishing optimal ways to deliver multicomponent psychological interventions for people exposed to complex traumatic events is a research and clinical priority.
Topics: Antipsychotic Agents; Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; Comorbidity; Humans; Mental Disorders; Mental Health; Network Meta-Analysis; Psychotherapy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic
PubMed: 32813696
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003262 -
International Journal of Environmental... Dec 2022This meta-analysis review compared eye movement desensitization and reprocessing and cognitive behavior therapy efficacy in reducing post-traumatic stress disorder... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
This meta-analysis review compared eye movement desensitization and reprocessing and cognitive behavior therapy efficacy in reducing post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety, and depression symptoms. A systematic search for articles published between 2010 and 2020 was conducted using five databases. The RevMan software version 5 was used. Out of 671 studies, 8 fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in this meta-analysis. Three studies reported that eye movement desensitization and reprocessing reduced depression symptoms better than cognitive behavior therapy in both children, adolescents, and adults (SDM (95% CI) = -2.43 (-3.93--0.94), = 0.001). In three other studies, eye movement desensitization and reprocessing were shown to reduce anxiety in children and adolescents better than cognitive behavior therapy (SDM (95% CI) = -3.99 (-5.47--2.52), < 0.001). In terms of reducing PTSD symptoms, eye movement desensitization and reprocessing and cognitive behavior therapy did not demonstrate any statistically significant differences (SDM (95% CI) = -0.14 (-0.48-0.21), = 0.44). There was no statistically significant difference at the three-month follow-up and at the six-month follow-up for depression ( = 0.31), anxiety ( = 0.59), and PTSD ( = 0.55). We recommend randomized trials with larger samples and longer follow-up times in the future.
Topics: Child; Adult; Adolescent; Humans; Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic; Eye Movements; Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; Anxiety Disorders; Eye Movement Desensitization Reprocessing; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 36554717
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph192416836 -
Brain, Behavior, and Immunity Oct 2021It has become evident that coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has a multi-organ pathology that includes the brain and nervous system. Several studies have also reported... (Review)
Review
It has become evident that coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has a multi-organ pathology that includes the brain and nervous system. Several studies have also reported acute psychiatric symptoms in COVID-19 patients. An increasing number of studies are suggesting that psychiatric deficits may persist after recovery from the primary infection. In the current systematic review, we provide an overview of the available evidence and supply information on potential risk factors and underlying biological mechanisms behind such psychiatric sequelae. We performed a systematic search for psychiatric sequelae in COVID-19 patients using the databases PubMed and Embase. Included primary studies all contained information on the follow-up period and provided quantitative measures of mental health. The search was performed on June 4th 2021. 1725 unique studies were identified. Of these, 66 met the inclusion criteria and were included. Time to follow-up ranged from immediately after hospital discharge up to 7 months after discharge, and the number of participants spanned 3 to 266,586 participants. Forty studies reported anxiety and/or depression, 20 studies reported symptoms- or diagnoses of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), 27 studies reported cognitive deficits, 32 articles found fatigue at follow-up, and sleep disturbances were found in 23 studies. Highlighted risk factors were disease severity, duration of symptoms, and female sex. One study showed brain abnormalities correlating with cognitive deficits, and several studies reported inflammatory markers to correlate with symptoms. Overall, the results from this review suggest that survivors of COVID-19 are at risk of psychiatric sequelae but that symptoms generally improve over time.
Topics: Anxiety; Anxiety Disorders; COVID-19; Female; Humans; SARS-CoV-2; Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic
PubMed: 34339806
DOI: 10.1016/j.bbi.2021.07.018 -
Journal of Clinical Nursing Jun 2023The aim of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of mindfulness-based interventions on psychological well-being, burnout and post-traumatic stress disorder... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Effectiveness of mindfulness-based interventions on psychological well-being, burnout and post-traumatic stress disorder among nurses: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
The aim of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of mindfulness-based interventions on psychological well-being, burnout and post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms among working registered nurses.
BACKGROUND
Nurses account for nearly half of the global healthcare workforce and are considered significant contributors in multi-disciplinary healthcare teams. Yet, nurses face high levels of psychological distress, leading to burnout and post-traumatic stress disorder. Mindfulness-based training is a strategy that has been introduced to foster a state of awareness of present physical, emotional and cognitive experiences to regulate behaviour.
DESIGN
This systematic review of randomised controlled trials was designed according to PRISMA guidelines. Eligible studies were screened and extracted. Methodological quality was evaluated by two researchers, independently. RevMan 5.4 was used to conduct the meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Fourteen studies including a total of 1077 nurses were included, of which only eleven were included in the meta-analysis as the remaining had missing or incomplete data. Meta-analysis revealed that MBI was more effective than passive comparators in reducing psychological distress, stress, depression and burnout-personal accomplishment. When compared to active comparators, MBI was also found to be more effective in reducing psychological distress and was as effective in reducing stress, anxiety, depression and burnout. Evidence on the effects of MBIs on PTSD was scarce.
CONCLUSION
Mindfulness-based interventions can effectively reduce psychological distress, stress, depression and some dimensions of burnout. However, evidence remains scarce in the literature. There is a need for more methodologically sound research on mindfulness-based training among nurses.
RELEVANCE FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE
An important aspect that relates to the success of mindfulness-based interventions is the continued and dedicated individual practice of the skills taught during mindfulness training amidst demanding clinical work environments. Therefore, relevant support for nurses must be accounted for in the planning, design and implementation of future mindfulness-based interventions.
Topics: Humans; Mindfulness; Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic; Psychological Well-Being; Burnout, Professional; Nurses; Stress, Psychological
PubMed: 35187740
DOI: 10.1111/jocn.16265 -
Lancet (London, England) Jul 2019Existing WHO estimates of the prevalence of mental disorders in emergency settings are more than a decade old and do not reflect modern methods to gather existing data... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Existing WHO estimates of the prevalence of mental disorders in emergency settings are more than a decade old and do not reflect modern methods to gather existing data and derive estimates. We sought to update WHO estimates for the prevalence of mental disorders in conflict-affected settings and calculate the burden per 1000 population.
METHODS
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we updated a previous systematic review by searching MEDLINE (PubMed), PsycINFO, and Embase for studies published between Jan 1, 2000, and Aug 9, 2017, on the prevalence of depression, anxiety disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia. We also searched the grey literature, such as government reports, conference proceedings, and dissertations, to source additional data, and we searched datasets from existing literature reviews of the global prevalence of depression and anxiety and reference lists from the studies that were identified. We applied the Guidelines for Accurate and Transparent Health Estimates Reporting and used Bayesian meta-regression techniques that adjust for predictors of mental disorders to calculate new point prevalence estimates with 95% uncertainty intervals (UIs) in settings that had experienced conflict less than 10 years previously.
FINDINGS
We estimated that the prevalence of mental disorders (depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia) was 22·1% (95% UI 18·8-25·7) at any point in time in the conflict-affected populations assessed. The mean comorbidity-adjusted, age-standardised point prevalence was 13·0% (95% UI 10·3-16·2) for mild forms of depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder and 4·0% (95% UI 2·9-5·5) for moderate forms. The mean comorbidity-adjusted, age-standardised point prevalence for severe disorders (schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, severe depression, severe anxiety, and severe post-traumatic stress disorder) was 5·1% (95% UI 4·0-6·5). As only two studies provided epidemiological data for psychosis in conflict-affected populations, existing Global Burden of Disease Study estimates for schizophrenia and bipolar disorder were applied in these estimates for conflict-affected populations.
INTERPRETATION
The burden of mental disorders is high in conflict-affected populations. Given the large numbers of people in need and the humanitarian imperative to reduce suffering, there is an urgent need to implement scalable mental health interventions to address this burden.
FUNDING
WHO; Queensland Department of Health, Australia; and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
Topics: Anxiety Disorders; Bipolar Disorder; Depression; Humans; Mental Disorders; Prevalence; Schizophrenia; Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic; Warfare; World Health Organization
PubMed: 31200992
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)30934-1 -
International Journal of Environmental... Mar 2021Heart Rate Variability Biofeedback (HRVB) is a treatment in which patients learn self-regulation of a physiological dysregulated vagal nerve function. While the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Heart Rate Variability Biofeedback (HRVB) is a treatment in which patients learn self-regulation of a physiological dysregulated vagal nerve function. While the therapeutic approach of HRVB is promising for a variety of disorders, it has not yet been regularly offered in a mental health treatment setting.
AIM
To provide a systematic review about the efficacy of HRV-Biofeedback in treatment of anxiety, depression, and stress related disorders.
METHOD
Systematic review in PubMed and Web of Science in 2020 with terms HRV, biofeedback, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), depression, panic disorder, and anxiety disorder. Selection, critical appraisal, and description of the Random Controlled Trials (RCT) studies. Combined with recent meta-analyses.
RESULTS
The search resulted in a total of 881 studies. After critical appraisal, nine RCTs have been selected as well as two other relevant studies. The RCTs with control groups treatment as usual, muscle relaxation training and a "placebo"-biofeedback instrument revealed significant clinical efficacy and better results compared with control conditions, mostly significant. In the depression studies average reduction at the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) scale was 64% (HRVB plus Treatment as Usual (TAU) versus 25% (control group with TAU) and 30% reduction (HRVB) at the PSQ scale versus 7% (control group with TAU). In the PTSD studies average reduction at the BDI-scale was 53% (HRV plus TAU) versus 24% (control group with TAU) and 22% (HRVB) versus 10% (TAU) with the PTSD Checklist (PCL). In other systematic reviews significant effects have been shown for HRV-Biofeedback in treatment of asthma, coronary artery disease, sleeping disorders, postpartum depression and stress and anxiety.
CONCLUSION
This systematic review shows significant improvement of the non-invasive HRVB training in stress related disorders like PTSD, depression, and panic disorder, in particular when combined with cognitive behavioral therapy or different TAU. Effects were visible after four weeks of training, but clinical practice in a longer daily self-treatment of eight weeks is more promising. More research to integrate HRVB in treatment of stress related disorders in psychiatry is warranted, as well as research focused on the neurophysiological mechanisms.
Topics: Anxiety; Anxiety Disorders; Autonomic Nervous System; Biofeedback, Psychology; Depression; Female; Heart Rate; Humans; Self-Control; Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic
PubMed: 33804817
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18073329 -
JAMA Psychiatry Mar 2020Cognitive behavioral therapy is recommended for anxiety-related disorders, but evidence for its long-term outcome is limited. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Cognitive behavioral therapy is recommended for anxiety-related disorders, but evidence for its long-term outcome is limited.
OBJECTIVE
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the long-term outcomes after cognitive behavioral therapy (compared with care as usual, relaxation, psychoeducation, pill placebo, supportive therapy, or waiting list) for anxiety disorders, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD).
DATA SOURCES
English-language publications were identified from PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase, Cochrane, OpenGrey (1980 to January 2019), and recent reviews. The search strategy included a combination of terms associated with anxiety disorders (eg, panic or phobi*) and study design (eg, clinical trial or randomized controlled trial).
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized clinical trials on posttreatment and at least 1-month follow-up effects of cognitive behavioral therapy compared with control conditions among adults with generalized anxiety disorder, panic disorder with or without agoraphobia, social anxiety disorder, specific phobia, PTSD, or OCD.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Researchers independently screened records, extracted statistics, and assessed study quality. Data were pooled using a random-effects model.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Hedges g was calculated for anxiety symptoms immediately after treatment and at 1 to 6 months, 6 to 12 months, and 12 months or more after treatment completion.
RESULTS
Of 69 randomized clinical trials (4118 outpatients) that were mainly of low quality, cognitive behavioral therapy compared with control conditions was associated with improved outcomes after treatment completion and at 1 to 6 months and at 6 to 12 months of follow-up for a generalized anxiety disorder (Hedges g, 0.07-0.40), panic disorder with or without agoraphobia (Hedges g, 0.22-0.35), social anxiety disorder (Hedges g, 0.34-0.60), specific phobia (Hedges g, 0.49-0.72), PTSD (Hedges g, 0.59-0.72), and OCD (Hedges g, 0.70-0.85). At a follow-up of 12 months or more, these associations were still significant for generalized anxiety disorder (Hedges g, 0.22; number of studies [k] = 10), social anxiety disorder (Hedges g, 0.42; k = 3), and PTSD (Hedges g, 0.84; k = 5), but not for panic disorder with or without agoraphobia (k = 5) and could not be calculated for specific phobia (k = 1) and OCD (k = 0). Relapse rates after 3 to 12 months were 0% to 14% but were reported in only 6 randomized clinical trials (predominantly for panic disorder with or without agoraphobia).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
The findings of this meta-analysis suggest that cognitive behavioral therapy for anxiety-related disorders is associated with improved outcomes compared with control conditions until 12 months after treatment completion. At a follow-up of 12 months or more, effects were small to medium for generalized anxiety disorder and social anxiety disorder, large for PTSD, and not significant or not available for other disorders. High-quality randomized clinical trials with 12 months or more of follow-up and reported relapse rates are needed.
Topics: Anxiety Disorders; Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; Humans; Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder; Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31758858
DOI: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2019.3986 -
Annals of the American Thoracic Society Apr 2021Physical restraints are used liberally in some intensive care units (ICUs) to prevent patient harm from device removal or falls. Although the intention of restraint use... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Physical restraints are used liberally in some intensive care units (ICUs) to prevent patient harm from device removal or falls. Although the intention of restraint use is patient safety, their application may inadvertently cause physical or psychological harm. Physical restraints may contribute to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), but there is a paucity of supportive data. To investigate the association between physical restraint use and PTSD symptoms in ICU survivors. Secondary objectives were to examine the cognitive and physical outcomes associated with physical restraint use and to assess interventions that may be effective in reducing restraint use. A systematic review of English language studies in PubMed, Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and CENTRAL between January 1, 1990, to February 8, 2020 was performed. Observational or randomized studies that reported on restraint use and associated outcomes, or interventions to reduce restraint use, in critically ill adult patients were identified. Two independent reviewers completed the review in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. We identified 794 articles, of which 37 met inclusion criteria and were included. Thirty of these studies related to patient outcomes including PTSD, delirium, mechanical ventilation hours, and physical injury. Seven related to interventions to reduce physical restraint use. The quality of studies was not high; only four of the included studies were assessed to have a low risk of bias. Three studies found a significant relationship between restraint use and PTSD, but their results could not be pooled for analysis. Pooled data indicated a significant association between physical restraint use and delirium (odds ratio [OR], 11.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 6.66-20.01; < 0.001) and duration of mechanical ventilation (mean difference in days, 3.35; 95% CI, 1.95-4.75; < 0.001). We also found that interventions, such as nursing education, may effectively reduce restraint use by approximately 50% (OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.32-0.73; < 0.001). The impact that a reduction in restraint use may have on associated outcomes was not examined. Physical restraint use may be associated with PTSD in ICU survivors and is associated with delirium and longer duration of mechanical ventilation. Nurse education is likely effective in reducing rates of physical restraint among ICU patients.
Topics: Adult; Critical Illness; Humans; Intensive Care Units; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Restraint, Physical; Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic; Survivors
PubMed: 33075240
DOI: 10.1513/AnnalsATS.202006-738OC