4.5 Review

Anxiety symptoms in survivors of critical illness: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Journal

GENERAL HOSPITAL PSYCHIATRY
Volume 43, Issue -, Pages 23-29

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2016.08.005

Keywords

Anxiety; Critical illness; Critical care; Meta-analysis; Review

Categories

Funding

  1. National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute [R24HL111895]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: To evaluate the epidemiology of and postintensive care unit (ICU) interventions for anxiety symptoms after critical illness. Methods: We searched five databases (1970-2015) to identify studies assessing anxiety symptoms in adult ICU survivors. Data from studies using the most common assessment instrument were meta-analyzed. Results: We identified 27 studies (2880 patients) among 27,334 citations. The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale-Anxiety (HADS-A) subscale was the most common instrument (81% of studies). We pooled data at 2-3, 6 and 12-14 month time-points, with anxiety symptom prevalences [HADS-A= 8, 95% confidence interval (CI)] of 32%(27-38%), 40%(33-46%) and 34%(25-42%), respectively. In a subset of studies with repeated assessments in the exact same patients, there was no significant change in anxiety score or prevalence over time. Age, gender, severity of illness, diagnosis and length of stay were not associated with anxiety symptoms. Psychiatric symptoms during admission and memories of in-ICU delusional experienceswere potential risk factors. Physical rehabilitation and ICU diaries had potential benefit. Conclusions: One third of ICU survivors experience anxiety symptoms that are persistent during their first year of recovery. Psychiatric symptoms during admission and memories of in-ICU delusional experienceswere associated with post-ICU anxiety. Physical rehabilitation and ICU diaries merit further investigation as possible interventions. (C) 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available