TY - JOUR
T1 - Intensive Care Unit–Specific Virtual Reality for Critically Ill Patients with COVID-19
T2 - Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial
AU - Vlake, Johan H.
AU - van Bommel, Jasper
AU - Wils, Evert Jan
AU - Bienvenu, Joe
AU - Hellemons, Merel E.
AU - Korevaar, Tim I.M.
AU - Schut, Anna F.C.
AU - Labout, Joost A.M.
AU - Schreuder, Lois L.H.
AU - van Bavel, Marten P.
AU - Gommers, Diederik
AU - van Genderen, Michel E.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© Johan H Vlake, Jasper van Bommel, Evert-Jan Wils, Joe Bienvenu, Merel E Hellemons, Tim IM Korevaar, Anna FC Schut, Joost AM Labout, Lois LH Schreuder, Marten P van Bavel, Diederik Gommers, Michel E van Genderen.
PY - 2022/1
Y1 - 2022/1
N2 - Background: Although 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. Objective: This 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. Methods: This 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. Results: Eighty-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. Conclusions: ICU-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.
AB - Background: Although 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. Objective: This 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. Methods: This 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. Results: Eighty-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. Conclusions: ICU-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.
KW - COVID-19
KW - Intensive care
KW - Post-intensive care syndrome
KW - Quality of life
KW - SARS-CoV-2
KW - Satisfaction
KW - Virtual reality
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85123969419&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85123969419&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.2196/32368
DO - 10.2196/32368
M3 - Article
C2 - 34978530
AN - SCOPUS:85123969419
SN - 1439-4456
VL - 24
JO - Journal of medical Internet research
JF - Journal of medical Internet research
IS - 1
M1 - e32368
ER -