A1 Refereed original research article in a scientific journal

The effectiveness of a brief intervention for intensive care unit patients with hazardous alcohol use: a randomized controlled trial




AuthorsNissilä Eliisa, Hynninen Marja, Jalkanen Ville, Kuitunen Anne, Bäcklund Minna, Inkinen Outi, Hästbacka Johanna

PublisherBioMed Central

Publication year2024

Journal: Critical Care

Journal name in sourceCritical care (London, England)

Journal acronymCrit Care

Article number145

Volume28

Issue1

ISSN1364-8535

eISSN1466-609X

DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-024-04925-z

Publication's open availability at the time of reportingOpen Access

Publication channel's open availability Open Access publication channel

Web address https://ccforum.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13054-024-04925-z

Self-archived copy’s web addresshttps://research.utu.fi/converis/portal/detail/Publication/393447141

Self-archived copy's licenceCC BY

Self-archived copy's versionPublisher`s PDF


Abstract

Background: Screening for hazardous alcohol use and performing brief interventions (BIs) are recommended to reduce alcohol-related negative health consequences. We aimed to compare the effectiveness (defined as an at least 10% absolute difference) of BI with usual care in reducing alcohol intake in intensive care unit survivors with history of hazardous alcohol use.

Methods: We used Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test-Consumption (AUDIT-C) score to assess history of alcohol use.

Patients: Emergency admitted adult ICU patients in three Finnish university hospitals, with an AUDIT-C score > 5 (women), or > 6 (men). We randomized consenting eligible patients to receive a BI or treatment as usual (TAU).

Intervention: BI was delivered by the time of ICU discharge or shortly thereafter in the hospital ward.

Controls: Control patients received TAU.

Outcome: The primary outcome was self-reported alcohol consumption during the preceding week 6 and 12 months after randomization. Secondary outcomes were the change in AUDIT-C scores from baseline to 6 and 12 months, health-related quality of life, and mortality. The trial was terminated early due to slow recruitment during the pandemic.

Results: We randomized 234 patients to receive BI (N = 117) or TAU (N = 117). At 6 months, the median alcohol intake in the BI and TAU groups were 6.5 g (interquartile range [IQR] 0-141) and 0 g (0-72), respectively (p = 0.544). At 12 months, it was 24 g (0-146) and 0 g (0-96) in the BI and TAU groups, respectively (p = 0.157). Median change in AUDIT-C from baseline to 6 months was - 1 (- 4 to 0) and 2 (- 6 to 0), (p = 0.144) in the BI and TAU groups, and to 12 months - 3 (- 5 to - 1) and - 4 (- 7 to - 1), respectively (p = 0.187). In total, 4% (n = 5) of patients in the BI group and 11% (n = 13) of patients in the TAU group were abstinent at 6 months, and 10% (n = 12) and 15% (n = 17), respectively, at 12 months. No between-groups difference in mortality emerged.

Conclusion: As underpowered, our study cannot reject or confirm the hypothesis that a single BI early after critical illness is effective in reducing the amount of alcohol consumed compared to TAU. However, a considerable number in both groups reduced their alcohol consumption.


Downloadable publication

This is an electronic reprint of the original article.
This reprint may differ from the original in pagination and typographic detail. Please cite the original version.





Last updated on 26/11/2024 12:08:26 PM