A1 Vertaisarvioitu alkuperäisartikkeli tieteellisessä lehdessä

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




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

KustantajaBioMed Central

Julkaisuvuosi2024

Lehti: Critical Care

Tietokannassa oleva lehden nimiCritical care (London, England)

Lehden akronyymiCrit Care

Artikkelin numero145

Vuosikerta28

Numero1

ISSN1364-8535

eISSN1466-609X

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

Julkaisun avoimuus kirjaamishetkelläAvoimesti saatavilla

Julkaisukanavan avoimuus Kokonaan avoin julkaisukanava

Verkko-osoitehttps://ccforum.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13054-024-04925-z

Rinnakkaistallenteen osoitehttps://research.utu.fi/converis/portal/detail/Publication/393447141

Rinnakkaistallenteen lisenssiCC BY

Rinnakkaistallennetun julkaisun versioKustantajan versio


Tiivistelmä

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.


Ladattava julkaisu

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