» Articles » PMID: 39323600

Phase I Pilot Safety and Feasibility of a Novel Restraint Device for Critically Ill Patients Requiring Mechanical Ventilation

Overview
Publisher Sage Publications
Specialty Critical Care
Date 2024 Sep 26
PMID 39323600
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Mechanically ventilated Intensive Care Unit (ICU) patients often require wrist restraints, contributing to immobility and agitation, over-sedation, and delirium. The ® ® (Healthy Design, LLC), a novel restraint alternative, may be safe and facilitate greater mobility than traditional restraints.

Objective: This National Institutes of Health Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) Program Grant-funded single-site Phase I feasibility study evaluated ® safety and feasibility in anticipation of a multi-site Phase II randomized controlled trial (RCT).

Methods: In two academic ICUs, mechanically ventilated adults ⩾25 years old who were non-comatose, required restraints and had an expected stay of ⩾2 days were enrolled to wear ® and traditional wrist restraints for 4 h on day 1, in a randomized order, and in the reverse order on day 2. Main outcomes were ® safety (i.e., patient/clinician lacerations/injuries), feasibility (i.e., ⩾90% of required data collected), and patient/family/clinician feedback.

Results: Eight patients were enrolled; one no longer required restraints at initiation, yielding seven subjects (median [interquartile range (IQR)] age 65 [55, 70] years, 86% men). All seven wore ®, averaging (SD) 2.5 (1.0) hours per session, with no safety events reported. Across restraint time periods, 92% and 100% of Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) and wrist actigraphy data, respectively, were collected. Feedback was positive (more movement and comfortable than traditional restraints) and constructive (bulky, intimidating to apply).

Conclusions: This pilot study provided key safety and feasibility data for a Phase II RCT evaluating ® versus traditional wrist restraints. Feedback motivated minor device modifications before RCT initiation.

References
1.
Benbenbishty J, Adam S, Endacott R . Physical restraint use in intensive care units across Europe: the PRICE study. Intensive Crit Care Nurs. 2010; 26(5):241-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.iccn.2010.08.003. View

2.
Gupta P, Martin J, Needham D, Vangala S, Colantuoni E, Kamdar B . Use of actigraphy to characterize inactivity and activity in patients in a medical ICU. Heart Lung. 2020; 49(4):398-406. PMC: 7305977. DOI: 10.1016/j.hrtlng.2020.02.002. View

3.
Gupta P, Martin J, Malhotra A, Bergstrom J, Grandner M, Kamdar B . Circadian rest-activity misalignment in critically ill medical intensive care unit patients. J Sleep Res. 2022; 31(5):e13587. PMC: 9489597. DOI: 10.1111/jsr.13587. View

4.
Demers L, Ska B . Development of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive Technology (QUEST). Assist Technol. 1995; 8(1):3-13. DOI: 10.1080/10400435.1996.10132268. View

5.
Devlin J, Skrobik Y, Gelinas C, Needham D, Slooter A, Pandharipande P . Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Prevention and Management of Pain, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium, Immobility, and Sleep Disruption in Adult Patients in the ICU. Crit Care Med. 2018; 46(9):e825-e873. DOI: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000003299. View