Systematic ReviewResearchWorkflowPatient Education

Sensory stimulation may reduce ICU delirium, a 22-trial review found

Dimensions of Critical Care Nursing (PubMed)Jul 28, 2026

AI-summarized from the linked source. Educational brief, not medical advice.

Brief summary

A systematic review and meta-analysis of 22 randomized trials involving 1,522 ICU patients reported that sensory stimulation improved measured consciousness and reduced delirium incidence and duration compared with routine care.

What NurseJet pulled from the source

The pooled delirium-incidence estimate favored sensory stimulation (OR 0.33), and the review also reported shorter delirium duration and awakening time. Subgroup analyses favored multisensory over single-modality approaches, family-delivered over nurse-delivered stimulation, at least seven days of intervention, and twice-daily delivery, but these subgroup findings require cautious interpretation.

Why this matters for nurses

ICU nurses repeatedly assess arousal, cognition, delirium, sleep-wake patterns, and tolerance of family interaction. A structured sensory plan may complement the unit's delirium-prevention bundle, but it should be individualized and coordinated rather than added as unstructured stimulation.

Bedside takeaway

Structured sensory stimulation may complement ICU delirium care, but the pooled intervention protocols varied.

How This Applies in Practice

Use this when: Planning orientation or sensory engagement for an ICU patient who is eligible under the unit's delirium-prevention pathway.

On your shift

Confirm the patient's arousal, delirium, communication, hearing, vision, and physiologic tolerance before the session.
Coordinate approved sensory cues with rest periods, mobility, sedation goals, and family participation.
Document the intervention and response and stop or escalate for distress, agitation, or physiologic intolerance.

Keep in mind: The pooled studies used varied protocols, and subgroup findings are exploratory rather than a fixed prescription. Follow the delirium protocol, facility policy, and provider orders.

Key takeaways

The review pooled 22 randomized trials involving 1,522 ICU patients.
Sensory stimulation was associated with improved measured consciousness and lower delirium incidence.
Pooled analyses also favored sensory stimulation for delirium duration and awakening time.
Subgroup findings suggested that modality, delivery person, duration, and frequency may influence results.

Practice implications

For an eligible patient, use the unit-approved delirium and stimulation plan, coordinate timing with rest and other care, and document the patient's response. Include family only through the established orientation and safety process, and stop or escalate when stimulation causes distress or physiologic intolerance.

Limitations & cautions

The abstract does not report the certainty of evidence, between-study heterogeneity, named measurement scales, or full results for mechanical ventilation. Interventions varied across modality, provider, frequency, and duration, and subgroup comparisons should not be treated as definitive prescriptions.
AI-summarized from the linked source. Review the original article before applying to practice.

Citations

Exact source links

Open source

Public citations are filtered to exact credible source pages. Homepage-only or invalid links stay in admin review and are not shown here.

Dimensions of Critical Care Nursing (PubMed)

Dimensions of Critical Care Nursing (PubMed). Efficacy of Sensory Stimulation in Intensive Care Unit Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Open original source

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42520766/

Professional education only

This summary does not replace clinical judgment, facility policy, provider orders, or official guidelines. Verify practice changes against the original source and local protocol.

Related briefs

More updates for this clinical area

Back to Discover

Journal of neurosurgical anesthesiology (PubMed)Sep 4, 2026Research Article

A five-center randomized trial found similar rescue-opioid use and moderate-to-severe PACU pain with dexmedetomidine-based opioid-sparing analgesia and fentanyl-based analgesia during elective craniotomy for brain tumors.

Emergency ICUAI summaryReview source

Research ArticleResearchMedication SafetyAI summary · original source linked below

The trial randomized 500 adults. Moderate-to-severe PACU pain occurred in 145 of 242 assessed participants in the fentanyl group and 138 of 233 in the dexmedetomidine group, with no significant difference.

Key takeaways

Intraoperative rescue fentanyl use did not differ significantly between groups.
Hypotension was more common with dexmedetomidine, while postoperative shivering was less common.
Other in-hospital outcomes were similar between the two regimens.

Why this matters on shift

An opioid-sparing label did not translate into better early pain control in this trial, and the differing hypotension and shivering profiles remain relevant during perioperative handoff and recovery monitoring.

Bedside takeaway

Monitor pain, hemodynamics, sedation, and shivering in relation to the analgesic regimen and local protocol.

Nursing implications

During PACU and postoperative handoff, monitor pain, hemodynamics, sedation, and shivering according to the administered regimen and local protocol.

Limitations & cautions

Abstract-only summary. The trial involved elective tumor craniotomy at five Indian centers, both groups also received locoregional analgesia, and the abstract does not provide longer-term outcome results in detail.
AI-summarized from the linked source. Review the original article before applying to practice.

Citations · exact source links

Journal of neurosurgical anesthesiology (PubMed). Opioid-Sparing Versus Opioid-Based Analgesia for Craniotomy: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.

Open original sourceFull brief

AI-summarized from the linked source. Review the original article before applying to practice.

Journal of neurology (PubMed)Sep 6, 2026Systematic Review

A cumulative meta-analysis found longer survival over time in Duchenne muscular dystrophy, alongside a shift from predominantly respiratory toward cardiac causes of death.

Peds ICUAI summaryReview source

Systematic ReviewResearchPatient EducationAI summary · original source linked below

The review included 53 studies and more than 13,000 patients. Pooled median survival was 29 years among ventilated patients and 19 years among non-ventilated patients, but these study-level observational comparisons do not establish that ventilation alone caused the difference.

Key takeaways

Sixty percent of patients in the included studies received home mechanical ventilation.
Survival improved progressively over time in both ventilated and non-ventilated groups.
As respiratory survival improved, cardiac and other causes accounted for a larger share of deaths.

Why this matters on shift

Patients living longer with Duchenne muscular dystrophy may need sustained respiratory support plus ongoing cardiac and multisystem surveillance across care transitions.

Bedside takeaway

Verify each patient's established respiratory and cardiac plan during admissions and care transitions.

Nursing implications

During admissions and handoffs, verify the established ventilation, airway-clearance, and cardiac-monitoring plan and coordinate concerns with the multidisciplinary team.

Limitations & cautions

Abstract-only summary. This was a study-level meta-analysis of heterogeneous observational survival reports; the ventilated and non-ventilated groups were not randomized, so associations should not be interpreted as treatment effects.
AI-summarized from the linked source. Review the original article before applying to practice.

Citations · exact source links

Journal of neurology (PubMed). Improving survival in Duchenne muscular dystrophy across eras: a systematic review and cumulative meta-analysis.

Open original sourceFull brief

AI-summarized from the linked source. Review the original article before applying to practice.

The New England journal of medicine (PubMed)Apr 24, 2026Research ArticlePractice applicable

PRoMPT BOLUS found no significant difference in major adverse kidney events between balanced fluid and 0.9% saline.

Peds EmergencyAI summaryReview source

Research ArticleResearchMedication SafetyPractice applicableAI summary · original source linked below

This randomized trial enrolled children aged two months to under 18 years at 47 emergency departments. The primary composite was death, new renal-replacement therapy, or persistent kidney dysfunction by day 30 or discharge, whichever came first.

Key takeaways

Primary events occurred in 3.4% versus 3.0% with balanced fluid and saline, respectively (risk ratio 1.10; 95% CI 0.88-1.40).
Hyperchloremia was reported in 31.4% versus 49.0%, respectively.

Why this matters on shift

A difference in electrolyte findings did not translate into demonstrated benefit on the primary clinical outcome.

Bedside takeaway

Distinguish electrolyte differences from demonstrated clinical-outcome benefit.

Nursing implications

Keep fluid-type documentation and ordered monitoring clear; this result does not justify independently changing the resuscitation plan.

Limitations & cautions

Abstract-only summary. A nonsignificant result does not prove equivalence. Findings concern children with suspected septic shock and abnormal perfusion.
AI-summarized from the linked source. Review the original article before applying to practice.

Citations · exact source links

The New England journal of medicine (PubMed). Balanced Fluid or 0.9% Saline in Children Treated for Septic Shock.

Open original sourceFull brief

AI-summarized from the linked source. Review the original article before applying to practice.

How This Applies in Practice

Key takeaways

Practice implications

Limitations & cautions

Exact source links

More updates for this clinical area

Dexmedetomidine did not improve early pain outcomes versus fentanyl for craniotomy

Duchenne survival has improved as respiratory and cardiac care evolved

Balanced fluid showed no significant major kidney-event benefit in pediatric septic shock