PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
BACKGROUND: Pets offer significant health benefits, from decreased cardiovascular risks to anxiety and post-traumatic stress improvements. Animal-assisted interventions (AAI) are not frequently practiced in the intensive care unit (ICU) for fear of health risk for critical patients because there is a hypothetical risk of zoonoses.
OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aimed to collect and summarize available evidence about AAI in the ICU. The Review questions were \"Do AAI improve the clinical outcome of Critically Ill Patients admitted to ICUs?\" and \"Are the zoonotic infections the cause of negative prognosis?\".
METHODS: The following databases were searched on 5 January 2023: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), EMBASE, and PubMed. All controlled studies (randomized controlled, quasi-experimental, and observational studies) were included. The systematic review protocol has been registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Review (CRD42022344539).
RESULTS: A total of 1302 papers were retrieved, 1262 after the duplicate remotion. Of these, only 34 were assessed for eligibility and only 6 were included in the qualitative synthesis. In all the studies included the dog was the animal used for the AAI with a total of 118 cases and 128 controls. Studies have high variability, and no one has used increased survival or zoonotic risk as outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: The evidence on the effectiveness of AAIs in ICU settings is scarce and no data are available on their safety. AAIs use in the ICU must be considered experimental and follow the related regulation until further data will be available. Given the potential positive impact on patient-centered outcomes, a research effort for high-quality studies seems to be justified.
OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aimed to collect and summarize available evidence about AAI in the ICU. The Review questions were \"Do AAI improve the clinical outcome of Critically Ill Patients admitted to ICUs?\" and \"Are the zoonotic infections the cause of negative prognosis?\".
METHODS: The following databases were searched on 5 January 2023: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), EMBASE, and PubMed. All controlled studies (randomized controlled, quasi-experimental, and observational studies) were included. The systematic review protocol has been registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Review (CRD42022344539).
RESULTS: A total of 1302 papers were retrieved, 1262 after the duplicate remotion. Of these, only 34 were assessed for eligibility and only 6 were included in the qualitative synthesis. In all the studies included the dog was the animal used for the AAI with a total of 118 cases and 128 controls. Studies have high variability, and no one has used increased survival or zoonotic risk as outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: The evidence on the effectiveness of AAIs in ICU settings is scarce and no data are available on their safety. AAIs use in the ICU must be considered experimental and follow the related regulation until further data will be available. Given the potential positive impact on patient-centered outcomes, a research effort for high-quality studies seems to be justified.
摘要：
背景：宠物具有显著的健康益处，从降低心血管风险到焦虑和创伤后应激改善。在重症监护病房（ICU）中，由于担心危重患者的健康风险，因此不经常进行动物辅助干预（AAI），因为存在人畜共患病的假设风险。
目的：本系统综述旨在收集和总结关于ICUAAI的现有证据。审查的问题是：“AAI是否改善了ICU收治的危重病患者的临床结局？”和“人畜共患感染是预后不良的原因吗？”
方法：在2023年1月5日搜索了以下数据库：Cochrane中央对照试验登记册（CENTRAL），EMBASE,和PubMed。所有对照研究（随机对照，准实验,和观察性研究)被包括在内。系统审查方案已在国际前瞻性系统审查登记册（CRD42022344539）上注册。
结果：共检索到1302篇论文，1262在重复删除后。其中,只有34人被评估为合格,只有6人被纳入定性综合.在所有研究中，狗是用于AAI的动物，共有118例病例和128例对照。研究有很高的变异性，没有人使用增加的生存率或人畜共患风险作为结果。
结论：关于AAI在ICU环境中的有效性的证据很少，并且没有关于其安全性的数据。在ICU中使用AAI必须被认为是实验性的，并遵循相关法规，直到获得更多数据为止。鉴于对以患者为中心的结果的潜在积极影响，高质量研究的研究工作似乎是合理的。
目的：本系统综述旨在收集和总结关于ICUAAI的现有证据。审查的问题是：“AAI是否改善了ICU收治的危重病患者的临床结局？”和“人畜共患感染是预后不良的原因吗？”
方法：在2023年1月5日搜索了以下数据库：Cochrane中央对照试验登记册（CENTRAL），EMBASE,和PubMed。所有对照研究（随机对照，准实验,和观察性研究)被包括在内。系统审查方案已在国际前瞻性系统审查登记册（CRD42022344539）上注册。
结果：共检索到1302篇论文，1262在重复删除后。其中,只有34人被评估为合格,只有6人被纳入定性综合.在所有研究中，狗是用于AAI的动物，共有118例病例和128例对照。研究有很高的变异性，没有人使用增加的生存率或人畜共患风险作为结果。
结论：关于AAI在ICU环境中的有效性的证据很少，并且没有关于其安全性的数据。在ICU中使用AAI必须被认为是实验性的，并遵循相关法规，直到获得更多数据为止。鉴于对以患者为中心的结果的潜在积极影响，高质量研究的研究工作似乎是合理的。
