Virtual reality and hypnosis for anxiety and pain management in intensive care units A prospective randomised trial among cardiac surgery patients

BACKGROUND Virtual reality and hypnosis are little studied in complex contexts, such as intensive care, where patients need significant physical and psychological assistance. OBJECTIVES To compare and combine hypnosis and virtual reality benefits on anxiety and pain on patients before and after cardiac surgery. DESIGN Prospective randomised controlled clinical trial. SETTING The study was conducted in the University Hospital of Liege (Belgium) from October 2018 to January 2020. PATIENTS One hundred patients (66 +/- 11.5 years; 24 women, 76 men) were included. Participants were adults undergoing cardiac surgery. Exclusion criteria: psychiatric diseases, claustrophobia, acrophobia, hearing loss, visual impairment, extreme fatigue, confusion surgery cancelled. INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomly assigned to four arms (control; hypnosis; virtual reality; virtual reality hypnosis) and had 20 min of one of the techniques the day before and the day after surgery. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES Anxiety, pain, fatigue, relaxation, physiological parameters, and opioid use were evaluated before and after each session. RESULTS The main results did not show any significant differences between the groups. In all groups, anxiety decreased and pain increased from baseline to the postoperative day. Relaxation increased in all groups in the preoperative (P < 0.0001) and postoperative period (P = 0.03). There were no significant differences for fatigue, physiological measures, or opioid use. CONCLUSION As there were no significant differences between groups for the measured variables, we cannot affirm that one technique is better than another. Additional studies are required to compare and evaluate the cost-effectiveness of these techniques for critical care patients and caregivers.

Automated summary

This clinical trial compares and combines the effects of hypnosis and virtual reality on anxiety and pain in cardiac surgery patients. The results showed no significant differences between the groups, suggesting that neither technique is superior to the other. Further studies are needed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of these techniques for critical care patients and caregivers.