ArticleNoise & health
Correlation of Intensive Care Unit Noise Level with Myocardial Injury Markers and Short-Term Prognosis in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction.
Article in Noise & health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEnvironmental noise is common in intensive care units (ICUs), but its relationship with myocardial injury progression in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is not well understood. This study compared myocardial injury biomarker levels and clinical outcomes of patients with AMI in a noise-reduced and standard ICUs.
methodsThis retrospective study included patients with AMI who were admitted to an ICU between December 2021 and December 2024. Patients were allocated to standard and noise-reduced ICU groups on the basis of inpatient environment. The key metrics assessed included myocardial injury biomarkers (hs-cTnI and hs-cTnT), which were measured at baseline and multiple time points up to 48 hours post-admission. The main noise exposure indicator is the 24 hours average equivalent sound level. Supportive treatments administered in the ICU, such as sedation, the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events 30 days post-admission, ICU stay duration and total hospital stay duration were analysed.
resultsA total of 218 patients with comparable baseline data were allocated to standard (n = 113) and noise-reduced ICU groups (n = 105). All data reported in this study are absolute values measured at each time point. The noise-reduced ICU group exhibited significantly lower noise levels (44.21 ± 2.78 dBA vs. 55.26 ± 3.84 dBA, P < 0.001) and hs-cTnI and hs-cTnT levels at 12, 24 and 48 hours (hs-cTnI at 48 h: 135.65 ± 11.38 vs. 143.17 ± 17.82 ng/L, P < 0.001), reduced sedation use (24.76% vs. 38.05%, P = 0.035), a lower incidence of malignant arrhythmia (3.81% vs. 11.50%, P = 0.034) and shorter ICU (4.39 ± 0.75 days vs. 4.68 ± 0.92 days, P = 0.010) and total hospital stays (10.73 ± 1.32 days vs. 11.25 ± 1.45 days, P = 0.006).
conclusionThe implementation of noise reduction measures in the ICU was associated with reduced levels of myocardial injury, decrease in complications and improved short-term outcomes in patients with AMI.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.