Introduction: Each year, ~7 million U.S. adults are admitted to intensive care unit (ICU) for a critical illness. Despite survival, many develop physical, cognitive, and emotional deficits—collectively termed Post Intensive Care Syndrome. Long-term deficits impair daily activities like driving. One-month post-discharge studies show some resumed driving, but patients still had persistent cognitive deficits and reduced fitness-to-drive. Significant gaps in knowledge remain about when and who should return to driving, thus, the purpose is to elucidate the factors that relate to resuming arriving after hospital discharge. Methods: Prospective observation study in an ICU Recovery Clinic with outcomes collected 3 months after hospital discharge in adult patients surviving acute respiratory failure or sepsis. Driving status was self-reported, and patients completed physical function and quality of life questionnaires. Two-tailed t-tests (unequal variance) and Fisher’s Exact tests assessed significant differences in demographic, clinical, and functional outcomes between 1) active or partial drivers and 2) not resuming-driving. Results: 50 patients participated with median age of 60 and 50% female. 37 patients reported resuming driving at the 3-month time point. There were no differences in demographic or clinical data between groups. Peak SOFA scores in the ICU (9 8–10 vs 9 8–10; P = 0.54) and the comorbid burden (Charleston Index, 4 4–5 vs 5 3–5; P = 0.32) were not different. Though not significant, patients who returned to driving had clinically meaningful difference in physical function: 30s sit to stand (14 9.75–17 vs 10.5 4.5–14.75; P = 0.09), 6min walk test (m) (408.9 228–487.46 vs 277.4 237.8–426.9; P = 0.30), gait speed (m/sec) (0.92 0.72–1.1 vs 0.73 0.50–0.93; P = 0.1), and QOL (Visual Analog Scale, 80 75–80 vs 72.5 60–82.5; P = 0.58). Conclusions: In this study, clinical, demographic, and functional data did not clearly relate to return to driving. Patients who returned to driving showed better functional performance and higher VAS scores, suggesting improved quality of life. Future studies with larger sample sizes and extended follow-up are needed to determine if significant differences exist between groups. Additional outcome measures may also help clarify group distinctions.
Qaissi et al. (Sun,) studied this question.