Effectiveness Of Polyethylene Cover Versus Polyethylene Cover With Artificial Tear Drop To Prevent Dry Eye In Critically Ill Patients: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

PURPOSE: To compare the effectiveness of polyethylene cover versus polyethylene cover with artificial tear drop to prevent dry eye in critically ill patients. METHODS: In this clinical trial, 208 patients were randomly assigned into two groups of polyethylene cover, and polyethylene cover with artificial tear drop. In each of the two groups, one eye was randomly selected as a control eye and the other was considered as an intervention eye. In the polyethylene cover group, the eye was covered with polyethylene. In the polyethylene cover and artificial tear drop group, an artificial tear drop was applied every 8 hrs to the eye, and then it was covered with polyethylene. The control eye received the routine intensive care unit eye care (washing the inside of the eye and the eyelids with distilled water). In both groups, the eyes were examined for eye dryness by an ophthalmologist for 5 days. RESULTS: The incidence of dry eye after the use of both polyethylene cover and polyethylene cover with artificial tear drop methods was lower than that of a conventional method. Both methods of polyethylene covering and polyethylene covering with artificial tear drop were effective, but clinically, the method of polyethylene cover with artificial tear drop was more effective. CONCLUSION: Both methods of polyethylene covering and polyethylene covering with artificial tear drop were more effective than a conventional method, but the method of polyethylene cover with artificial tear drop was clinically more effective. Therefore, it is recommended for use in critically ill patients.