Delayed treatment of delirium increases mortality rate in intensive care unit patients

Delirium in the intensive care unit (ICU) is a serious complication associated with a poor outcome in critically ill patients. In this prospective observational study of the effect of a delay in delirium therapy on mortality rate, 418 ICU patients were regularly assessed using the Delirium Detection Score (DDS). The departmental standard required that if delirium was diagnosed (DDS >7), therapy should be started within 24 h. In total, 204 patients (48.8%) were delirious during their ICU stay. In 184 of the delirious patients (90.2%), therapy was started within 24 h; in 20 patients (9.8%), therapy was delayed. During their ICU stay, patients whose delirium treatment was delayed were more frequently mechanically ventilated, had more nosocomial infections (including pneumonia) and had a higher mortality rate than patients whose treatment was not delayed. Thus, it would appear that a delay in initiating delirium therapy in ICU patients was associated with increased mortality.     

Delirium incidents in three Danish intensive care units

Background: Delirium as a result of hospitalization in an intensive care unit (ICU) is defined by a mental state different from the patients' normal state and an acute fluctuating course. Both morbidity and mortality are increased in relation to delirium. The incidence of delirium has been reported from 16% to 87% in international studies primarily in elderly patients. Aims: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the incidence of delirium in adult intensive care patients in Denmark and to identify correlations between delirium, sedatives, opiod analgesics and age. Methods: In a prospective follow‐up study, 139 adult patients were screened for delirium using the confusion assessment method for the ICU (CAM‐ICU) from 48 h after admission to ICU, twice a day until discharged. Results: A total of 41 patients had at least one positive score for delirium, 61 had only negative scores and 37 were too heavily sedated to be scored during the study period. Thus, the incidence of delirium was 40% among patients who were able to be CAM‐ICU scored. Patients who were lightly sedated had a 10‐fold increased risk of delirium. There was no difference in incidence by age. Patients who received Fentanyl were more at risk of developing delirium compared with patients who received other or no analgesics. Sedative drugs did not influence the incidence. Conclusion: In this study delirium occurred in 40% of adult ICU patients of all ages.     

Incidence and short-term consequences of delirium in critically ill patients: A prospective observational cohort study

BackgroundDelirium is a serious and frequent psycho-organic disorder in critically ill patients. Reported incidence rates vary to a large extent and there is a paucity of data concerning delirium incidence rates for the different subgroups of intensive care unit (ICU) patients and their short-term health consequences.ObjectivesTo determine the overall incidence and duration of delirium, per delirium subtype and per ICU admission diagnosis. Furthermore, we determined the short-term consequences of delirium.DesignProspective observational study.Participants and settingAll adult consecutive patients admitted in one year to the ICU of a university medical centre.MethodsDelirium was assessed using the Confusion Assessment Method-ICU three times a day. Delirium was divided in three subtypes: hyperactive, hypoactive and mixed subtype. As measures for short-term consequences we registered duration of mechanical ventilation, re-intubations, incidence of unplanned removal of tubes, length of (ICU) stay and in-hospital mortality.Results1613 patients were included of which 411 (26%) developed delirium. The incidence rate in the neurosurgical (10%) and cardiac surgery group (12%) was the lowest, incidence was intermediate in medical patients (40%), while patients with a neurological diagnosis had the highest incidence (64%). The mixed subtype occurred the most (53%), while the hyperactive subtype the least (10%). The median delirium duration was two days [IQR 1–7], but significantly longer (P < 0.0001) for the mixed subtype. More delirious patients were mechanically ventilated and for a longer period of time, were more likely to remove their tube and catheters, stayed in the ICU and hospital for a longer time, and had a six times higher chance of dying compared to non-delirium ICU patients, even after adjusting for their severity of illness score. Delirium was associated with an extended duration of mechanical ventilation, length of stay in the ICU and in-hospital, as well as with in-hospital mortality.ConclusionsThe delirium incidence in a mixed ICU population is high and differs importantly between ICU admission diagnoses and the subtypes of delirium. Patients with delirium had a significantly higher incidence of short-term health problems, independent from their severity of illness and this was most pronounced in the mixed subtype of delirium. Delirium is significantly associated with worse short-term outcome.     

Long-term outcome of delirium during intensive care unit stay in survivors of critical illness: a prospective cohort study

Introduction

Delirium is associated with impaired outcome, but it is unclear whether this relationship is limited to in-hospital outcomes and whether this relationship is independent of the severity of underlying conditions. The aim of this study was to investigate the association between delirium in the intensive care unit (ICU) and long-term mortality, self-reported health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and self-reported problems with cognitive functioning in survivors of critical illness, taking severity of illness at baseline and throughout ICU stay into account.

Methods

A prospective cohort study was conducted. We included patients who survived an ICU stay of at least a day; exclusions were neurocritical care patients and patients who sustained deep sedation during the entire ICU stay. Delirium was assessed twice daily with the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU (CAM-ICU) and additionally, patients who received haloperidol were considered delirious. Twelve months after ICU admission, data on mortality were obtained and HRQoL and cognitive functioning were measured with the European Quality of Life – Six dimensions self-classifier (EQ-6D). Regression analyses were used to assess the associations between delirium and the outcome measures adjusted for gender, type of admission, the Acute Physiology And Chronic Health Evaluation IV (APACHE IV) score, and the cumulative Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score throughout ICU stay.

Results

Of 1101 survivors of critical illness, 412 persons (37%) had been delirious during ICU stay, and 198 (18%) died within twelve months. When correcting for confounders, no significant association between delirium and long-term mortality was found (hazard ratio: 1.26; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93 to 1.71). In multivariable analysis, delirium was not associated with HRQoL either (regression coefficient: -0.04; 95% CI -0.10 to 0.01). Yet, delirium remained associated with mild and severe problems with cognitive functioning in multivariable analysis (odds ratios: 2.41; 95% CI 1.57 to 3.69 and 3.10; 95% CI 1.10 to 8.74, respectively).

Conclusions

In this group of survivors of critical illness, delirium during ICU stay was not associated with long-term mortality or HRQoL after adjusting for confounding, including severity of illness throughout ICU stay. In contrast, delirium appears to be an independent risk factor for long-term self-reported problems with cognitive functioning.     

Delirium: screening, assessment and diagnosis

Delirium is an acute decline in attention and cognition. To make a diagnosis, there are two classification systems: the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) and the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10). While the core criteria are similar in both systems, ICD-10 requires three additional criteria to make a diagnosis: disturbed psychomotor behaviour and sleep-wake-cycle and emotional disturbances. Thus, making a diagnosis according to ICD-10 criteria is more stringent. Depending on the population, up to 60 percent of patients with delirium, diagnosed by DSM-IV criteria, are missed by ICD- 10. In clinical practice, several screening and assessment instruments are available. Most of them are based on DSM-IV criteria. In this article, two instruments will be discussed, which have been used by nurses in the Basel Delirium Management Program in Switzerland. Screening for delirium is accomplished with the Delirium Observatie Screening Schaal (DOS) Scale developed by Schuurmans (2001). For assessment, the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM), developed by Inouye, is used. While the DOS is a classical observation instrument, the CAM requires a structured interview, similar to the Mini-Mental State Exam by Folstein. Both the DOS and CAM instruments were scientifically translated into German. This article will present the translated versions of both DOS and CAM, report their use in a Swiss population of patients at risk for delirium and provide the theoretical background of diagnosing delirium with the criteria of the DSM-IV and ICD-10.     

Delirium in patients admitted to a step-down unit: Analysis of incidence and risk factors

Background

Delirium is a rather common complication among patients admitted in intensive care units (ICUs), and rather than a single entity, it can be considered a spectrum of diseases where, besides overt cases, there are also many subsyndromal forms. Although there are many data about ICU delirium, there are few data concerning this complication in patients transferred from the ICU to a step-down unit (SDU) once clinically stable.

Objectives

With the present study, we wanted to assess the incidence of and risk factors for delirium and subsyndromal forms and their impact on clinical outcome in a group of patients transferred from an ICU to an SDU.

Methods

All patients transferred from an ICU to our SDU over a 2-year period were screened for delirium and subsyndromal delirious forms using the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist, a simple tool already validated in the ICU. The following data were also recorded: demographic data, severity score (SAPS II), reason for admission to the SDU, length of stay, death rate, use of sedatives, impact of delirium on weaning from mechanical ventilation (MV).

Results

Among the 234 patients, the incidence of delirium and subsyndromal forms was 7.6% and 20%, respectively. Subsyndromal forms diagnosed at admission represented a risk factor for the subsequent development of delirium (odds ratio [OR], P < .0001). A previous episode of brain failure during ICU stay and older age were risks factors for the development of subsyndromal forms, whereas not needing MV was a protective factor. Delirium significantly prolonged the stay in the SDU but did not influence survival and the process of weaning from MV. Overall, the percentage of patients with an abnormal Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist score at discharge (5%) was reduced compared with that recorded at admission (18%).

Conclusions

Delirium may still occur after discharge from an ICU in patients who are transferred to an SDU. The strategy of care adopted in the SDU seems to positively affect the recovery from a delirious state. Patients with subsyndromal forms should be promptly recognized and treated because of the risk of developing delirium. Weaning from MV is not hindered by delirium.     

Long term outcome after delirium in the intensive care unit

Aims and objectives. This research studied the long term outcome of intensive care delirium defined as mortality and quality of life at three and six months after discharge of the intensive care unit. Background. Delirium in the intensive care unit is known to result in worse outcomes. Cognitive impairment, a longer stay in the hospital or in the intensive care unit and a raised mortality have been reported. Design. A prospective cohort study. Methods. A population of 105 consecutive patients was included during the stay at the intensive care unit in July–August 2006. The population was assessed once a day for delirium using the NEECHAM Confusion Scale and the CAM‐ICU. Patients were visited at home by a nurse researcher to assess the quality of life using the Medical Outcomes Study Short‐Form General Health Survey at three and six months after discharge of the intensive care unit. Delirious and non delirious patients were compared for mortality and quality of life. Results. Compared to the non delirious patients, more delirious patients died. The total study population discharged from the intensive care unit, scored lower for quality of life in all domains compared to the reference population. The domains showed lower results for the delirious patients compared to the non delirious patients. Conclusions. Mortality was higher in delirious patients. All patients showed lower values for the quality of life at three months. The delirious patients showed lower results than the non delirious patients. Relevance to clinical practice. Nurses are the first caregivers to observe patients. The fluctuating delirious process is often not noticed. Long term effects are not visible to the interdisciplinary team in the hospital. This paper would like to raise the awareness of professionals for long term outcomes for patients having experienced delirium in the intensive care unit.     

Validation of the Swedish version of the Nursing Delirium Screening Scale used in patients 70 years and older undergoing cardiac surgery

Aims and objectives.  Validation of the Swedish version of the Nursing Delirium Screening Scale as a screening tool for nurses to use to detect postoperative delirium in patients 70 years and older undergoing cardiac surgery. Background.  Delirium is common among old patients after cardiac surgery. Underdiagnosis and poor documentation of postoperative delirium is problematic, and nurses often misread the signs. Design.  A prospective observational study. Methods.  Patients (n = 142) scheduled for cardiac surgery were assessed three times daily by the nursing staff using the Nursing Delirium Screening Scale. Nursing Delirium Screening Scale was compared with the Mini Mental State Examination and the Organic Brains Syndrome Scale, evaluated day one and day four postoperatively. Delirium was diagnosed according to Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders – DSM‐IV‐TR criteria. Results.  A larger proportion of patients were diagnosed with delirium according to the Mini Mental State Examination and Organic Brains Syndrome Scale compared with the Nursing Delirium Screening Scale, both on day one and day four. The Nursing Delirium Screening Scale protocol identified the majority of hyperactive and mixed delirium patients, whereas several with hypoactive delirium were unrecognised. Conclusions.  The Swedish version of the Nursing Delirium Screening Scale was easily incorporated into clinical care and showed high sensitivity in detecting hyperactive symptoms of delirium. However, in the routine use by nurses, the Nursing Delirium Screening Scale had low sensitivity in detecting hypoactive delirium, the most prevalent form of delirium after cardiac surgery. Nursing Delirium Screening Scale probably has to be combined with cognitive testing to detect hypoactive delirium. Relevance to clinical practice.  Nurses play a key role in detecting delirium. The Nursing Delirium Screening Scale was easy incorporated instrument for clinical practice and identified the majority of hyperactive and mixed delirium, but several of the patients with hypoactive delirium were unrecognised. Training of assessment and cognitive testing seems to be necessary to detect hypoactive delirium.     

Nurses' and physicians' approaches to delirium management in the intensive care unit: A focus group investigation

BackgroundDelirium in the intensive care unit (ICU) is common, but reliable evidence-based recommendations are still limited.ObjectivesThe aim of our study was to explore nurses' and physicians' experiences and approaches to ICU delirium management.MethodOur study had a qualitative multicentre design using interdisciplinary focus groups and framework analysis. Participants were strategically selected to include nurses and physicians with experience in delirium management at five ICUs in four out of five regions in Denmark.ResultsWe conducted eight focus group interviews with 24 nurses and 15 physicians; median ICU experience was 9 years (range 1–35). The main issues identified were (1) the decision to treat or not to treat ICU delirium based on delirium phenotype, (2) the decision to act based on experience or evidence, and (3) the decision to intervene using nursing care or medications. ICU delirium was treated with pharmacological interventions in patients with signs of agitation, hallucinations, and sleep deprivation. The first choice of agent was haloperidol or olanzapine. Agitated and combative patients received benzodiazepines, propofol, or dexmedetomidine. Calm delirious patients were managed with non-pharmacological solutions. Physicians recommended pro re nata (PRN) orders to prevent over medication, whereas nurses opposed PRN orders with the fear that it would increase their responsibilities.ConclusionOur study described an algorithm of contemporary delirium management in Danish ICUs based on qualitative inquiry. When evidence-based solutions are unclear, nurses and physicians rely on personal experience, collective experience, and best available evidence to determine which patients to treat and what methods to use to treat ICU delirium. Delirium management still needs clear objectives and guidelines with evidence-based recommendations for first-line treatment and subsequent treatment options.     

Incidence,risk factors and consequences of ICU delirium

Objective Delirium in the critically ill is reported in 11–80% of patients. We estimated the incidence of delirium using a validated scale in a large cohort of ICU patients and determined the associated risk factors and outcomes. Design and setting Prospective study in a 16-bed medical-surgical intensive care unit (ICU). Patients 820 consecutive patients admitted to ICU for more than 24 h. Interventions Tools used were: the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist for delirium, Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale for sedation, and Numerical Rating Scale for pain. Risk factors were evaluated with univariate and multivariate analysis, and factors influencing mortality were determined using Cox regression. Results Delirium occurred in 31.8% of 764 patients. Risk of delirium was independently associated with a history of hypertension (OR 1.88, 95% CI 1.3–2.6), alcoholism (2.03, 1.2–3.2), and severity of illness (1.25, 1.03–1.07 per 5-point increment in APACHE II score) but not with age or corticosteroid use. Sedatives and analgesics increased the risk of delirium when used to induce coma (OR 3.2, 95% CI 1.5–6.8), and not otherwise. Delirium was linked to longer ICU stay (11.5 ± 11.5 vs. 4.4 ± 3.9 days), longer hospital stay (18.2 ± 15.7 vs. 13.2 ± 19.4 days), higher ICU mortality (19.7% vs. 10.3%), and higher hospital mortality (26.7% vs. 21.4%). Conclusion Delirium is associated with a history of hypertension and alcoholism, higher APACHE II score, and with clinical effects of sedative and analgesic drugs. This article is discussed in the editorial available at:     

Emergency Physician Recognition of Adverse Drug-related Events in Elder Patients Presenting to an Emergency Department

Objectives: The authors examined the ability of emergency physicians (EPs) to recognize adverse drug‐related events (ADREs) in elder patients presenting to the emergency department (ED). Methods: This was a prospective observational study of patients at least 65 years of age who presented to the ED. ADREs were identified using a validated, standardized scoring system. EP recognition of ADREs was assessed through physician interview and subsequent chart review. Results: A total of 161 patients were enrolled in the study. Thirty‐seven ADREs were identified, which occurred in 26 patients (16.2%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 10.5% to 22.0%). The treating EPs recognized 51.2% (95% CI = 35.2% to 67.4%) of all ADREs. There was better recognition of those ADREs related to the patient's chief complaint (91%; 95% CI = 74.1% to 100%) as compared with recognition of ADREs that were not associated with the chief complaint (32.1%; 95% CI = 14.8% to 49%). EPs recognized six of seven severe ADREs (85.7%), 13 of 23 moderate ADREs (56.5%; 95% CI = 36.8% to 77%), and none of the mild ADREs. Recognition of ADREs varied with medication class. Conclusions: EP performance was superior at identifying severe ADREs relating to the patients' chief complaints. However, EP performance was suboptimal with respect to identifying ADREs of lower severity, having missed a significant number of ADREs of moderate severity as well as ones unrelated to the patients' chief complaints. ADRE detection methods need to be developed for the ED to aid EPs in detecting those ADREs that are most likely to be missed.     

Incidence,risk factors,and cumulative risk of delirium among ICU patients: A case-control study

ObjectivesDelirium is a common acute cognitive impairment syndrome among intensive care unit (ICU) patients. This study was aimed to investigate the incidence, risk factors, and cumulative risk of delirium among ICU patients.MethodsA case-control study including clinical records of 452 patients were retrospectively analyzed. Delirium was assessed using the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU and Richmond Agitation–Sedation Scale.ResultsWe found that 163 out of the 452 patients (36.1%) had delirium. Multivariate analysis showed that use of sedatives, length of ICU hospitalization, and physical restraint were independent risk factors for delirium. The additive effect of all three factors resulted to an odds ratio of 30.950.ConclusionThe incidence of delirium remained high. Thus, nurses shall strengthen the monitoring of delirium, regularly access the patient's level of calmness, and limit the use of physical restraint.     

Assessing delirium in cancer patients: the Italian versions of the Delirium Rating Scale and the Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale

To validate the Italian versions of the Delirium Rating Scale (DRS) and the Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale (MDAS), 105 cancer patients consecutively referred for neurological or psychiatric consultation for mental status change were evaluated using the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM), the DRS, the MDAS, and the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE). According to the CAM criteria and clinical examination, 66 patients were delirious, and 39 received diagnoses other than delirium. The DRS and the MDAS scores significantly distinguished delirious from non-delirious patients. The MDAS and the DRS were mutually correlated. When using the proposed cut-off scores for the two scales, the MDAS had higher specificity (94%) but lower sensitivity (68%) than the DRS (sensitivity = 95%, specificity = 61% for DRS cut-off 10; sensitivity = 80%, specificity = 76%, DRS cut-off 12). The MMSE showed high sensitivity (96%) and very low specificity (38%). Exploratory factor analysis of the DRS and the MDAS suggested a three-factor and two-factor structure, respectively. Both instruments in their Italian version proved to be useful for the assessment of delirium among cancer patients. Further research is needed to examine the use of the DRS and the MDAS in other clinical contexts.     

Individual delirium symptoms: do they matter?

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of individual manifestations of delirium on outcome, describe them in critically ill adults, and validate nurses' bedside item assessments from the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC). DESIGN: Prospective study. SETTING: Single 16-bed medical/surgical university hospital intensive care unit. PATIENTS: Six hundred consecutive patients admitted to the intensive care unit for >24 hrs. INTERVENTIONS: All patients were evaluated with the eight-item ICDSC throughout their intensive care unit stay. In all patients scoring positive on any ICDSC item, individual checklist items were tallied throughout the intensive care unit stay and assessed for impact on mortality. In addition, when the ICDSC score indicated delirium (> or = 4 of 8), the subsequent overall frequency of each item was also independently documented to describe delirious patient symptoms. ICDSC items were tested for discrimination between delirious and nondelirious patients. Throughout the study, the validity of bedside delirium assessments was assessed in 30 nurses. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We were able to assess 537 patients. In nondelirious patients, psychomotor agitation by ICDSC assessment was associated with a higher risk of mortality after adjustment for Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation, age, and the presence of coma. One hundred eight-nine patients (35.1%) developed delirium (i.e., ICDSC score > or = 4). On presentation (and throughout the intensive care unit stay), the most frequent features of delirium were inattention, disorientation, and psychomotor agitation. Each ICDSC item was highly discriminating between delirious vs. nondelirious patients. Correlation between gold standard adjudicators and nurses for the overall bedside evaluations of delirium were excellent (Pearson's correlation R = 0.924, p < .0005). Individual symptom evaluation by nurses varied: Alteration in level of consciousness was poorest (R = 0.681, p < .0005), and both disorientation and hallucinations evaluated best (R = 1.000). CONCLUSIONS: In nondelirious patients, agitation was associated with a higher risk of mortality. Each of the eight ICDSC items is highly discriminating for the diagnosis of delirium, suggesting that any screening or diagnostic scales should incorporate them. Quality assurance and educational efforts should, therefore, emphasize independent assessment of the individual features of delirium.     

Occurrence of delirium is severely underestimated in the ICU during daily care

Objective  Delirium is associated with prolonged intensive care unit (ICU) stay and higher mortality. Therefore, the recognition of delirium is important. We investigated whether intensivists and ICU nurses could clinically identify the presence of delirium in ICU patients during daily care. Methods  All ICU patients in a 3-month period who stayed for more than 48 h were screened daily for delirium by attending intensivists and ICU nurses. Patients were screened independently for delirium by a trained group of ICU nurses who were not involved in the daily care of the patients under study. The Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU (CAM-ICU) was used as a validated screening instrument for delirium. Values are expressed as median and interquartile range (IQR; P25–P75). Results  During the study period, 46 patients (30 male, 16 female), median age 73 years (IQR = 64–80), with an ICU stay of 6 days (range 4–11) were evaluated. CAM-ICU scores were obtained during 425 patient days. Considering the CAM-ICU as the reference standard, delirium occurred in 50% of the patients with a duration of 3 days (range 1–9). Days with delirium were poorly recognized by doctors (sensitivity 28.0%; specificity 100%) and ICU nurses (sensitivity 34.8%; specificity 98.3%). Recognition did not differ between hypoactive or active status of the patients involved. Conclusion  Delirium is severely under recognized in the ICU by intensivists and ICU nurses in daily care. More attention should be paid to the implementation of a validated delirium-screening instrument during daily ICU care. Electronic supplementary material  The online version of this article (doi:) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.     

Predicting hospital mortality and length of stay: A prospective cohort study comparing the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist versus Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit

ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to compare two tools, the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC) and Confusion Assessment Method for the intensive care unit (ICU) (CAM-ICU), for their predictive validity for outcomes related to delirium, hospital mortality, and length of stay (LOS).MethodsThe prospective study conducted in six medical ICUs at a tertiary care hospital in Taiwan enrolled consecutive patients (≥20 years) without delirium at ICU admission. Delirium was screened daily using the ICDSC and CAM-ICU in random order. Arousal was assessed by the Richmond Agitation–Sedation Scale (RASS). Participants with any one positive result were classified as ICDSC- or CAM-ICU-delirium groups.ResultsDelirium incidence evaluated by the ICDSC and CAM-ICU were 69.1% (67/97) and 50.5% (49/97), respectively. Although the ICDSC identified 18 more cases as delirious, substantial concordance (κ = 0.63; p < 0.001) was found between tools. Independent of age, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score, and Charlson Comorbidity Index, both ICDSC- and CAM-ICU-rated delirium significantly predicted hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio: 4.93; 95% confidence interval [CI]:1.56 to 15.63 vs. 2.79; 95% CI: 1.12 to 6.97, respectively), and only the ICDSC significantly predicted hospital LOS with a mean of 17.59 additional days compared with the no-delirium group. Irrespective of delirium status, a sensitivity analysis of normal-to-increased arousal (RASS≥0) test results did not alter the predictive ability of ICDSC- or CAM-ICU-delirium for hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio: 2.97; 95% CI: 1.06 to 8.37 vs. 3.82; 95% CI: 1.35 to 10.82, respectively). With reduced arousal (RASS<0), neither tool significantly predicted mortality or LOS.ConclusionsThe ICDSC identified more delirium cases and may have higher predictive validity for mortality and LOS than the CAM-ICU. However, arousal substantially affected performance. Future studies may want to consider patients’ arousal when deciding which tool to use to maximise the effects of delirium identification on patient mortality.     

Delirium in terminal cancer: a prospective study using daily screening, early diagnosis, and continuous monitoring

A pilot prospective cohort study was conducted to determine delirium frequency and outcome in cancer patients consecutively hospitalized for terminal care (median stay: 12 days). Screening for delirium symptoms was performed daily, using the Confusion Rating Scale. Patients positive on screening had a diagnostic assessment within 24 hours using the Confusion Assessment Method. Monitoring of symptoms was continued until death. Eighteen (20%) of the 89 study patients were positive on screening at admission. Among the 71 patients free of delirium at admission, the incidence of confirmed delirium was 32.8% (95% CI, 21.3–44.3%). Patients positive on screening received a higher mean equivalent parenteral daily dose of morphine than other patients (72 mg vs. 41 mg, p = 0.08). Significant symptom improvement occurred in 16 (50%) of the 32 delirious cases. Delirium is a serious and frequent complication in terminal cancer whose outcome may not be as poor as previously considered.     

Risk factors for the development of early-onset delirium and the subsequent clinical outcome in mechanically ventilated patients

Objectives

The aim of the study was to investigate the risk factors of developing early-onset delirium in mechanically ventilated patients and determine the subsequent clinical outcomes.

Methods

Confusion assessment method for the intensive care unit (ICU) was used to assess the enrolled mechanically ventilated patients for delirium. The risk factors of developing delirium and clinical outcomes were determined in these subjects.

Results

Delirium was present in 31 (21.7%) of 143 patients in the first 5 days. In multivariable analysis, hypoalbuminemia (odds ratio, 5.94; 95% confidence interval, 1.23-28.77) and sepsis (odds ratio, 3.65; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-12.9) increased the risk of developing delirium in mechanically ventilated patients. The patients with delirium had a higher in-hospital mortality (67.7% vs 33.9%, respectively; P = .001) and longer duration of mechanical ventilation (19.5 ± 15.8 vs 9.3 ± 8.8 days, respectively; P = .003) than patients without delirium. The incidence of nosocomial pneumonia was increased in delirious patients (64.5% vs 38.4%, P = .01) compared with nondelirious patients, whereas the lengths of ICU or hospital stay were similar between both groups.

Conclusions

Mechanically ventilated patients with sepsis or hypoalbuminemia were more vulnerable to develop delirium in their early stay in the ICU. Early-onset delirium is associated with prolonged duration of mechanical ventilation and higher incidence of nosocomial pneumonia, leading to a higher mortality.     

Biomarkers associated with delirium in critically ill patients and their relation with long-term subjective cognitive dysfunction; indications for different pathways governing delirium in inflamed and noninflamed patients

Introduction  

Delirium occurs frequently in critically ill patients and is associated with disease severity and infection. Although several pathways for delirium have been described, biomarkers associated with delirium in intensive care unit (ICU) patients is not well studied. We examined plasma biomarkers in delirious and nondelirious patients and the role of these biomarkers on long-term cognitive function.     

Delirium assessment in the critically ill

Objective To compare available instruments for assessing delirium in critically ill adults that have undergone validity testing and provide clinicians with strategies to incorporate these instruments into clinical practice. Design Medline (1966–September 2006) was searched using the key words: delirium, cognitive dysfunction, assessment, intensive care unit, and critical illness to identify assessment tools that have been used to evaluate delirium in critically ill adults. A special emphasis was placed on delirium assessment tools that have been properly validated. Data on how these tools have been adopted into clinical practice as well as strategies for clinicians to improve delirium assessment in the ICU are highlighted. Measurements and results Six delirium assessment instruments including the Cognitive Test for Delirium (CTD), abbreviated CTD, Confusion Assessment Method–ICU, Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist, NEECHAM scale, and the Delirium Detection Score were identified. While each of these scales have undergone validation in critically ill adults, substantial differences exist among the scales in terms of the quality and extent of the validation effort, the specific components of the delirium syndrome each address, their ability to identify hypoactive delirium, their use in patients with a compromised level of consciousness, and their ease of use. Conclusions Incorporation of delirium assessment into clinical practice in the intensive care unit using a validated tool may improve patient care. Clinicians can adopt a number of different strategies to overcome the many barriers associated with routine delirium assessment in the ICU.