Dataset Information

The confusion assessment method for the intensive care unit (CAM-ICU) and intensive care delirium screening checklist (ICDSC) for the diagnosis of delirium: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical studies.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Delirium is a frequent form of acute brain dysfunction in critically ill patients, and several detection tools for it have been developed for use in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). The objective of this study is to evaluate the current evidence on the accuracy of the Confusion Assessment Method for Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) and the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC) for the diagnosis of delirium in critically ill patients.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted to identify articles on the evaluation of the CAM-ICU and the ICDSC in ICU patients. A MEDLINE, SciELO, CINAHL and EMBASE databases search was performed for articles published in the English language, involving adult populations and comparing these diagnostic tools with the gold standard, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) criteria. Results were summarized by meta-analysis. The QUADAS scale was used to assess the quality of the studies.

Results

Nine studies evaluating the CAM-ICU (including 969 patients) and four evaluating the ICDSC (n = 361 patients) were included in the final analysis. The pooled sensitivity of the CAM-ICU was 80.0% (95% confidence interval (CI): 77.1 to 82.6%), and the pooled specificity was 95.9% (95% CI: 94.8 to 96.8%). The diagnostic odds ratio was 103.2 (95% CI: 39.6 to 268.8). The pooled area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was 0.97. The pooled sensitivity of the ICDSC was 74% (95% CI: 65.3 to 81.5%), and the pooled specificity was 81.9% (95% CI: 76.7 to 86.4%). The diagnostic odds ratio was 21.5 (95% CI: 8.51 to 54.4). The AUC was 0.89.

Conclusions

The CAM-ICU is an excellent diagnostic tool in critically ill ICU patients, whereas the ICDSC has moderate sensitivity and good specificity. The available data suggest that both CAM-ICU and the ICDSC can be used as a screening tool for the diagnosis of delirium in critically ill patients.

SUBMITTER: Gusmao-Flores D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3580690 | biostudies-literature | 2012 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The confusion assessment method for the intensive care unit (CAM-ICU) and intensive care delirium screening checklist (ICDSC) for the diagnosis of delirium: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical studies.

Gusmao-Flores Dimitri D Salluh Jorge Ibrain Figueira JI Chalhub Ricardo Ávila RÁ Quarantini Lucas C LC

Critical care (London, England) 20120703 4

<h4>Introduction</h4>Delirium is a frequent form of acute brain dysfunction in critically ill patients, and several detection tools for it have been developed for use in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). The objective of this study is to evaluate the current evidence on the accuracy of the Confusion Assessment Method for Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) and the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC) for the diagnosis of delirium in critically ill patients.<h4>Methods</h4>A systematic revi ...[more]

PMID: 22759376

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVES:Delirium severity is independently associated with longer hospital stays, nursing home placement, and death in patients outside the ICU. Delirium severity in the ICU is not routinely measured because the available instruments are difficult to complete in critically ill patients. We designed our study to assess the reliability and validity of a new ICU delirium severity tool, the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU-7 delirium severity scale. DESIGN:Observational cohort study. SETTING:Medical, surgical, and progressive ICUs of three academic hospitals. PATIENTS:Five hundred eighteen adult (? 18 yr) patients. INTERVENTIONS:None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:Patients received the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU, Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale, and Delirium Rating Scale-Revised-98 assessments. A 7-point scale (0-7) was derived from responses to the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU and Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale items. Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU-7 showed high internal consistency (Cronbach's ? = 0.85) and good correlation with Delirium Rating Scale-Revised-98 scores (correlation coefficient = 0.64). Known-groups validity was supported by the separation of mechanically ventilated and nonventilated assessments. Median Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU-7 scores demonstrated good predictive validity with higher odds (odds ratio = 1.47; 95% CI = 1.30-1.66) of in-hospital mortality and lower odds (odds ratio = 0.8; 95% CI = 0.72-0.9) of being discharged home after adjusting for age, race, gender, severity of illness, and chronic comorbidities. Higher Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU-7 scores were also associated with increased length of ICU stay (p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS:Our results suggest that Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU-7 is a valid and reliable delirium severity measure among ICU patients. Further research comparing it to other delirium severity measures, its use in delirium efficacy trials, and real-life implementation is needed to determine its role in research and clinical practice.

Project description:ObjectivesIn the emergency department (ED), health care providers miss delirium approximately 75% of the time, because they do not routinely screen for this syndrome. The Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) is a brief (<1 minute) delirium assessment that may be feasible for use in the ED. The study objective was to determine its validity and reliability in older ED patients.MethodsIn this prospective observational cohort study, patients aged 65 years or older were enrolled at an academic, tertiary care ED from July 2009 to February 2012. An emergency physician (EP) and research assistants (RAs) performed the CAM-ICU. The reference standard for delirium was a comprehensive (~30 minutes) psychiatrist assessment using the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision criteria. All assessments were blinded to each other and were conducted within 3 hours. Sensitivities, specificities, and likelihood ratios were calculated for both the EP and the RAs using the psychiatrist's assessment as the reference standard. Kappa values between the EP and RAs were also calculated to measure reliability.ResultsOf 406 patients enrolled, 50 (12.3%) had delirium. The median age was 73.5 years old (interquartile range [IQR] = 69 to 80 years), 202 (49.8%) were female, and 57 (14.0%) were nonwhite. The CAM-ICU's sensitivities were 72.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 58.3% to 82.5%) and 68.0% (95% CI = 54.2% to 79.2%) in the EP and RAs, respectively. The CAM-ICU's specificity was 98.6% (95% CI = 96.8% to 99.4%) for both raters. The negative likelihood ratios (LR-) were 0.28 (95% CI = 0.18 to 0.44) and 0.32 (95% CI = 0.22 to 0.49) in the EP and RAs, respectively. The positive likelihood ratios (LR+) were 51.3 (95% CI = 21.1 to 124.5) and 48.4 (95% CI = 19.9 to 118.0), respectively. The kappa between the EP and RAs was 0.92 (95% CI = 0.85 to 0.98), indicating excellent interobserver reliability.ConclusionsIn older ED patients, the CAM-ICU is highly specific, and a positive test is nearly diagnostic for delirium when used by both the EP and RAs. However, the CAM-ICU's sensitivity was modest, and a negative test decreased the likelihood of delirium by a small amount. The consequences of a false-negative CAM-ICU are unknown and deserve further study.

Dataset Information

The confusion assessment method for the intensive care unit (CAM-ICU) and intensive care delirium screening checklist (ICDSC) for the diagnosis of delirium: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical studies.

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

The confusion assessment method for the intensive care unit (CAM-ICU) and intensive care delirium screening checklist (ICDSC) for the diagnosis of delirium: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical studies.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets