Statin use and risk of delirium in the critically ill.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Page VJ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC3974585 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Mar
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Statin use and risk of delirium in the critically ill.
Page Valerie J VJ Davis Daniel D Zhao Xiao B XB Norton Samuel S Casarin Annalisa A Brown Thomas T Ely E Wesley EW McAuley Daniel F DF
American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine 20140301 6
<h4>Rationale</h4>Delirium is common in intensive care unit (ICU) patients and is a predictor of worse outcomes and neuroinflammation is a possible mechanism. The antiinflammatory actions of statins may reduce delirium.<h4>Objectives</h4>To determine whether critically ill patients receiving statin therapy had a reduced risk of delirium than those not on statins.<h4>Methods</h4>A prospective cohort analysis of data from consecutive ICU patients admitted to a UK mixed medical and surgical critica ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Delirium among critically ill patients is common. Presence of delirium imparts a poorer prognosis to patients, including longer ICU and hospital length of stay, increased risk of institutionalization, higher health related costs, and elevated mortality. Even with such grave consequences, the rates of delirium diagnosis are dire. The importance of early recognition through validated tools and appropriate management of this life-threatening condition cannot be over emphasized. This article provides an overview of delirium pathophysiology, diagnosis, and management with a focus on critically ill patients.
| S-EPMC4224112 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundPrior retrospective cross-sectional work has associated antimicrobials with a non-specific phrase: encephalopathy without seizures. The purpose of this study is to determine whether different classes of antimicrobials have differential associations with the daily risk of delirium after critical illness is adjusted for.MethodsOur study was a nested cohort that enrolled non-neurological critically ill adults from a medical or surgical intensive care unit (ICU) with daily follow-up to 30 days. Our independent variable was exposure to previous-day antimicrobial class: beta-lactams (subclasses: penicillins, first- to third-generation cephalosporins, fourth-generation cephalosporins, and carbapenems), macrolides, fluoroquinolones, and other. We adjusted for baseline covariates (age, comorbidities, cognition scores, sepsis, and mechanical ventilation), previous-day covariates (delirium, doses of analgesics/sedatives, and antipsychotic use), and same-day covariates (illness severity). Our primary outcome of delirium was measured by using the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU. A daily delirium logistic regression model was used with an ICU time-restricted sensitivity analysis including daily adjustment for sepsis and mechanical ventilation.ResultsOf 418 ICU patients, delirium occurred in 308 (74%) with a median of 3 days (interquartile range 2-6) among those affected and 318 (76%) were exposed to antimicrobials. When covariates and ICU type were adjusted for, only first- to third-generation cephalosporins were associated with delirium (logistic regression model odds ratio (OR) = 2.2, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.28-3.79, P = 0.004; sensitivity analysis OR = 2.13, 95% CI 1.10-4.10, P = 0.024).ConclusionsFirst-, second-, and third-generation cephalosporins doubled the odds of delirium after baseline co-morbidities, ICU type, the course of critical care, and other competing antimicrobial and psychotropic medication risks were adjusted for. We did not find an association between delirium and cefepime, penicillins, carbapenems, fluoroquinolones, or macrolides.
| S-EPMC6291937 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Delirium is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. We implemented a delirium prevention policy in intensive care unit (ICU) patients with a high risk of developing delirium, and evaluated if our policy resulted in quality improvement of relevant delirium outcome measures.This study was a before/after evaluation of a delirium prevention project using prophylactic treatment with haloperidol. Patients with a predicted risk for delirium of ? 50%, or with a history of alcohol abuse or dementia, were identified. According to the prevention protocol these patients received haloperidol 1 mg/8 h. Evaluation was primarily focused on delirium incidence, delirium free days without coma and 28-day mortality. Results of prophylactic treatment were compared with a historical control group and a contemporary group that did not receive haloperidol prophylaxis mainly due to non-compliance to the protocol mostly during the implementation phase.In 12 months, 177 patients received haloperidol prophylaxis. Except for sepsis, patient characteristics were comparable between the prevention and the historical (n = 299) groups. Predicted chance to develop delirium was 75 ± 19% and 73 ± 22%, respectively. Haloperidol prophylaxis resulted in a lower delirium incidence (65% vs. 75%, P = 0.01), and more delirium-free-days (median 20 days (IQR 8 to 27) vs. median 13 days (3 to 27), P = 0.003) in the intervention group compared to the control group. Cox-regression analysis adjusted for sepsis showed a hazard rate of 0.80 (95% confidence interval 0.66 to 0.98) for 28-day mortality. Beneficial effects of haloperidol appeared most pronounced in the patients with the highest risk for delirium. Furthermore, haloperidol prophylaxis resulted in less ICU re-admissions (11% vs. 18%, P = 0.03) and unplanned removal of tubes/lines (12% vs. 19%, P = 0.02). Haloperidol was stopped in 12 patients because of QTc-time prolongation (n = 9), renal failure (n = 1) or suspected neurological side-effects (n = 2). No other side-effects were reported. Patients who were not treated during the intervention period (n = 59) showed similar results compared to the untreated historical control group.Our evaluation study suggests that prophylactic treatment with low dose haloperidol in critically ill patients with a high risk for delirium probably has beneficial effects. These results warrant confirmation in a randomized controlled trial.clinicaltrial.gov Identifier: NCT01187667.
| S-EPMC4056261 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:A common postoperative complication found among patients who are critically ill is delirium, which has a high mortality rate. A predictive model is needed to identify high-risk patients in order to apply strategies which will prevent and/or reduce adverse outcomes. OBJECTIVES:To identify the incidence of, and the risk factors for, postoperative delirium (POD) in surgical intensive care unit (SICU) patients, and to determine predictive scores for the development of POD. METHODS:This study enrolled adults aged over 18 years who had undergone an operation within the preceding week and who had been admitted to a SICU for a period that was expected to be longer than 24 h. The CAM - ICU score was used to determine the occurrence of delirium. RESULTS:Of the 250 patients enrolled, delirium was found in 61 (24.4%). The independent risk factors for delirium that were identified by a multivariate analysis comprised age, diabetes mellitus, severity of disease (SOFA score), perioperative use of benzodiazepine, and mechanical ventilation. A predictive score (age + (5 × SOFA) + (15 × Benzodiazepine use) + (20 × DM) + (20 × mechanical ventilation) + (20 × modified IQCODE > 3.42)) was created. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) was 0.84 (95% CI: 0.786 to 0.897). The cut point of 125 demonstrated a sensitivity of 72.13% and a specificity of 80.95%, and the hospital mortality rate was significantly greater among the delirious than the non-delirious patients (25% vs. 6%, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS:POD was experienced postoperatively by a quarter of the surgical patients who were critically ill. A risk score utilizing 6 variables was able to predict which patients would develop POD. The identification of high-risk patients following SICU admission can provide a basis for intervention strategies to improve outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Thai Clinical Trials Registry TCTR20181204006 . Date registered on December 4, 2018. Retrospectively registered.
| S-EPMC6425578 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Ketamine is increasingly being used for analgosedation, but its effect on delirium remains unclear. We compared delirium risk variables and ketamine analgosedation use between adults who developed incident delirium and those who did not, evaluated whether ketamine analgosedation increases delirium risk, and compared ICU delirium characteristics, treatments, and outcomes between ketamine and nonketamine patients with delirium.DesignSecondary, subgroup analysis of a cohort study.SettingSingle, 36-bed mixed medical-surgical ICU in the Netherlands from July 2016 to February 2020.PatientsConsecutive adults were included. Patients admitted after elective surgery, not expected to survive greater than or equal to 48 hours, admitted with delirium, or where delirium occurred prior to ketamine use were excluded.InterventionNone.Measurements and main resultsTrained ICU nurses evaluated patients without coma (Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale. -4/-5) every 8 hours with the Confusion Assessment Method ICU; a delirium day was defined by greater than or equal to1 + Confusion Assessment Method ICU and/or scheduled antipsychotic use. Among 11 variables compared between the delirium and nondelirium groups (Baseline: age, Charlson Comorbidity score, cognitive impairment, admission type, and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation-IV score, daily ICU [until delirium occurrence or discharge]: Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, coma, benzodiazepine, opioid, and ketamine use) and total ICU days, 7 (age, Charlson score, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, coma, benzodiazepine, opioid, and ketamine use) were significantly different and were entered, along with delirium occurrence, in a logistic regression model. A total of 332 of 925 of patients (36%) developed delirium. Ketamine use was greater in patients with delirium (54 [16%] vs 4 [0.7%]; p < 0.01). Ketamine use (adjusted odds ratio, 5.60; 95% CI, 1.09-29.15), age (adjusted odds ratio, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.01-1.06), coma (adjusted odds ratio, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.15-3.78), opioid use (adjusted odds ratio, 171.17; 95% CI, 66.45-553.68), and benzodiazepine use (adjusted odds ratio, 34.07; 95% CI, 8.12-235.34) were each independently and significantly associated with increased delirium. Delirium duration, motoric subtype, delirium treatments, and outcomes were not different between the ketamine and nonketamine groups.ConclusionsKetamine analgosedation may contribute to increased ICU delirium. The characteristics of ketamine and nonketamine delirium are similar. Further prospective research is required to evaluate the magnitude of risk for delirium with ketamine use.
| S-EPMC8480939 | biostudies-literature
Project description:During critical illness, impaired endothelial vascular reactivity predicts prolonged acute brain dysfunction, but relationships between endothelial activation, blood-brain barrier/neurological injury, and acute brain dysfunction, including delirium, remain unexamined. We tested the hypothesis that elevated plasma markers of endothelial activation and blood-brain barrier/neurological injury are associated with delirium duration during critical illness.Prospective cohort study.Medical and surgical ICUs in an academic medical center.Adults in acute respiratory failure and/or shock.None.We enrolled subjects within 72 hours of organ failure diagnosis in the ICU. We measured plasma concentrations of plasminogen activator inhibitor-1, E-selectin, and angiopoietin-2 as markers of endothelial activation and S100B as a marker of blood-brain barrier/neurological injury in blood collected at enrollment. We assessed patients for delirium and coma twice daily after enrollment using the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU and the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale. Among 134 patients with a median (interquartile) age of 57 years (46-66 yr) and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II of 26 (19-31), delirium occurred in 94 patients (70%) with a median duration of 2 days (0-4 d). Higher plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 (p = 0.002), E-selectin (p = 0.02), and S100B (p < 0.001) concentrations were associated with fewer delirium/coma-free days after adjusting for age, Charlson comorbidity index, modified Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and severe sepsis. Similarly, higher plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 (p = 0.007) and S100B (p = 0.01) concentrations were associated with longer delirium duration in survivors. Adjusting for S100B did not alter plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 and E-selectin associations with delirium, suggesting that these associations were not mediated by blood-brain barrier/neurological injury.Elevated plasma markers of endothelial activation and blood-brain barrier/neurological injury during critical illness are associated with prolonged delirium after biomarker measurement. Future research is needed to determine whether these processes have pathophysiologic roles in delirium and whether therapies targeted at the endothelium or blood-brain barrier can prevent and/or treat delirium during critical illness.
| S-EPMC4987204 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundCOVID-19 has been a devastating pandemic with little known of its neuropsychiatric complications. Delirium is one of the most common neuropsychiatric syndromes among hospitalized cancer patients with incidence ranging from 25% to 40% and rates of up to 85% in the terminally ill. Data on the incidence, risk factors, duration, and outcomes of delirium in critically ill cancer patients with COVID-19 are lacking.ObjectiveTo report the incidence, risks and outcomes of critically ill cancer patients who developed COVID-19.MethodsThis is a retrospective single-center study evaluating delirium frequency and outcomes in all critically ill cancer patients with COVID-19 admitted between March 1 and July 10, 2020. Delirium was assessed by Confusion Assessment Method for Intensive Care Unit, performed twice daily by trained intensive care unit (ICU) nursing staff. Patients were considered to have a delirium-positive day if Confusion Assessment Method for Intensive Care Unit was positive at least once per day.ResultsA total of 70 patients were evaluated. Of those 70, 53 (75.7%) were found to be positive for delirium. Patients with delirium were significantly older than patients without delirium (median age 67.5 vs 60.3 y, P = 0.013). There were no significant differences in demographic characteristics, chronic medical conditions, neuropsychiatric history, cancer type, or application of prone positioning between the 2 groups. Delirium patients were less likely to receive cancer-directed therapies (58.5% vs 88.2%, P = 0.038) but more likely to receive antipsychotics (81.1% vs 41.2%, P = 0.004), dexmedetomidine (79.3% vs 11.8%, P < 0.001), steroids (84.9% vs 58.8%, P = 0.039), and vasopressors (90.6% vs 58.8%, P = 0.006). Delirium patients were more likely to be intubated (86.8% vs 41.2%, P < 0.001), and all tracheostomies (35.9%) occurred in patients with delirium. ICU length of stay (19 vs 8 d, P < 0.001) and hospital length of stay (37 vs 12 d, P < 0.001) were significantly longer in delirium patients, but there was no statistically significant difference in hospital mortality (43.4% vs 58.8%, P = 0.403) or ICU mortality (34.0% vs 58.8%, P = 0.090).ConclusionsDelirium in critically ill cancer patients with COVID-19 was associated with less cancer-directed therapies and increased hospital and ICU length of stay. However, the presence of delirium was not associated with an increase in hospital or ICU mortality.
| S-EPMC9162788 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVES:Catatonia, a condition characterized by motor, behavioral, and emotional changes, can occur during critical illness and appear as clinically similar to delirium, yet its management differs from delirium. Traditional criteria for medical catatonia preclude its diagnosis in delirium. Our objective in this investigation was to understand the overlap and relationship between delirium and catatonia in ICU patients and determine diagnostic thresholds for catatonia. DESIGN:Convenience cohort, nested within two ongoing randomized trials. SETTING:Single academic medical center in Nashville, TN. PATIENTS:We enrolled 136 critically ill patients on mechanical ventilation and/or vasopressors, randomized to two usual care sedation regimens. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:Patients were assessed for delirium and catatonia by independent and masked personnel using Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU and the Bush Francis Catatonia Rating Scale mapped to Diagnostic Statistical Manual 5 criterion A for catatonia. Of 136 patients, 58 patients (43%) had only delirium, four (3%) had only catatonia, 42 (31%) had both, and 32 (24%) had neither. In a logistic regression model, more catatonia signs were associated with greater odds of having delirium. For example, patient assessments with greater than or equal to three Diagnostic Statistical Manual 5 symptoms (75th percentile) had, on average, 27.8 times the odds (interquartile range, 12.7-60.6) of having delirium compared with patient assessments with zero Diagnostic Statistical Manual 5 criteria (25th percentile) present (p < 0.001). A cut-off of greater than or equal to 4 Bush Francis Catatonia Screening Instrument items was both sensitive (91%; 95% CI, 82.9-95.3) and specific (91%; 95% CI, 87.6-92.9) for Diagnostic Statistical Manual 5 catatonia. CONCLUSIONS:Given that about one in three patients had both catatonia and delirium, these data prompt reconsideration of Diagnostic Statistical Manual 5 criteria for "Catatonic Disorder Due to Another Medical Condition" that preclude diagnosing catatonia in the presence of delirium.
| S-EPMC5678952 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Delirium is a common yet under-diagnosed syndrome of acute brain dysfunction, which is characterized by inattention, fluctuating mental status, altered level of consciousness, or disorganized thinking. Although our recognition of risk factors for delirium has progressed, our understanding of the underlying pathophysiologic mechanisms remains limited. Improvements in monitoring and assessment for delirium (particularly in the intensive care setting) have resulted in validated and reliable tools such as arousal scales and bedside delirium monitoring instruments. Once delirium is recognized and the modifiable risk factors are addressed, the next step in management (if delirium persists) is often pharmacological intervention. The sedatives, analgesics, and hypnotics most often used in the intensive care unit (ICU) to achieve patient comfort are all too frequently deliriogenic, resulting in a longer duration of ICU and hospital stay, and increased costs. Therefore, identification of safe and efficacious agents to reduce the incidence, duration, and severity of ICU delirium is a hot topic in critical care. Recognizing that there are no medications approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the prevention or treatment of delirium, we chose anti-psychotics and alpha-2 agonists as the general pharmacological focus of this article because both were subjects of relatively recent data and ongoing clinical trials. Emerging pharmacological strategies for addressing delirium must be combined with nonpharmacological approaches (such as daily spontaneous awakening trials and spontaneous breathing trials) and early mobility (combined with the increasingly popular approach called: Awakening and Breathing Coordination, Delirium Monitoring, Early Mobility, and Exercise [ABCDE] of critical care) to develop evidence-based approaches that will ensure safer and faster recovery of the sickest patients in our healthcare system.
| S-EPMC3271151 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo determine prevalence of delirium in critically ill children and explore associated risk factors.DesignMulti-institutional point prevalence study.SettingTwenty-five pediatric critical care units in the United States, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Australia, and Saudi Arabia.PatientsAll children admitted to the pediatric critical care units on designated study days (n = 994).InterventionChildren were screened for delirium using the Cornell Assessment of Pediatric Delirium by the bedside nurse. Demographic and treatment-related variables were collected.Measurements and main resultsPrimary study outcome measure was prevalence of delirium. In 159 children, a final determination of mental status could not be ascertained. Of the 835 remaining subjects, 25% screened positive for delirium, 13% were classified as comatose, and 62% were delirium-free and coma-free. Delirium prevalence rates varied significantly with reason for ICU admission, with highest delirium rates found in children admitted with an infectious or inflammatory disorder. For children who were in the PICU for 6 or more days, delirium prevalence rate was 38%. In a multivariate model, risk factors independently associated with development of delirium included age less than 2 years, mechanical ventilation, benzodiazepines, narcotics, use of physical restraints, and exposure to vasopressors and antiepileptics.ConclusionsDelirium is a prevalent complication of critical illness in children, with identifiable risk factors. Further multi-institutional, longitudinal studies are required to investigate effect of delirium on long-term outcomes and possible preventive and treatment measures. Universal delirium screening is practical and can be implemented in pediatric critical care units.
| S-EPMC5350030 | biostudies-literature