Dataset Information

Haloperidol prophylaxis in critically ill patients with a high risk for delirium.

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: van den Boogaard M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4056261 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Haloperidol prophylaxis in critically ill patients with a high risk for delirium.

van den Boogaard Mark M Schoonhoven Lisette L van Achterberg Theo T van der Hoeven Johannes G JG Pickkers Peter P

Critical care (London, England) 20130117 1

<h4>Introduction</h4>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.<h4>Methods</h4>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 w ...[more]

PMID: 23327295

Similar Datasets

Project description:Importance:Results of studies on use of prophylactic haloperidol in critically ill adults are inconclusive, especially in patients at high risk of delirium. Objective:To determine whether prophylactic use of haloperidol improves survival among critically ill adults at high risk of delirium, which was defined as an anticipated intensive care unit (ICU) stay of at least 2 days. Design, Setting, and Participants:Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled investigator-driven study involving 1789 critically ill adults treated at 21 ICUs, at which nonpharmacological interventions for delirium prevention are routinely used in the Netherlands. Patients without delirium whose expected ICU stay was at least a day were included. Recruitment was from July 2013 to December 2016 and follow-up was conducted at 90 days with the final follow-up on March 1, 2017. Interventions:Patients received prophylactic treatment 3 times daily intravenously either 1 mg (n = 350) or 2 mg (n = 732) of haloperidol or placebo (n = 707), consisting of 0.9% sodium chloride. Main Outcome and Measures:The primary outcome was the number of days that patients survived in 28 days. There were 15 secondary outcomes, including delirium incidence, 28-day delirium-free and coma-free days, duration of mechanical ventilation, and ICU and hospital length of stay. Results:All 1789 randomized patients (mean, age 66.6 years [SD, 12.6]; 1099 men [61.4%]) completed the study. The 1-mg haloperidol group was prematurely stopped because of futility. There was no difference in the median days patients survived in 28 days, 28 days in the 2-mg haloperidol group vs 28 days in the placebo group, for a difference of 0 days (95% CI, 0-0; P = .93) and a hazard ratio of 1.003 (95% CI, 0.78-1.30, P=.82). All of the 15 secondary outcomes were not statistically different. These included delirium incidence (mean difference, 1.5%, 95% CI, -3.6% to 6.7%), delirium-free and coma-free days (mean difference, 0 days, 95% CI, 0-0 days), and duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU, and hospital length of stay (mean difference, 0 days, 95% CI, 0-0 days for all 3 measures). The number of reported adverse effects did not differ between groups (2 [0.3%] for the 2-mg haloperidol group vs 1 [0.1%] for the placebo group). Conclusions and Relevance:Among critically ill adults at high risk of delirium, the use of prophylactic haloperidol compared with placebo did not improve survival at 28 days. These findings do not support the use of prophylactic haloperidol for reducing mortality in critically ill adults. Trial Registration:clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01785290.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Dataset Information

Haloperidol prophylaxis in critically ill patients with a high risk for delirium.

Publications

Haloperidol prophylaxis in critically ill patients with a high risk for delirium.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets