Dataset Information

Outcome of delirium in critically ill patients: systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To determine the relation between delirium in critically ill patients and their outcomes in the short term (in the intensive care unit and in hospital) and after discharge from hospital.

Design

Systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies.

Data sources

PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, and PsychINFO, with no language restrictions, up to 1 January 2015.

Eligibility criteria for selection studies

Reports were eligible for inclusion if they were prospective observational cohorts or clinical trials of adults in intensive care units who were assessed with a validated delirium screening or rating system, and if the association was measured between delirium and at least one of four clinical endpoints (death during admission, length of stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, and any outcome after hospital discharge). Studies were excluded if they primarily enrolled patients with a neurological disorder or patients admitted to intensive care after cardiac surgery or organ/tissue transplantation, or centered on sedation management or alcohol or substance withdrawal. Data were extracted on characteristics of studies, populations sampled, identification of delirium, and outcomes. Random effects models and meta-regression analyses were used to pool data from individual studies.

Results

Delirium was identified in 5280 of 16,595 (31.8%) critically ill patients reported in 42 studies. When compared with control patients without delirium, patients with delirium had significantly higher mortality during admission (risk ratio 2.19, 94% confidence interval 1.78 to 2.70; P<0.001) as well as longer durations of mechanical ventilation and lengths of stay in the intensive care unit and in hospital (standard mean differences 1.79 (95% confidence interval 0.31 to 3.27; P<0.001), 1.38 (0.99 to 1.77; P<0.001), and 0.97 (0.61 to 1.33; P<0.001), respectively). Available studies indicated an association between delirium and cognitive impairment after discharge.

Conclusions

Nearly a third of patients admitted to an intensive care unit develop delirium, and these patients are at increased risk of dying during admission, longer stays in hospital, and cognitive impairment after discharge.

SUBMITTER: Salluh JI

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4454920 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundExtubation failure is an important issue in ventilated patients and its risk factors remain a matter of research. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore factors associated with extubation failure in ventilated patients who passed a spontaneous breathing trial and underwent planned extubation. This systematic review was registered in PROPERO with the Registration ID CRD42019137003.MethodsWe searched the PubMed, Web of Science and Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials for studies published from January 1998 to December 2018. We included observational studies involving risk factors associated with extubation failure in adult intensive care unit patients who underwent invasive mechanical ventilation. Two authors independently extracted data and assessed the validity of included studies.ResultsSixty-seven studies (involving 26,847 participants) met the inclusion criteria and were included in our meta-analysis. We analyzed 49 variables and, among them, we identified 26 factors significantly associated with extubation failure. Risk factors were distributed into three domains (comorbidities, acute disease severity and characteristics at time of extubation) involving mainly three functions (circulatory, respiratory and neurological). Among these, the physiological respiratory characteristics at time of extubation were the most represented. The individual topic of secretion management was the one with the largest number of variables. By Bayesian multivariable meta-analysis, twelve factors were significantly associated with extubation failure: age, history of cardiac disease, history of respiratory disease, Simplified Acute Physiologic Score II score, pneumonia, duration of mechanical ventilation, heart rate, Rapid Shallow Breathing Index, negative inspiratory force, lower PaO2/FiO2 ratio, lower hemoglobin level and lower Glasgow Coma Scale before extubation, with the latest factor having the strongest association with extubation outcome.ConclusionsNumerous factors are associated with extubation failure in critically ill patients who have passed a spontaneous breathing trial. Robust multiparametric clinical scores and/or artificial intelligence algorithms should be tested based on the selected independent variables in order to improve the prediction of extubation outcome in the clinical scenario.

Project description:PurposeTo compare the effects of prevention interventions on delirium occurrence in critically ill adults.MethodsMEDLINE, Embase, PsychINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Prospero, and WHO international clinical trial registry were searched from inception to April 8, 2021. Randomized controlled trials of pharmacological, sedation, non-pharmacological, and multi-component interventions enrolling adult critically ill patients were included. We performed conventional pairwise meta-analyses, NMA within Bayesian random effects modeling, and determined surface under the cumulative ranking curve values and mean rank. Reviewer pairs independently extracted data, assessed bias using Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and evidence certainty with GRADE. The primary outcome was delirium occurrence; secondary outcomes were durations of delirium and mechanical ventilation, length of stay, mortality, and adverse effects.ResultsEighty trials met eligibility criteria: 67.5% pharmacological, 31.3% non-pharmacological and 1.2% mixed pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions. For delirium occurrence, 11 pharmacological interventions (38 trials, N = 11,993) connected to the evidence network. Compared to placebo, only dexmedetomidine (21/22 alpha2 agonist trials were dexmedetomidine) probably reduces delirium occurrence (odds ratio (OR) 0.43, 95% Credible Interval (CrI) 0.21-0.85; moderate certainty). Compared to benzodiazepines, dexmedetomidine (OR 0.21, 95% CrI 0.08-0.51; low certainty), sedation interruption (OR 0.21, 95% CrI 0.06-0.69; very low certainty), opioid plus benzodiazepine (OR 0.27, 95% CrI 0.10-0.76; very low certainty), and protocolized sedation (OR 0.27, 95% CrI 0.09-0.80; very low certainty) may reduce delirium occurrence but the evidence is very uncertain. Dexmedetomidine probably reduces ICU length of stay compared to placebo (Ratio of Means (RoM) 0.78, CrI 0.64-0.95; moderate certainty) and compared to antipsychotics (RoM 0.76, CrI 0.61-0.98; low certainty). Sedative interruption, protocolized sedation and opioids may reduce hospital length of stay compared to placebo, but the evidence is very uncertain. No intervention influenced mechanical ventilation duration, mortality, or arrhythmia. Single and multi-component non-pharmacological interventions did not connect to any evidence networks to allow for ranking and comparisons as planned; pairwise comparisons did not detect differences compared to standard care.ConclusionCompared to placebo and benzodiazepines, we found dexmedetomidine likely reduced the occurrence of delirium in critically ill adults. Compared to benzodiazepines, sedation-minimization strategies may also reduce delirium occurrence, but the evidence is uncertain.

Project description:IntroductionTelemedicine extends intensivists' reach to critically ill patients cared for by other physicians. Our objective was to evaluate the impact of telemedicine on patients' outcomes.MethodsWe searched electronic databases through April 2012, bibliographies of included trials, and indexes and conference proceedings in two journals (2001 to 2012). We selected controlled trials or observational studies of critically ill adults or children, examining the effects of telemedicine on mortality. Two authors independently selected studies and extracted data on outcomes (mortality and length of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital) and methodologic quality. We used random-effects meta-analytic models unadjusted for case mix or cluster effects and quantified between-study heterogeneity by using I² (the percentage of total variability across studies attributable to heterogeneity rather than to chance).ResultsOf 865 citations, 11 observational studies met selection criteria. Overall quality was moderate (mean score on Newcastle-Ottawa scale, 5.1/9; range, 3 to 9). Meta-analyses showed that telemedicine, compared with standard care, is associated with lower ICU mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.79; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.65 to 0.96; nine studies, n = 23,526; I2 = 70%) and hospital mortality (RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.73 to 0.94; nine studies, n = 47,943; I² = 72%). Interventions with continuous patient-data monitoring, with or without alerts, reduced ICU mortality (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.64 to 0.95; six studies, n = 21,384; I² = 74%) versus those with remote intensivist consultation only (RR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.20 to 2.07; three studies, n = 2,142; I2 = 71%), but effects were statistically similar (interaction P = 0.74). Effects were also similar in higher (RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.68 to 1.02) versus lower (RR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.40 to 1.19; interaction, P = 0.53) quality studies. Reductions in ICU and hospital length of stay were statistically significant (weighted mean difference (telemedicine-control), -0.62 days; 95% CI, -1.21 to -0.04 days and -1.26 days; 95% CI, -2.49 to -0.03 days, respectively; I2 > 90% for both).ConclusionsTelemedicine was associated with lower ICU and hospital mortality among critically ill patients, although effects varied among studies and may be overestimated in nonrandomized designs. The optimal telemedicine technology configuration and dose tailored to ICU organization and case mix remain unclear.

Project description:IntroductionGlutamine (GLN) has been suggested to have a beneficial influence on outcomes of critically ill patients. However, recent large-scale trials have suggested harm associated with GLN supplementation. Recently, systematic reviews on the use of parenteral GLN have been published; however, less information is available on the role of enteral GLN. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review was to study the effects of enteral GLN supplementation in patients with critical illness.MethodsWe identified randomized controlled trials conducted from 1980 to 2014 with enterally administered GLN in adult critically ill patients. Studies of parenteral GLN only or combined enteral-parenteral GLN were excluded. The methodological quality of studies was scored, and trial data were statistically combined. We examined a priori the treatment effects in subgroups of trials of burn and trauma patients.ResultsA total of 11 studies involving 1079 adult critically ill patients and enteral GLN supplementation were identified. Enteral GLN supplementation was not associated with a reduction of hospital mortality (risk ratio [RR] 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.65-1.36; p = 0.74), infectious complications (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.79-1.10; p = 0.39) or stay in the intensive care unit (weighted mean difference [WMD] -1.36 days, 95% CI -5.51 to 2.78; p = 0.52). However, there was a significant reduction in hospital stay (WMD 4.73 days, 95% CI -8.53 to -0.90; p = 0.02). In the subset of studies of patients with burns, enteral GLN supplementation was associated with significant reductions in hospital mortality (RR 0.19, 95% 0.06-0.67; p = 0.010) and hospital stay (WMD -9.16, 95% CI -15.06 to -3.26; p = 0.002). There was no effect in trauma patients.ConclusionsEnteral GLN supplementation does not confer significant clinical benefit in critically ill patients, with the exception of reduced hospital stay. There may be a significant benefit in patients with burns, but data are sparse and larger randomized trials are warranted to confirm this effect.

Project description:INTRODUCTION: Tracheostomy is one of the more commonly performed procedures in critically ill patients yet the optimal method of performing tracheostomies in this population remains to be established. The aim of this study was to systematically review and quantitatively synthesize all randomized clinical trials (RCTs), comparing elective percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy (PDT) and surgical tracheostomy (ST) in adult critically ill patients with regards to major short and long term outcomes. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and the Cochrane Controlled Clinical Trials Register databases were searched to identify relevant studies. Additionally, bibliographies and selected conference proceedings were reviewed, and experts in the field and manufacturers of two PDT kits were contacted. Randomized clinical trials comparing any method of elective PDT to ST that included critically ill adults and reported at least one clinically relevant outcome were included. Data extracted included trial characteristics, measures of study validity, and clinically relevant outcomes. RESULTS: Seventeen RCTs involving 1,212 patients were included. Most PDTs used a multiple dilator technique and were performed in the intensive care unit (ICU). The pooled odds ratio (OR) for wound infection was 0.28 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.16 to 0.49, p < 0.0005), indicating a significant reduction with PDT compared to ST. Overall, PDT was equivalent to ST for bleeding, major peri-procedural and long-term complications; however, subgroup analysis suggested PDT resulted in a lower incidence of bleeding (OR = 0.29 (95% CI 0.12 to 0.75, p = 0.01)) and death (OR = 0.71 (95% CI 0.50 to 1.0, p = 0.05)) when the STs were performed in the operating theatre. CONCLUSION: PDT reduces the overall incidence of wound infection and may further reduce clinical relevant bleeding and mortality when compared with ST performed in the operating theatre. PDT, performed in the ICU, should be considered the procedure of choice for performing elective tracheostomies in critically ill adult patients.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the benefits and harms of antithrombin III in critically ill patients.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials.Data sourcesCENTRAL, Medline, Embase, International Web of Science, LILACS, the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, and CINHAL (to November 2006); hand search of reference lists, contact with authors and experts, and search of registers of ongoing trials.Review methodsTwo reviewers independently selected parallel group randomised clinical trials comparing antithrombin with placebo or no intervention and extracted data related to study methods, interventions, outcomes, bias risk, and adverse events. Disagreements were resolved by discussion. Trials in any type of critically ill patients in intensive care were eligible. All trials, irrespective of blinding or language status, that compared any antithrombin III regimen with no intervention or placebo were included. Trials were considered to be at low risk of bias if they had adequate randomisation procedure, blinding, and used intention to treat analysis. Risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals were estimated with fixed and random effects models according to heterogeneity.Main outcome measuresMortality, length of stay in intensive care or hospital, quality of life, severity of sepsis, respiratory failure, duration of mechanical ventilation, incidence of surgical intervention, intervention effect among various populations, and adverse events (such as bleeding).Results20 trials randomly assigning 3458 patients met inclusion criteria. Eight trials had low risk of bias. Compared with placebo or no intervention, antithrombin III did not reduce overall mortality (relative risk 0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.89 to 1.03). No subgroup analyses on risk of bias, populations of patients, or with and without adjuvant heparin yielded significant results. Antithrombin III increased the risk of bleeding events (1.52, 1.30 to 1.78). Heterogeneity was observed in only a few analyses.ConclusionAntithrombin III cannot be recommended for critically ill patients based on the available evidence.