ICU Delirium-Prediction Models: A Systematic Review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objective
Summarize performance and development of ICU delirium-prediction models published within the past 5 years.Data sources
Systematic electronic searches were conducted in April 2019 using PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central, Web of Science, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature to identify peer-reviewed studies.Study selection
Eligible studies were published in English during the past 5 years that specifically addressed the development, validation, or recalibration of delirium-prediction models in adult ICU populations.Data extraction
Screened citations were extracted independently by three investigators with a 42% overlap to verify consistency using the CHecklist for critical Appraisal and data extraction for systematic Reviews of prediction Modelling Studies.Data synthesis
Eighteen studies featuring 23 distinct prediction models were included. Model performance varied greatly, as assessed by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (0.62-0.94), specificity (0.50-0.97), and sensitivity (0.45-0.96). Most models used data collected from a single time point or window to predict the occurrence of delirium at any point during hospital or ICU admission, and lacked mechanisms for providing pragmatic, actionable predictions to clinicians.Conclusions
Although most ICU delirium-prediction models have relatively good performance, they have limited applicability to clinical practice. Most models were static, making predictions based on data collected at a single time-point, failing to account for fluctuating conditions during ICU admission. Further research is needed to create clinically relevant dynamic delirium-prediction models that can adapt to changes in individual patient physiology over time and deliver actionable predictions to clinicians.
SUBMITTER: Ruppert MM
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7746201 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:OBJECTIVE:To identify existing prognostic delirium prediction models and evaluate their validity and statistical methodology in the older adult (?60 years) acute hospital population. DESIGN:Systematic review. DATA SOURCES AND METHODS:PubMed, CINAHL, PsychINFO, SocINFO, Cochrane, Web of Science and Embase were searched from 1 January 1990 to 31 December 2016. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and CHARMS Statement guided protocol development. INCLUSION CRITERIA:age >60 years, inpatient, developed/validated a prognostic delirium prediction model. EXCLUSION CRITERIA:alcohol-related delirium, sample size ?50. The primary performance measures were calibration and discrimination statistics. Two authors independently conducted search and extracted data. The synthesis of data was done by the first author. Disagreement was resolved by the mentoring author. RESULTS:The initial search resulted in 7,502 studies. Following full-text review of 192 studies, 33 were excluded based on age criteria (<60?years) and 27 met the defined criteria. Twenty-three delirium prediction models were identified, 14 were externally validated and 3 were internally validated. The following populations were represented: 11 medical, 3 medical/surgical and 13 surgical. The assessment of delirium was often non-systematic, resulting in varied incidence. Fourteen models were externally validated with an area under the receiver operating curve range from 0.52 to 0.94. Limitations in design, data collection methods and model metric reporting statistics were identified. CONCLUSIONS:Delirium prediction models for older adults show variable and typically inadequate predictive capabilities. Our review highlights the need for development of robust models to predict delirium in older inpatients. We provide recommendations for the development of such models.
| S-EPMC5931306 | biostudies-other
Project description:ObjectivesEmergence delirium (ED) occurs in approximately 25% of paediatric general anaesthetics and has significant adverse effects. The goal of the current systematic review was to identify the existing literature investigating performance of predictive models for the development of paediatric ED following general anaesthesia and to determine their usability.DesignSystematic review using the Prediction model study Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) framework.Data sourcesMedline (Ovid), PubMed, Embase (Ovid), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Ovid), Cochrane CENTRAL (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), Scopus (Elsevier) and Web of Science (Clarivate Analytics), ClinicalTrials.gov, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ProQuest Digital Dissertations and Theses International through 17 November 2020.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesAll randomised controlled trials and cohort studies investigating predictive models for the development of ED in children undergoing general anaesthesia.Data extraction and synthesisFollowing title, abstract and full-text screening by two reviewers, data were extracted from all eligible studies, including demographic parameters, details of anaesthetics and performance characteristics of the predictive scores for ED. Evidence quality and predictive score usability were assessed according to the PROBAST framework.ResultsThe current systematic review yielded 9242 abstracts, of which only one study detailing the development and validation of the Emergence Agitation Risk Scale (EARS) met the inclusion criteria. EARS had good discrimination with c-index of 0.81 (95% CI 0.72 to 0.89). Calibration showed a non-significant Homer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test (p=0.97). Although the EARS demonstrated low concern of applicability, the high risk of bias compromised the overall usability of this model.ConclusionsThe current systematic review concluded that EARS has good discrimination performance but low usability to predict ED in a paediatric population. Further research is warranted to develop novel models for the prediction of ED in paediatric anaesthesia.Prospero registration numberCRD42019141950.
| S-EPMC7789445 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background/objectivesDelirium manifests clinically in varying ways across settings. More than 40 instruments currently exist for characterizing the different manifestations of delirium. We evaluated all delirium identification instruments according to their psychometric properties and frequency of citation in published research.DesignWe conducted the systematic review by searching Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Cochrane Library, Excerpta Medica Database (Embase), PsycINFO, PubMed, and Web of Science from January 1, 1974, to January 31, 2020, with the keywords "delirium" and "instruments," along with their known synonyms. We selected only systematic reviews, meta-analyses, or narrative literature reviews including multiple delirium identification instruments.MeasurementsTwo reviewers assessed the eligibility of articles and extracted data on all potential delirium identification instruments. Using the original publication on each instrument, the psychometric properties were examined using the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) framework.ResultsOf 2,542 articles identified, 75 met eligibility criteria, yielding 30 different delirium identification instruments. A count of citations was determined using Scopus for the original publication for each instrument. Each instrument underwent methodological quality review of psychometric properties using COSMIN definitions. An expert panel categorized key domains for delirium identification based on criteria from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)-III through DSM-5. Four instruments were notable for having at least two of three of the following: citation count of 200 or more, strong validation methodology in their original publication, and fulfillment of DSM-5 criteria. These were, alphabetically, Confusion Assessment Method, Delirium Observation Screening Scale, Delirium Rating Scale-Revised-98, and Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale.ConclusionFour commonly used and well-validated instruments can be recommended for clinical and research use. An important area for future investigation is to harmonize these measures to compare and combine studies on delirium.
| S-EPMC7902461 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAs an atypical antipsychotic drug, olanzapine is one of the most commonly used drugs for delirium control. There are no systematic evaluations or meta-analyses of the efficacy and safety of olanzapine for delirium control in critically ill adults.ObjectivesIn this meta-analysis, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of olanzapine for delirium control in critically ill adults in the intensive care unit (ICU).Data sources and methodsFrom inception to October 2022, 12 electronic databases were searched. We retrieved randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and retrospective cohort studies of critically ill adults with delirium that compared the effects of olanzapine and other interventions, including routine care (no intervention), nonpharmaceutical interventions and pharmaceutical interventions. The main outcome measures were the (a) relief of delirium symptoms and (b) a decrease in delirium duration. Secondary outcomes were ICU and in-hospital mortality, ICU and hospital length of stay, incidence of adverse events, cognitive function, sleep quality, quality of life, mechanical ventilation time, endotracheal intubation rate and delirium recurrence rate. We applied a random effects model.ResultsData from 10 studies (four RCTs and six retrospective cohort studies) involving 7076 patients (2459 in the olanzapine group and 4617 in the control group) were included. Olanzapine did not effectively relieve delirium symptoms (OR = 1.36, 95% CI [0.83, 2.28], p = 0.21), nor did it shorten the duration of delirium [standardized mean difference (SMD) = 0.02, 95% CI [-1.04, 1.09], p = 0.97] when compared with other interventions. Pooled data from three studies showed that the use of olanzapine reduced the incidence of hypotension (OR = 0.44, 95% CI [0.20, 0.95], p = 0.04) compared with other pharmaceuticals. There was no significant difference in other secondary outcomes, including ICU or hospital length of stay, in-hospital mortality, extrapyramidal reactions, QTc interval prolongation, or overall incidence of other adverse reactions. The number of included studies was not sufficient for performing a comparison between olanzapine and no intervention.ConclusionCompared with other interventions, olanzapine has no advantage in alleviating delirium symptoms and shortening delirium duration in critically ill adults. However, there is some evidence that the rate of hypotension was lower in patients who received olanzapine than in those who received other pharmaceutical interventions. There was a nonsignificant difference in the length of ICU or hospital stay, in-hospital mortality, and other adverse reactions. This study provides reference data for delirium research and clinical drug intervention strategies in critically ill adults.RegistrationProspective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; registration number CRD42021277232).
| S-EPMC9944192 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere is a growing number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating interventions to prevent or treat delirium in the intensive care unit (ICU). Efforts to improve the conduct of delirium RCTs are underway, but none address issues related to statistical analysis. The purpose of this review is to evaluate heterogeneity in the design and analysis of delirium outcomes and advance methodological recommendations for delirium RCTs in the ICU.MethodsRelevant databases, including PubMed and Embase, were searched with no restrictions on language or publication date; the search was conducted on July 8, 2019. RCTs conducted on adult ICU patients with delirium as the primary outcome were included where trial results were available. Data on frequency and duration of delirium assessments, delirium outcome definitions, and statistical methods were independently extracted in duplicate. The review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020141204).ResultsAmong 65 eligible RCTs, 44 (68%) targeted the prevention of delirium. The duration of follow-up varied, with 31 (48%) RCTs having ≤7 days of follow-up, and only 24 (37%) conducting delirium assessments after ICU discharge. The incidence of delirium was the most common outcome (50 RCTs, 77%) for which 8 unique statistical methods were applied. The most common method, applied to 51 of 56 (91%) delirium incidence outcomes, was the two-sample test comparing the proportion of patients who ever experienced delirium. In the presence of censoring of patients at ICU discharge or death, this test may be misleading. The impact of censoring was also not considered in most analyses of the duration of delirium, as evaluated in 24 RCTs, with 21 (88%) delirium duration outcomes analyzed using a non-parametric test or two-sample t test. Composite outcomes (e.g., rank-based delirium- and coma-free days), used in 11 (17%) RCTs, seldom explicitly defined how ICU discharge, and death were incorporated into the definition and were analyzed using non-parametric tests (11 of 13 (85%) composite outcomes).ConclusionsTo improve delirium RCTs, outcomes should be explicitly defined. To account for censoring due to ICU discharge or death, survival analysis methods should be considered for delirium incidence and duration outcomes; non-parametric tests are recommended for rank-based delirium composite outcomes.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42020141204 . Registration date: 7/3/2019.
| S-EPMC8136095 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Accurate prediction of delirium in the intensive care unit (ICU) may facilitate efficient use of early preventive strategies and stratification of ICU patients by delirium risk in clinical research, but the optimal delirium prediction model to use is unclear. We compared the predictive performance and user convenience of the prediction model for delirium (PRE-DELIRIC) and early prediction model for delirium (E-PRE-DELIRIC) in ICU patients and determined the value of a two-stage calculation. METHODS:This 7-country, 11-hospital, prospective cohort study evaluated consecutive adults admitted to the ICU who could be reliably assessed for delirium using the Confusion Assessment Method-ICU or the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist. The predictive performance of the models was measured using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. Calibration was assessed graphically. A physician questionnaire evaluated user convenience. For the two-stage calculation we used E-PRE-DELIRIC immediately after ICU admission and updated the prediction using PRE-DELIRIC after 24 h. RESULTS:In total 2178 patients were included. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was significantly greater for PRE-DELIRIC (0.74 (95% confidence interval 0.71-0.76)) compared to E-PRE-DELIRIC (0.68 (95% confidence interval 0.66-0.71)) (z score of -?2.73 (p?<?0.01)). Both models were well-calibrated. The sensitivity improved when using the two-stage calculation in low-risk patients. Compared to PRE-DELIRIC, ICU physicians (n?=?68) rated the E-PRE-DELIRIC model more feasible. CONCLUSIONS:While both ICU delirium prediction models have moderate-to-good performance, the PRE-DELIRIC model predicts delirium better. However, ICU physicians rated the user convenience of E-PRE-DELIRIC superior to PRE-DELIRIC. In low-risk patients the delirium prediction further improves after an update with the PRE-DELIRIC model after 24 h. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02518646 . Registered on 21 July 2015.
| S-EPMC5935943 | biostudies-literature
Project description:INTRODUCTION: To systematically review studies evaluating the performance of Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA)-based models for predicting mortality in patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: Medline, EMBASE and other databases were searched for English-language articles with the major objective of evaluating the prognostic performance of SOFA-based models in predicting mortality in surgical and/or medical ICU admissions. The quality of each study was assessed based on a quality framework for prognostic models. RESULTS: Eighteen articles met all inclusion criteria. The studies differed widely in the SOFA derivatives used and in their methods of evaluation. Ten studies reported about developing a probabilistic prognostic model, only five of which used an independent validation data set. The other studies used the SOFA-based score directly to discriminate between survivors and non-survivors without fitting a probabilistic model. In five of the six studies, admission-based models (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II/III) were reported to have a slightly better discrimination ability than SOFA-based models at admission (the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of SOFA-based models ranged between 0.61 and 0.88), and in one study a SOFA model had higher AUC than the Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) II model. Four of these studies used the Hosmer-Lemeshow tests for calibration, none of which reported a lack of fit for the SOFA models. Models based on sequential SOFA scores were described in 11 studies including maximum SOFA scores and maximum sum of individual components of the SOFA score (AUC range: 0.69 to 0.92) and delta SOFA (AUC range: 0.51 to 0.83). Studies comparing SOFA with other organ failure scores did not consistently show superiority of one scoring system to another. Four studies combined SOFA-based derivatives with admission severity of illness scores, and they all reported on improved predictions for the combination. Quality of studies ranged from 11.5 to 19.5 points on a 20-point scale. CONCLUSIONS: Models based on SOFA scores at admission had only slightly worse performance than APACHE II/III and were competitive with SAPS II models in predicting mortality in patients in the general medical and/or surgical ICU. Models with sequential SOFA scores seem to have a comparable performance with other organ failure scores. The combination of sequential SOFA derivatives with APACHE II/III and SAPS II models clearly improved prognostic performance of either model alone. Due to the heterogeneity of the studies, it is impossible to draw general conclusions on the optimal mathematical model and optimal derivatives of SOFA scores. Future studies should use a standard evaluation methodology with a standard set of outcome measures covering discrimination, calibration and accuracy.
| S-EPMC2646326 | biostudies-other
Project description:PurposeThe purpose of this systematic review is to summarize the reported risk prediction models and identify the most prevalent factors for incident delirium in older inpatient populations (age ≥ 65 years). In the future, these risk factors could be used to develop a delirium risk prediction model in the electronic health record that can be used by the Hospital Elder Life Program to reduce the incidence of delirium.MethodsA medical librarian customized and conducted a search strategy for all published articles on delirium prediction models using an array of electronic databases and specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. Then, a geriatrician and two research associates assessed the quality of the selected studies using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS).ResultsA total of 4,351 articles were identified from initial literature search. After review, data were extracted from 12 studies. The quality of these studies was assessed using NOS and ranged from 4 to 8. The most common risk factors reported were dementia, decreased functional status, high blood urea nitrogen-to-creatinine ratio, infection and severe illness.ConclusionsThe most prevalent factors associated with incidence of delirium in hospitalized older patients identified by this systematic review could be used to develop an electronic health record-generated risk prediction model to identify inpatients at risk of developing delirium.
| S-EPMC6664369 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo develop and validate a delirium prediction model for adult intensive care patients and determine its additional value compared with prediction by caregivers.DesignObservational multicentre study.SettingFive intensive care units in the Netherlands (two university hospitals and three university affiliated teaching hospitals).Participants3056 intensive care patients aged 18 years or over.Main outcome measureDevelopment of delirium (defined as at least one positive delirium screening) during patients' stay in intensive care.ResultsThe model was developed using 1613 consecutive intensive care patients in one hospital and temporally validated using 549 patients from the same hospital. For external validation, data were collected from 894 patients in four other hospitals. The prediction (PRE-DELIRIC) model contains 10 risk factors-age, APACHE-II score, admission group, coma, infection, metabolic acidosis, use of sedatives and morphine, urea concentration, and urgent admission. The model had an area under the receiver operating characteristics curve of 0.87 (95% confidence interval 0.85 to 0.89) and 0.86 after bootstrapping. Temporal validation and external validation resulted in areas under the curve of 0.89 (0.86 to 0.92) and 0.84 (0.82 to 0.87). The pooled area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (n=3056) was 0.85 (0.84 to 0.87). The area under the curve for nurses' and physicians' predictions (n=124) was significantly lower at 0.59 (0.49 to 0.70) for both.ConclusionThe PRE-DELIRIC model for intensive care patients consists of 10 risk factors that are readily available within 24 hours after intensive care admission and has a high predictive value. Clinical prediction by nurses and physicians performed significantly worse. The model allows for early prediction of delirium and initiation of preventive measures. Trial registration Clinical trials NCT00604773 (development study) and NCT00961389 (validation study).
| S-EPMC3276486 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Delirium is a complication of critical illness associated with poor outcomes. Although widely studied in adults, comparatively little is understood about delirium in pediatric intensive care units (ICUs). The purpose of this integrative review is to determine the extent and nature of current evidence, identify gaps in the literature, and outline future areas for investigation of pediatric ICU delirium. Eligible articles included research reports of delirium in pediatric ICU samples published in English since 2009. After an extensive literature search and consideration for inclusion/exclusion criteria, 22 articles were chosen for review. Delirium was highly prevalent in the ICU. Delirium episodes developed early in hospitalization, lasted several days, and consisted of hypoactive or mixed motor subtypes. Frequently identified independent risk factors included young age, developmental delay, mechanical ventilation, and benzodiazepine exposure. Pediatric delirium was independently associated with increased length of stay, costs, and mortality. The long-term cognitive, psychological, and functional morbidities associated with pediatric delirium remain largely unknown. Few researchers have implemented interventions to prevent or manage delirium. There was little evidence for the efficacy or safety of pharmacological management. Multicomponent delirium bundles may significantly decrease delirium incidence. Key quality issues among studies included variation in delirium screening, low levels of evidence (i.e., observational studies), and limited ability to determine intervention efficacy in quasi-experimental designs. Although the quantity and quality of pediatric delirium research has rapidly increased, further studies are needed to understand the long-term effects of pediatric delirium and determine the efficacy and safety of interventions for prevention and management.
| S-EPMC8006059 | biostudies-literature