Dataset Information

Social Determinants of Health and Delirium Occurrence and Duration in Critically Ill Adults.

ABSTRACT: Social determinants of health may affect ICU outcome, but the association between social determinants of health and delirium remains unclear. We evaluated the association between three social determinants of health and delirium occurrence and duration in critically ill adults.

Design

Secondary, subgroup analysis of a cohort study.

Setting

Single, 36-bed mixed medical-surgical ICU in the Netherlands.

Patients

Nine hundred fifty-six adults consecutively admitted from July 2016 to February 2020. Patients admitted after elective surgery, residing in a nursing home, or not expected to survive greater than or equal to 48 hours were excluded.

Intervention

None.

Measurements and main results

Four factors related to three Center for Disease Control social determinants of health domains (social/community context [ethnicity], education access/quality [educational level], and economic stability [employment status and monthly income]) were collected at ICU admission from patients (or families). Well-trained ICU nurses evaluated patients without coma (Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale, -4, -5) and with the Confusion Assessment Method-ICU and/or a delirium day was defined by greater than or equal to 1 + Confusion Assessment Method-ICU and/or scheduled antipsychotic use. Multivariable logistic regression models controlling for ICU days and 10 delirium risk variables (before-ICU: age, Charlson, cognitive impairment, any antidepressant, antipsychotic, or benzodiazepine use; ICU baseline: Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation IV and admission type; daily ICU: Sequential Organ Failure Assessment, restraint use, coma, benzodiazepine, or opioid use) evaluated associations between each social determinant of health factor and both ICU delirium occurrence and duration. Delirium occurred in 393/956 patients (45.4%) for 2 days (1-5 d). Patients with low (vs high) income had more ICU delirium (p = 0.05). Multivariate analyses revealed no social determinants of health to be significantly associated with increased delirium occurrence or duration. Low (vs high) income was weakly associated with increased delirium occurrence (adjusted odds ratio, 1.83; 95% CI, 0.91-3.89). Low (vs high) education (adjusted relative risk, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.97-1.53) was weakly associated with a longer delirium duration.

Conclusions

Social determinants of health did not affect ICU delirium in one Dutch region. Additional research across different countries/regions and where additional social determinants of health are considered is needed to define the association between social determinants of health and ICU delirium.

SUBMITTER: Wu TT

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8425818 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo determine delirium occurrence rate, duration, and severity in patients admitted to the ICU with coronavirus disease 2019.DesignRetrospective data extraction study from March 1, 2020, to June 7, 2020. Delirium outcomes were assessed for up to the first 14 days in ICU.SettingTwo large, academic centers serving the state of Indiana.PatientsConsecutive patients admitted to the ICU with positive severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 nasopharyngeal swab polymerase chain reaction test from March 1, 2020, to June 7, 2020, were included. Individuals younger than 18 years of age, without any delirium assessments, or without discharge disposition were excluded.Measurements and main resultsPrimary outcomes were delirium rates and duration, and the secondary outcome was delirium severity. Two-hundred sixty-eight consecutive patients were included in the analysis with a mean age of 58.4 years (sd, 15.6 yr), 40.3% were female, 44.4% African American, 20.7% Hispanic, and a median Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score of 18 (interquartile range, 13-25). Delirium without coma occurred in 29.1% of patients, delirium prior to coma in 27.9%, and delirium after coma in 23.1%. The first Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU assessment was positive for delirium in 61.9%. Hypoactive delirium was the most common subtype (87.4%). By day 14, the median number of delirium/coma-free were 5 days (interquartile range, 4-11 d), and median Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU-7 score was 6.5 (interquartile range, 5-7) indicating severe delirium. Benzodiazepines were ordered for 78.4% of patients in the cohort. Mechanical ventilation was associated with greater odds of developing delirium (odds ratio, 5.0; 95% CI, 1.1-22.2; p = 0.033) even after adjusting for sedative medications. There were no between-group differences in mortality.ConclusionsDelirium without coma occurred in 29.1% of patients admitted to the ICU. Delirium persisted for a median of 5 days and was severe. Mechanical ventilation was significantly associated with odds of delirium even after adjustment for sedatives. Clinical attention to manage delirium duration and severity, and deeper understanding of the virus' neurologic effects is needed for patients with coronavirus disease 2019.

Project description:Background: Systemic inflammation is a whole body reaction that can have an infection-positive (i.e. sepsis) or infection-negative origin. It is important to distinguish between septic and non-septic presentations early and reliably, because this has significant therapeutic implications for critically ill patients. We hypothesized that a molecular classifier based on a small number of RNAs expressed in peripheral blood could be discovered that would: 1) determine which patients with systemic inflammation had sepsis; 2) be robust across independent patient cohorts; 3) be insensitive to disease severity; and 4) provide diagnostic utility. The overall goal of this study was to identify and validate such a molecular classifier. Methods and Findings: We conducted an observational, non-interventional study of adult patients recruited from tertiary intensive care units (ICU). Biomarker discovery was conducted with an Australian cohort (n = 105) consisting of sepsis patients and post -surgical patients with infection-negative systemic inflammation. Using this cohort, a four-gene classifier consisting of a combination of CEACAM4, LAMP1, PLA2G7 and PLAC8 RNA biomarkers was identified. This classifier, designated SeptiCyteÂ® Lab, was externally validated using RT-qPCR and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis in five cohorts (n = 345) from the Netherlands. Cohort 1 (n=59) consisted of unambiguous septic cases and infection-negative systemic inflammation controls; SeptiCyteÂ® Lab gave an area under curve (AUC) of 0.96 (95% CI: 0.91-1.00). ROC analysis of a more heterogeneous group of patients (Cohorts 2-5; 249 patients after excluding 37 patients with infection likelihood possible) gave an AUC of 0.89 (95% CI: 0.85-0.93). Disease severity, as measured by Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score or the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) IV score, was not a significant confounding variable. The diagnostic utility o f SeptiCyteÂ® Lab was evaluated by comparison to various clinical and laboratory parameters that would be available to a clinician within 24 hours of ICU admission. SeptiCyteÂ® Lab was significantly better at differentiating sepsis from infection-negative systemic inflammation than all tested parameters, both singly and in various logistic combinations. SeptiCyteÂ® Lab more than halved the diagnostic error rate compared to PCT in all tested cohorts or cohort combinations. Conclusions: SeptiCyteÂ® Lab is a rapid molecular assay that may be clinically useful in the management of ICU patients with systemic inflammation. SIRS and Sepsis ICU patients, admission samples Retrospective, mutli-site sutdy using retrospective physician adjudication as a comparator

Project description:Background: Systemic inflammation is a whole body reaction that can have an infection-positive (i.e. sepsis) or infection-negative origin. It is important to distinguish between septic and non-septic presentations early and reliably, because this has significant therapeutic implications for critically ill patients. We hypothesized that a molecular classifier based on a small number of RNAs expressed in peripheral blood could be discovered that would: 1) determine which patients with systemic inflammation had sepsis; 2) be robust across independent patient cohorts; 3) be insensitive to disease severity; and 4) provide diagnostic utility. The overall goal of this study was to identify and validate such a molecular classifier. Methods and Findings: We conducted an observational, non-interventional study of adult patients recruited from tertiary intensive care units (ICU). Biomarker discovery was conducted with an Australian cohort (n = 105) consisting of sepsis patients and post -surgical patients with infection-negative systemic inflammation. Using this cohort, a four-gene classifier consisting of a combination of CEACAM4, LAMP1, PLA2G7 and PLAC8 RNA biomarkers was identified. This classifier, designated SeptiCyte® Lab, was externally validated using RT-qPCR and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis in five cohorts (n = 345) from the Netherlands. Cohort 1 (n=59) consisted of unambiguous septic cases and infection-negative systemic inflammation controls; SeptiCyte® Lab gave an area under curve (AUC) of 0.96 (95% CI: 0.91-1.00). ROC analysis of a more heterogeneous group of patients (Cohorts 2-5; 249 patients after excluding 37 patients with infection likelihood possible) gave an AUC of 0.89 (95% CI: 0.85-0.93). Disease severity, as measured by Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score or the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) IV score, was not a significant confounding variable. The diagnostic utility o f SeptiCyte® Lab was evaluated by comparison to various clinical and laboratory parameters that would be available to a clinician within 24 hours of ICU admission. SeptiCyte® Lab was significantly better at differentiating sepsis from infection-negative systemic inflammation than all tested parameters, both singly and in various logistic combinations. SeptiCyte® Lab more than halved the diagnostic error rate compared to PCT in all tested cohorts or cohort combinations. Conclusions: SeptiCyte® Lab is a rapid molecular assay that may be clinically useful in the management of ICU patients with systemic inflammation. SIRS and Sepsis ICU patients, admission samples

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.

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.

Project description:AimDelirium poses a major challenge to global health care, yet there is currently a dearth of single effective interventions or medications. Particularly, addressing delirium induced by critical illness is a complex process. Occupational therapy is considered to have a high potential for use in the prevention of delirium, as it involves both cognitive training and training in ADL. To comprehensively analyze the effect of occupational therapy on delirium prevention, we evaluated the effects of occupational therapy vs. standard non-pharmacological prevention on incidence and duration of delirium, clinical outcomes and rehabilitation outcomes in critically ill patients.MethodsThe data sources, including PubMed/Medline, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library, were comprehensively searched from their inception until 15 October 2023. Following the PICOS principle, a systematic screening of literature was conducted to identify relevant studies. Subsequently, the quality assessment was performed to evaluate the risk of bias in the included literature. Finally, outcome measures from each study were extracted and comprehensive analysis was conducted using Review Manager 5.4.ResultsA total of four clinical trials met the selection criteria. The pooled analysis indicated no significant difference in the incidence and duration of delirium between the OT group and standard non-pharmacological interventions. A comprehensive analysis of clinical outcomes revealed that OT did not significantly reduce the length of hospital stay or ICU stay. Meanwhile, there was no significant difference in mortality rates between the two groups. It is noteworthy that although grip strength levels did not exhibit significant improvement following OT intervention, there were obvious enhancements observed in ADL and MMSE scores.ConclusionAlthough occupational therapy may not be the most effective in preventing delirium, it has been shown to significantly improve ADL and cognitive function among critically ill patients. Therefore, we contend that occupational therapy is a valuable component of a comprehensive multidisciplinary approach to managing delirium. In the future, high-quality researches are warranted to optimize the implementation of occupational therapy interventions for delirium prevention and further enhance their benefits for patients.