Comparison and agreement between the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale and the Riker Sedation-Agitation Scale in evaluating patients' eligibility for delirium assessment in the ICU.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Khan BA
PROVIDER: S-EPMC3610594 | biostudies-other | 2012 Jul
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectivesDelirium is frequently missed in older emergency department (ED) patients. Brief (<2 minutes) delirium assessments have been validated for the ED, but some ED health care providers may consider them to be cumbersome. The Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) is an observational scale that quantifies level of consciousness and takes less than 10 seconds to perform. The authors sought to explore the diagnostic accuracy of the RASS for delirium in older ED patients.MethodsThis was a preplanned analysis of a prospective observational study designed to validate brief delirium assessments for the ED. The study was conducted at an academic ED and enrolled patients who were 65 years or older. Patients who were non-English-speaking, deaf, blind, comatose or had end-stage dementia were excluded. A research assistant (RA) and a physician performed the RASS at the time of enrollment. Within 3 hours, a consultation-liaison psychiatrist performed his or her comprehensive reference standard assessment for delirium using Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Fourth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR) criteria. Sensitivities, specificities, and likelihood ratios with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.ResultsOf 406 enrolled patients, 50 (12.3%) had delirium diagnosed by the consult-liaison psychiatrist reference rater. When performed by the RA, a RASS other than 0 (RASS > 0 or < 0) was 84.0% sensitive (95% CI = 73.8% to 94.2%) and 87.6% specific (95% CI = 84.2% to 91.1%) for delirium. When performed by physician, a RASS other than 0 was 82.0% sensitive (95% CI = 71.4% to 92.6%) and 85.1% specific (95% CI = 81.4% to 88.8%) for delirium. Using a RASS > +1 or < -1 as the cutoff, the specificity improved to approximately 99% for both raters at the expense of sensitivity; the sensitivities were 22.0% (95% CI = 10.5% to 33.5%) and 16.0% (95% CI = 5.8% to 25.2%) in the RAs and physician raters, respectively. The positive likelihood ratio was 19.6 (95% CI = 6.5 to 59.1) when performed by the RA and 57.0 (95% CI = 7.3 to 445.9) when performed by the physician, indicating that a RASS > +1 or < -1 strongly increased the likelihood of delirium. The weighted kappa was 0.63, indicating moderate interobserver reliability.ConclusionsIn older ED patients, a RASS other than 0 has very good sensitivity and specificity for delirium as diagnosed by a psychiatrist. A RASS > +1 or < -1 is nearly diagnostic for delirium, given the very high positive likelihood ratio.
| S-EPMC4516221 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesDelirium disproportionately affects patients with dementia and is associated with adverse outcomes. The diagnosis of delirium superimposed on dementia (DSD), however, can be challenging due to several factors, including the absence of caregivers or the severity of preexisting cognitive impairment. Altered level of consciousness has been advocated as a possible useful indicator of delirium in this population. Here we evaluated the performance of the Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale (RASS) and the modified-RASS (m-RASS), an ultra-brief measure of the level of consciousness, in the diagnosis of DSD.DesignMulticenter prospective observational study. RASS and m-RASS results were analyzed together, labeled RASS/m-RASS.SettingAcute geriatric wards, in-hospital rehabilitation, emergency department.ParticipantsPatients 65 years and older with dementia.MeasurementsDelirium was diagnosed with the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition (DSM-IV) or with the Delirium Rating Scale-Revised (DRS-R-98), or with the 4 A's Test (4AT). Dementia was detected with the Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) Scale, the Short Form-Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly (IQCODE) or via the clinical records.ResultsOf the 645 patients included, 376 (58%) had delirium. According to the instrument used to evaluate delirium, the prevalence was 66% with the 4AT, 23% with the DSM, and 100% with the DRS-R-98. Overall a RASS/m-RASS score other than 0 was 70.5% sensitive (95% confidence interval [CI] 65.9%-75.1%) and 84.8% (CI 80.5%-89.1%) specific for DSD. Using a RASS/m-RASS value greater than +1 or less than -1 as a cutoff, the sensitivity was 30.6% (CI 25.9%-35.2%) and the specificity was 95.5% (CI 93.1%-98.0%). The sensitivity and the specificity did not greatly vary according to the method of delirium diagnosis and the dementia ascertainment, although the specificity was slightly higher when the DSM and the IQCODE were used.ConclusionIn older patients admitted to different clinical settings, the RASS and m-RASS analyzed as a single group had moderate sensitivity and very high specificity for the detection of DSD. Level of consciousness is therefore a valuable clinical indicator that should form part of delirium screening strategies, although for higher sensitivity other methods of assessment should be used.
| S-EPMC5257263 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The Sequential Organ Failure Assessment and other severity of illness scales rely on the Glasgow Coma Scale to measure acute neurologic dysfunction, but the Glasgow Coma Scale is unavailable or inconsistently applied in some institutions. The objective of this study was to assess the validity of a modified Sequential Organ Failure Assessment that uses the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale instead of Glasgow Coma Scale.Prospective cohort study.Medical and surgical ICUs within a large, tertiary care hospital.Critically ill medical/surgical ICU patients.We calculated daily Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores by using electronic medical record-derived data. By using bedside nurse-recorded Glasgow Coma Scale and Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale measures, we calculated neurologic Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores using the original Glasgow Coma Scale-based approach and a novel Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale-based approach, converting the 10-point Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale to a 4-point neurologic Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score. We assessed construct validity of Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale-based Sequential Organ Failure Assessment by analyzing correlations with established severity of illness constructs (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II and Glasgow Coma Scale-based Sequential Organ Failure Assessment) and predictive validity by using logistic regression to determine whether Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale-based Sequential Organ Failure Assessment predicts ICU, hospital, and 1-year mortality. We assessed discriminative performance with c-statistics.Among 513 patients (5,199 patient-days), Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale-based Sequential Organ Failure Assessment was strongly correlated with Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II acute physiology score at enrollment (r = 0.583; 95% CI, 0.518-0.642) and daily Glasgow Coma Scale-based Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores (r = 0.963; 95% CI, 0.956-0.968). Mean Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale-based Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores predicted ICU mortality (areas under the curve = 0.814)-as did mean Glasgow Coma Scale-based Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (0.799)-as well as hospital and 1-year mortality. Admission Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores, whether using Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale or Glasgow Coma Scale, were less accurate predictors of mortality; areas under the curves for ICU mortality for Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale-based and Glasgow Coma Scale-based Sequential Organ Failure Assessment, for example, were 0.622 and 0.608, respectively.A modified Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score that uses bedside Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale when Glasgow Coma Scale data are not available is a valid means of assessing daily severity of illness in the ICU and may be valuable for risk-adjustment and benchmarking purposes.
| S-EPMC4748963 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVES:Delirium severity is independently associated with longer hospital stays, nursing home placement, and death in patients outside the ICU. Delirium severity in the ICU is not routinely measured because the available instruments are difficult to complete in critically ill patients. We designed our study to assess the reliability and validity of a new ICU delirium severity tool, the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU-7 delirium severity scale. DESIGN:Observational cohort study. SETTING:Medical, surgical, and progressive ICUs of three academic hospitals. PATIENTS:Five hundred eighteen adult (? 18 yr) patients. INTERVENTIONS:None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:Patients received the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU, Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale, and Delirium Rating Scale-Revised-98 assessments. A 7-point scale (0-7) was derived from responses to the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU and Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale items. Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU-7 showed high internal consistency (Cronbach's ? = 0.85) and good correlation with Delirium Rating Scale-Revised-98 scores (correlation coefficient = 0.64). Known-groups validity was supported by the separation of mechanically ventilated and nonventilated assessments. Median Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU-7 scores demonstrated good predictive validity with higher odds (odds ratio = 1.47; 95% CI = 1.30-1.66) of in-hospital mortality and lower odds (odds ratio = 0.8; 95% CI = 0.72-0.9) of being discharged home after adjusting for age, race, gender, severity of illness, and chronic comorbidities. Higher Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU-7 scores were also associated with increased length of ICU stay (p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS:Our results suggest that Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU-7 is a valid and reliable delirium severity measure among ICU patients. Further research comparing it to other delirium severity measures, its use in delirium efficacy trials, and real-life implementation is needed to determine its role in research and clinical practice.
| S-EPMC5392153 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWe applied the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM)-Intensive Care Unit (ICU)-7 delirium scale to patients who underwent liver transplant (LT).MethodsRetrospective cohort including patients who underwent LT for cirrhosis admitted to the ICU from June 2013 to June 2016 at the University of Alberta Hospital, Canada. Delirium was assessed using the CAM-ICU-7 scale (0-7 points) twice daily on days one and 3 post LT, with the highest score being considered. Primary endpoint was hospital mortality.ResultsAmong all patients, 101/150 (67.3%) were men and mean age was 52.4 (SD 11.8) years. On days 1 and 3 post LT, mean CAM-ICU-7 scores were 1.8 (SD 1.3) and 1.6 (SD 1.8), respectively. Therefore, on days 1 and 3 post LT, 38/150 (25.3%) and 26/95 (27.4%) patients had delirium. While delirium on day 3 post LT was associated with higher hospital mortality (11.5% versus 0%; p = 0.019), it was not associated with length-of-hospital stay (29.2 versus 34.4 days; p = 0.36). Following adjustment for APACHEII score, delirium on day 3 post LT was associated with higher odds of hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.89 [95% CI 1.02-3.50]). Following adjustment for Glasgow Coma Scale and mechanical ventilation, serum creatinine was associated with higher odds of delirium on day 3 post LT (aOR 2.02 [95% CI 1.08-3.77]).ConclusionsUsing the CAM-ICU-7 scale, delirium was diagnosed in a fourth of patients who underwent LT. Delirium on day 3 post LT was associated with higher odds of hospital mortality.
| S-EPMC10370723 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveIn a multicenter, international cohort, we aimed to validate a modified Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (mSOFA) using the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale, hypothesized as comparable to the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS)-based Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA).Summary background dataThe SOFA score, whose neurologic component is based on the GCS, can predict intensive care unit (ICU) mortality. But, GCS is often missing in lieu of other assessments, such as the also reliable and validated Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS). Single-center data suggested an RASS-based SOFA (mSOFA) predicted ICU mortality.MethodsOur nested cohort within the prospective 2016 Fourth International Study of Mechanical Ventilation contains 4120 ventilated patients with daily RASS and GCS assessments (20,023 patient-days, 32 countries). We estimated GCS from RASS via a proportional odds model without adjustment. ICU mortality logistic regression models and c-statistics were constructed using SOFA (measured GCS) and mSOFA (measured RASS-estimated GCS), adjusted for age, sex, body-mass index, region (Europe, USA-Canada, Latin America, Africa, Asia, Australia-New Zealand), and postoperative status (medical/surgical).ResultsCohort-wide, the mean SOFA=9.4+/-2.8 and mean mSOFA = 10.0+/-2.3, with ICU mortality = 31%. Mean SOFA and mSOFA similarly predicted ICU mortality (SOFA: AUC = 0.784, 95% CI = 0.769-0.799; mSOFA: AUC = 0.778, 95% CI = 0.763-0.793, P = 0.139). Across models, other predictors of mortality included higher age, female sex, medical patient, and African region (all P < 0.001).ConclusionsWe present the first SOFA modification with RASS in a "real-world" international cohort. Estimating GCS from RASS preserves predictive validity of SOFA to predict ICU mortality. Alternative neurologic measurements like RASS can be viably integrated into severity of illness scoring systems like SOFA.
| S-EPMC10573707 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundManaging the amount of use of sedatives due to their high side effects in the intensive care unit is essential. Sedation-agitation protocols may play an important role in this regard. However, they have not been practically applied in Iran.AimsThis study aimed to evaluate the effect of using the Richmond agitation and sedation scale on hospital stay duration and dependency rate on the intensive care unit ventilator system in Ahwaz City, Iran, in 2016-2017.MethodsThis randomised clinical trial was conducted on 74 patients. The subjects were selected by a stratified sampling method and divided into the experimental (n = 32) and control (n = 32) groups. Sedation and agitation levels were managed by the Richmond agitation and sedation scale as soon as the samples were anxious and agitated, and every 6 hours in the intervention group. However, the control group received routine care. The data obtained were analysed by the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS).ResultsThere was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of demographic variables, such as age, gender, admission diagnosis and Glasgow coma scale scores on admission. However, they differed in terms of hospital stay duration and ventilator connection (P < 0.001), Glasgow coma scale score at the separation time from the device (P < 0.001), Glasgow coma scale score at the discharge time from the intensive care unit (P < 0.02) and intensive care unit death rate (P < 0.001). In all cases mentioned previously, the intervention group's condition was better.ConclusionsBased on the results of this study, as well as the approval of validation and reliability of the Richmond agitation and sedation scale in different studies, this protocol can be very effective in optimising the use of sedatives in the intensive care unit.
| S-EPMC7932456 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesWe examined the relationship between dominant sedation strategy, risk of delirium and patient-centred outcomes in adults admitted to intensive care units (ICUs).DesignRetrospective propensity-matched cohort study.SettingMechanically ventilated adults (≥ 18 years) admitted to four Canadian hospital medical/surgical ICUs from 2014 to 2016 in Calgary, Alberta, Canada.Participants2837 mechanically ventilated adults (≥ 18 years) requiring admission to a medical/surgical ICU were evaluated for the relationship between sedation strategy and delirium.InterventionsNone.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe primary exposure was dominant sedation strategy, defined as the sedative infusion, including midazolam, propofol or fentanyl, with the longest duration before the first delirium assessment. The primary outcome was 'ever delirium' identified using the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist. Secondary outcomes included mortality, length of stay (LOS), ventilation duration and days with delirium. The cohort was analysed in two propensity score (patient characteristics and therapies received) matched cohorts (propofol vs fentanyl and propofol vs midazolam).Results2837 patients (60.7% male; median age 57 years (IQR 43-68)) were considered for propensity matching. In propensity score-matched cohorts(propofol vs midazolam, n=712; propofol vs fentanyl, n=1732), the odds of delirium were significantly higher with midazolam (OR 1.46 (95% CI 1.06 to 2.00)) and fentanyl (OR 1.22 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.48)) compared with propofol dominant sedation strategies. Dominant sedation strategy with midazolam and fentanyl were associated with a longer duration of ventilation compared with propofol. Fentanyl was also associated with increased ICU mortality (OR 1.50, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.12)) ICU and hospital LOS compared with a propofol dominant sedation strategy.ConclusionsWe identified a novel association between fentanyl dominant sedation strategies and an increased risk of delirium, a composite outcome of delirium or death, duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU LOS and hospital LOS. Midazolam dominant sedation strategies were associated with increased delirium risk and mechanical ventilation duration.
| S-EPMC8292822 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This study aimed to compare Neonatal Pain, Agitation, and Sedation Scale (N-PASS) with Premature Infant Pain Profile (PIPP) for the assessment of acute prolonged pain in ventilated neonates.This study was conducted in two phases. In phase 1 of the study, we assessed whether neonates on assisted ventilation experienced acute prolonged pain. In phase 2, the aim was to compare N-PASS with PIPP for the assessment of acute prolonged pain in neonates on assisted ventilation..This is a prospective observational study.This study was conducted at a tertiary care neonatal intensive care unit for 6 months.Neonates on assisted ventilation for >48 h were selected for this study.Neonates with lethal congenital anomalies and severe encephalopathy were excluded from the study. N-PASS and PIPP tools were used to assess acute prolonged pain in ventilated neonates. Taking PIPP as gold standard and N-PASS as a new test, the correlation coefficient was calculated. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were also computed. The time taken to administer the tools was also computed.The average PIPP score for ventilated neonates was 8.33. The correlation coefficient of N-PASS when compared to PIPP was 0.62. The average time taken to apply the N-PASS scale was 4.42 min as compared to 8.20 min for PIPP scale. In term neonates, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of N-PASS were 75%, 100%, 100%, and 60%, respectively. The corresponding values in preterm neonates were lesser.The study proves that neonates on assisted ventilation experience acute prolonged pain. N-PASS is clinically reliable and valid to assess acute prolonged pain in ventilated term neonates. The N-PASS is quicker than PIPP in assessing acute prolonged pain in ventilated neonates.The modified N-PASS tool (including the gestational age) should be developed.
| S-EPMC5545954 | biostudies-other
Project description:OBJECTIVES:Mechanically ventilated critically ill patients receive significant amounts of sedatives and analgesics that increase their risk of developing coma and delirium. We evaluated the impact of a "Wake-up and Breathe Protocol" at our local ICU on sedation and delirium. DESIGN:A pre/post implementation study design. SETTING:A 22-bed mixed surgical and medical ICU. PATIENTS:Seven hundred two consecutive mechanically ventilated ICU patients from June 2010 to January 2013. INTERVENTIONS:Implementation of daily paired spontaneous awakening trials (daily sedation vacation plus spontaneous breathing trials) as a quality improvement project. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:After implementation of our program, there was an increase in the mean Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale scores on weekdays of 0.88 (p < 0.0001) and an increase in the mean Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale scores on weekends of 1.21 (p < 0.0001). After adjusting for age, race, gender, severity of illness, primary diagnosis, and ICU, the incidence and prevalence of delirium did not change post implementation of the protocol (incidence: 23% pre vs 19.6% post; p = 0.40; prevalence: 66.7% pre vs 55.3% post; p = 0.06). The combined prevalence of delirium/coma decreased from 90.8% pre protocol implementation to 85% postimplementation (odds ratio, 0.505; 95% CI, 0.299-0.853; p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS:Implementing a "Wake Up and Breathe Program" resulted in reduced sedation among critically ill mechanically ventilated patients but did not change the incidence or prevalence of delirium.
| S-EPMC4311879 | biostudies-literature