Delirium management in critically ill patients.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Calvo-Ayala E
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4224112 | biostudies-other | 2013
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Publications
Delirium management in critically ill patients.
Calvo-Ayala Enrique E Khan Babar B
Journal of symptoms and signs 20130101 1
Delirium among critically ill patients is common. Presence of delirium imparts a poorer prognosis to patients, including longer ICU and hospital length of stay, increased risk of institutionalization, higher health related costs, and elevated mortality. Even with such grave consequences, the rates of delirium diagnosis are dire. The importance of early recognition through validated tools and appropriate management of this life-threatening condition cannot be over emphasized. This article provide ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Delirium is a common yet under-diagnosed syndrome of acute brain dysfunction, which is characterized by inattention, fluctuating mental status, altered level of consciousness, or disorganized thinking. Although our recognition of risk factors for delirium has progressed, our understanding of the underlying pathophysiologic mechanisms remains limited. Improvements in monitoring and assessment for delirium (particularly in the intensive care setting) have resulted in validated and reliable tools such as arousal scales and bedside delirium monitoring instruments. Once delirium is recognized and the modifiable risk factors are addressed, the next step in management (if delirium persists) is often pharmacological intervention. The sedatives, analgesics, and hypnotics most often used in the intensive care unit (ICU) to achieve patient comfort are all too frequently deliriogenic, resulting in a longer duration of ICU and hospital stay, and increased costs. Therefore, identification of safe and efficacious agents to reduce the incidence, duration, and severity of ICU delirium is a hot topic in critical care. Recognizing that there are no medications approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the prevention or treatment of delirium, we chose anti-psychotics and alpha-2 agonists as the general pharmacological focus of this article because both were subjects of relatively recent data and ongoing clinical trials. Emerging pharmacological strategies for addressing delirium must be combined with nonpharmacological approaches (such as daily spontaneous awakening trials and spontaneous breathing trials) and early mobility (combined with the increasingly popular approach called: Awakening and Breathing Coordination, Delirium Monitoring, Early Mobility, and Exercise [ABCDE] of critical care) to develop evidence-based approaches that will ensure safer and faster recovery of the sickest patients in our healthcare system.
| S-EPMC3271151 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC9162788 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVES:Catatonia, a condition characterized by motor, behavioral, and emotional changes, can occur during critical illness and appear as clinically similar to delirium, yet its management differs from delirium. Traditional criteria for medical catatonia preclude its diagnosis in delirium. Our objective in this investigation was to understand the overlap and relationship between delirium and catatonia in ICU patients and determine diagnostic thresholds for catatonia. DESIGN:Convenience cohort, nested within two ongoing randomized trials. SETTING:Single academic medical center in Nashville, TN. PATIENTS:We enrolled 136 critically ill patients on mechanical ventilation and/or vasopressors, randomized to two usual care sedation regimens. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:Patients were assessed for delirium and catatonia by independent and masked personnel using Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU and the Bush Francis Catatonia Rating Scale mapped to Diagnostic Statistical Manual 5 criterion A for catatonia. Of 136 patients, 58 patients (43%) had only delirium, four (3%) had only catatonia, 42 (31%) had both, and 32 (24%) had neither. In a logistic regression model, more catatonia signs were associated with greater odds of having delirium. For example, patient assessments with greater than or equal to three Diagnostic Statistical Manual 5 symptoms (75th percentile) had, on average, 27.8 times the odds (interquartile range, 12.7-60.6) of having delirium compared with patient assessments with zero Diagnostic Statistical Manual 5 criteria (25th percentile) present (p < 0.001). A cut-off of greater than or equal to 4 Bush Francis Catatonia Screening Instrument items was both sensitive (91%; 95% CI, 82.9-95.3) and specific (91%; 95% CI, 87.6-92.9) for Diagnostic Statistical Manual 5 catatonia. CONCLUSIONS:Given that about one in three patients had both catatonia and delirium, these data prompt reconsideration of Diagnostic Statistical Manual 5 criteria for "Catatonic Disorder Due to Another Medical Condition" that preclude diagnosing catatonia in the presence of delirium.
| S-EPMC5678952 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The pathophysiology of delirium in critical illness is unclear. 25-OH vitamin D (25-OHD) has neuroprotective properties but a relationship between serum 25-OHD and delirium has not been examined. We tested the hypothesis that low serum 25-OHD is associated with delirium during critical illness.In a prospective cohort of 120 medical intensive care unit (ICU) patients, blood was collected within 24 hours of ICU admission for measurement of 25-OHD. Delirium was identified once daily using the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU. Multivariable logistic regression was used to analyze the association between 25-OHD and delirium assessed the same day and the subsequent day after 25-OHD measurement, with adjustments for age and severity of illness.Median age was 52 years (interquartile range, 40-62), and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II was 23 (interquartile range, 17-30). Thirty-seven patients (41%) were delirious on the day of 25-OHD measurement. 25-OHD levels were not associated with delirium on the day of 25-OHD measurement (odds ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval, 0.98-1.02) or on the day after measurement (odds ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval, 0.99-1.03).This pilot study suggests that 25-OHD levels measured early during critical illness are not important determinants of delirium risk. Since 25-OHD levels can fluctuate during critical illness, a study of daily serial measurements of 25-OHD levels and their relationship to delirium during the duration of critical illness may yield different results.
| S-EPMC3498519 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC6291937 | biostudies-literature
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC4056261 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo 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.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of published studies.Data sourcesPubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, and PsychINFO, with no language restrictions, up to 1 January 2015.Eligibility criteria for selection studiesReports 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.ResultsDelirium 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.ConclusionsNearly 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.
| S-EPMC4454920 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the attributable mortality caused by delirium in critically ill patients.DesignProspective cohort study.Setting32 mixed bed intensive care unit in the Netherlands, January 2011 to July 2013.Participants1112 consecutive adults admitted to an intensive care unit for a minimum of 24 hours.ExposuresTrained observers evaluated delirium daily using a validated protocol. Logistic regression and competing risks survival analyses were used to adjust for baseline variables and a marginal structural model analysis to adjust for confounding by evolution of disease severity before the onset of delirium.Main outcome measureMortality during admission to an intensive care unit.ResultsAmong 1112 evaluated patients, 558 (50.2%) developed at least one episode of delirium, with a median duration of 3 days (interquartile range 2-7 days). Crude mortality was 94/558 (17%) in patients with delirium compared with 40/554 (7%) in patients without delirium (P<0.001). Delirium was significantly associated with mortality in the multivariable logistic regression analysis (odds ratio 1.77, 95% confidence interval 1.15 to 2.72) and survival analysis (subdistribution hazard ratio 2.08, 95% confidence interval 1.40 to 3.09). However, the association disappeared after adjustment for time varying confounders in the marginal structural model (subdistribution hazard ratio 1.19, 95% confidence interval 0.75 to 1.89). Using this approach, only 7.2% (95% confidence interval -7.5% to 19.5%) of deaths in the intensive care unit were attributable to delirium, with an absolute mortality excess in patients with delirium of 0.9% (95% confidence interval -0.9% to 2.3%) by day 30. In post hoc analyses, however, delirium that persisted for two days or more remained associated with a 2.0% (95% confidence interval 1.2% to 2.8%) absolute mortality increase. Furthermore, competing risk analysis showed that delirium of any duration was associated with a significantly reduced rate of discharge from the intensive care unit (cause specific hazard ratio 0.65, 95% confidence interval 0.55 to 0.76).ConclusionsOverall, delirium prolongs admission in the intensive care unit but does not cause death in critically ill patients. Future studies should focus on episodes of persistent delirium and its long term sequelae rather than on acute mortality.Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01905033.
| S-EPMC4243039 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Persistent air leak (PAL) is a challenging clinical entity, particularly in the setting of critical illness. It is a significant cause of morbidity, health care expenditure, and resource utilization. Data on its prevalence in the critically ill patient population are limited. Unique patient factors often necessitate an individualized approach. Guidelines on this subject are antiquated and do not specially address patients on mechanical ventilation. Critically ill patients may not be able to tolerate surgical intervention. Treatment in this population relies upon lung protective ventilation, various anecdotal modalities, chemical pleurodesis, autologous blood patching, and bronchoscopic insertion of endobronchial valves. Ventilation strategies center on rapid weaning and reduction of airway pressures. Anecdotal methods include implantable devices and chemical agents. Data on these modalities are limited to case reports. None have United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval. The Spiration Valve System is FDA approved as a Humanitarian Device Exemption. Data on endobronchial valves are based on large case series, and only one small case series has focused exclusively on critically ill patients. The majority of valves in critically ill mechanically ventilated patients are used for non-FDA approved indications. Updated guidelines are desperately needed to ensure a standardized approach to this common clinical situation.
| S-EPMC8411173 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Intensive care unit (ICU) delirium is a frequent secondary neurological complication in critically ill patients undergoing prolonged mechanical ventilation. Quantitative pupillometry is an emerging modality for the neuromonitoring of primary acute brain injury, but its potential utility in patients at risk of ICU delirium is unknown. METHODS:This was an observational cohort study of medical-surgical ICU patients, without acute or known primary brain injury, who underwent sedation and mechanical ventilation for at least 48?h. Starting at day 3, automated infrared pupillometry-blinded to ICU caregivers-was used for repeated measurement of the pupillary function, including quantitative pupillary light reflex (q-PLR, expressed as % pupil constriction to a standardized light stimulus) and constriction velocity (CV, mm/s). The relationship between delirium, using the CAM-ICU score, and quantitative pupillary variables was examined. RESULTS:A total of 59/100 patients had ICU delirium, diagnosed at a median 8 (5-13) days from admission. Compared to non-delirious patients, subjects with ICU delirium had lower values of q-PLR (25 [19-31] vs. 20 [15-28] %) and CV (2.5 [1.7-2.8] vs. 1.7 [1.4-2.4] mm/s) at day 3, and at all additional time-points tested (p?<?0.05). After adjusting for the SOFA score and the cumulative dose of analgesia and sedation, lower q-PLR was associated with an increased risk of ICU delirium (OR 1.057 [1.007-1.113] at day 3; p?=?0.03). CONCLUSIONS:Sustained abnormalities of quantitative pupillary variables at the early ICU phase correlate with delirium and precede clinical diagnosis by a median 5?days. These findings suggest a potential utility of quantitative pupillometry in sedated mechanically ventilated ICU patients at high risk of delirium.
| S-EPMC7041194 | biostudies-literature