Worldwide Survey of the "Assessing Pain, Both Spontaneous Awakening and Breathing Trials, Choice of Drugs, Delirium Monitoring/Management, Early Exercise/Mobility, and Family Empowerment" (ABCDEF) Bundle

Delirium assessment in neuro-critically ill patients: A validation study

BACKGROUND

Delirium is underinvestigated in the neuro-critically ill, although the harmful effect of delirium is well established in patients in medical and surgical intensive care units (ICU).To detect delirium, a valid tool is needed. We hypothesized that delirium screening would be feasible in patients with acute brain injury and we aimed to validate and compare the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU and the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist against clinical International Classification of Diseases-10 criteria as reference.

METHODS

Nurses assessed delirium using the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU and Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist in adult patients with acute brain injury admitted to the Neurointensive care unit (Neuro-ICU), Copenhagen University Hospital, if their Richmond agitation-sedation scale score was -2 or above. As the reference, a team of psychiatrist assessed patients using the International Classification of Diseases-10 criteria.

RESULTS

We enrolled 74 patients, of whom 25 (34%) were deemed unable to assess by the psychiatrists, leaving 49 (66%) for final analysis. Sensitivity and specificity for the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU was 59% (95% CI: 41-75) and 56% (95% CI: 32-78), respectively, and 85% (95% CI: 70-94) and 75% (95% CI: 51-92), respectively, for the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist may be a valid tool and the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU is less suitable for delirium detection for patients in the Neuro-ICU. In the neuro-critically ill, delirium screening is challenged by limited feasibility.

Ability to predict team members' behaviors in ICU teams is associated with routine ABCDE implementation

PURPOSE

Poor coordination may impede delivery of the Awakening, Breathing Coordination, Delirium monitoring/management and Early exercise/mobility (ABCDE) bundle. Developing a shared mental model (SMM), where all team members are on the same page, may support coordination.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We administered a survey at the 2016 MHA Keystone Center ICU workshop. We measured different components of SMMs using five items from a validated survey, each on a 5-point Likert scale (strongly agree-strongly disagree). We measured self-reported routine ABCDE implementation using a single item 4-point Likert scale (ABCDE is routine-Made no steps to implement ABCDE). We examined the relationship between SMMs and routine ABCDE implementation using logistic regression, adjusting for confounders.

RESULTS

Among the 206 (75%) responses, 157 (84%) reported using the ABCDE bundle and 80 (51% of 157) reported routine use. When clinicians agreed it was difficult to predict team members' behaviors, the odds of reporting routine ABCDE implementation significantly decreased [0.26 (0.10-0.66)]. Other SMM components related to knowing team members' skills, access to information, team adaptability, and team help behavior, were not significantly associated with the outcome.

CONCLUSION

Increasing awareness of team members' behaviors may be a mechanism to improve the implementation of complex care bundles like ABCDE.

Development and validation of a dynamic delirium prediction rule in patients admitted to the Intensive Care Units (DYNAMIC-ICU): A prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Delirium is one of the most common cognitive complications among patients admitted to the intensive care units (ICU).

OBJECTIVE

To develop and validate a DYNAmic deliriuM predICtion rule for ICU patients (DYNAMIC-ICU) and to stratify patients into different risk levels among patients in various types of ICUs.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

A total of 560 (median age of 66 years, 62.5% male) consecutively enrolled patients from four ICUs were included in the study. The patients were randomly assigned into either the derivation (n = 336, 60%) or the validation (n = 224, 40%) cohort by stratified randomization based on delirium/non-delirium and types of ICU.

METHODS

The simplified Chinese version of the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) was used to assess delirium until patients were discharged from the ICUs. Potential predisposing, disease-related, and iatrogenic and environmental risk factors as well as data on patients' outcomes were collected prospectively.

RESULTS

Of the enrolled patients, 20.2% and 20.5% developed delirium in the derivation and validation cohorts, respectively. Predisposing factors (history of chronic diseases, hearing deficits), disease-related factors (infection, higher APACHE II scores at admission), and iatrogenic and environmental factors (the use of sedatives and analgesics, indwelling catheter, and sleep disturbance) were identified as independent predictors of delirium. Points were assigned to each predictor according to their odds ratio to create a prediction rule which was internally validated based on total scores and by bootstrapping (AUCs of 0.907 [95% CI 0. 871 -0.944], 0.888 [95% CI 0.845-0.932], and 0.874 [95% CI 0.828-0.920]), respectively. The total score of the DYNAMIC-ICU ranged from 0 to 33 and patients were divided into low risk (0-9), moderate risk (10-17), high risk (18-33) groups in developing delirium according to their total score with incidence of delirium at 2.8%, 16.8% and 75.9% in the derivation group, respectively. The DYNAMIC-ICU and its performance of risk level stratification were further validated in the validation cohort (AUC = 0.900 [95% CI 0.858-0.941]). The all-cause mortality was increased and the length of hospital stay was prolonged dramatically with the increase of delirium risk levels in both derivation (p = 0.034, p < 0.001) and validation cohorts (p < 0.001, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Seven predictors for ICU delirium were identified to create DYNAMIC-ICU, which could well stratify ICU patients into three different delirium risk levels, tailor risk level changes, and predict in-hospital outcomes by a dynamic assessment approach.

Analgesia, sedation, and delirium in pediatric surgical critical care

The alleviation of discomfort and distress is an essential component of the management of critically ill surgical patients. Pain and anxiety have multifocal etiologies that may be related to an underlying disease or surgical procedure, ongoing medical therapy, invasive monitors, an unfamiliar, complex and chaotic environment, as well as fear. Pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic therapies have complex risk benefit profiles. A fundamental understanding of analgesia, sedation, and delirium is essential for optimizing important outcomes in critically ill pediatric surgical patients. There has been a recent emphasis on goal directed, evidence based, and patient-centered management of the physical and psychological needs of these children. The purpose of this article is to review and summarize recent advances and describe current practice of these important subjects in the pediatric surgical intensive care environment.

Haloperidol and Ziprasidone for Treatment of Delirium in Critical Illness

BACKGROUND

There are conflicting data on the effects of antipsychotic medications on delirium in patients in the intensive care unit (ICU).

METHODS

In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we assigned patients with acute respiratory failure or shock and hypoactive or hyperactive delirium to receive intravenous boluses of haloperidol (maximum dose, 20 mg daily), ziprasidone (maximum dose, 40 mg daily), or placebo. The volume and dose of a trial drug or placebo was halved or doubled at 12-hour intervals on the basis of the presence or absence of delirium, as detected with the use of the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU, and of side effects of the intervention. The primary end point was the number of days alive without delirium or coma during the 14-day intervention period. Secondary end points included 30-day and 90-day survival, time to freedom from mechanical ventilation, and time to ICU and hospital discharge. Safety end points included extrapyramidal symptoms and excessive sedation.

RESULTS

Written informed consent was obtained from 1183 patients or their authorized representatives. Delirium developed in 566 patients (48%), of whom 89% had hypoactive delirium and 11% had hyperactive delirium. Of the 566 patients, 184 were randomly assigned to receive placebo, 192 to receive haloperidol, and 190 to receive ziprasidone. The median duration of exposure to a trial drug or placebo was 4 days (interquartile range, 3 to 7). The median number of days alive without delirium or coma was 8.5 (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.6 to 9.9) in the placebo group, 7.9 (95% CI, 4.4 to 9.6) in the haloperidol group, and 8.7 (95% CI, 5.9 to 10.0) in the ziprasidone group (P=0.26 for overall effect across trial groups). The use of haloperidol or ziprasidone, as compared with placebo, had no significant effect on the primary end point (odds ratios, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.64 to 1.21] and 1.04 [95% CI, 0.73 to 1.48], respectively). There were no significant between-group differences with respect to the secondary end points or the frequency of extrapyramidal symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of haloperidol or ziprasidone, as compared with placebo, in patients with acute respiratory failure or shock and hypoactive or hyperactive delirium in the ICU did not significantly alter the duration of delirium. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and the VA Geriatric Research Education and Clinical Center; MIND-USA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01211522 .).

Challenges of pain management in neurologically injured patients: systematic review protocol of analgesia and sedation strategies for early recovery from neurointensive care

BACKGROUND

A recent paradigm shift within the intensive care discipline has led to implementation of protocols to drive early recovery from the intensive care unit (ICU). These protocols belong to a large knowledge, translation and quality improvement initiative lead by the Society of Critical Care Medicine, aiming to "liberate" patients from the ICU. They "bundle" evidence-based elements shown to lower ICU stay and mortality and optimize pain management. The bundled elements focus on Assessing, preventing and managing pain; Both spontaneous awakening trials and spontaneous breathing trials; Choice of analgesia and sedation; assessment, prevention, and management of Delirium; Early mobility and exercise; and Family engagement and empowerment (ABCDEF). It is evident that analgesia and sedation protocols either directly relate to or influence most of the bundle elements. A paucity of literature exists for neurologically injured patients, who create unique challenges to bundle implementation and often have limited external validity in existent studies. We will systematically search the literature, present the unique challenges of neurointensive care patients, conduct a stratified analysis of subgroups of interest, and disseminate the evidence of analgesia and sedation protocols in the neurointensive care unit (NICU). We hope the relevant stakeholders can adapt this information through knowledge translation-to make formal recommendations in clinical practice guidelines or a position statement.

METHODS/DESIGN

The authors will search MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Cochrane Clinical Trials Registry, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Search Portal, and the National Institutes for Health Clinical Trials Registry. The title, abstract, and full-text screening will be completed in duplicate, and a Cohen's Kappa coefficient of agreement will be reported. Provided the data retrieved from studies is suitable, results will be combined statistically using meta-analysis. We aim to evaluate the impact of ABCDEF bundle components on multiple endpoints of NICU recovery. Our primary outcomes will be time to successful discontinuation of mechanical ventilation and time to early mobility. The authors will guide the methodological design of the study using the PRISMA-statement and the checklist compliance will be available.

DISCUSSION

Using the evidence from this systematic review, we anticipate disseminating knowledge of analgesia and sedation protocols in the NICU. The results of this systematic review are imperative to close the knowledge gap in a patient population that is often excluded from studies, and to add to the body of literature aiming to enhance early recovery from the NICU and mitigate iatrogenic harm.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42017078909.

Delirium prediction in the intensive care unit: comparison of two delirium prediction models

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.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13054-018-2037-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Recovery after critical illness: putting the puzzle together-a consensus of 29

In this review, we seek to highlight how critical illness and critical care affect longer-term outcomes, to underline the contribution of ICU delirium to cognitive dysfunction several months after ICU discharge, to give new insights into ICU acquired weakness, to emphasize the importance of value-based healthcare, and to delineate the elements of family-centered care. This consensus of 29 also provides a perspective and a research agenda about post-ICU recovery.