A retrospective analysis of the effectiveness of antipsychotics in the treatment of ICU delirium

A Comparison of Monotherapy and Combination Therapy With Antipsychotic Medications for Intensive Care Unit Delirium: A Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Antipsychotic medications continue to be frequently prescribed by clinicians in the intensive care unit (ICU) for delirium, despite inconclusive data.

OBJECTIVE

To determine if using a combination of antipsychotics reduces the time patients spend in delirium compared with monotherapy.

METHODS

This was a single-center, retrospective, cohort medical record review of patients who scored positive on Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU (CAM-ICU) and received antipsychotic therapy. Patients were excluded if they received any antipsychotics prior to hospital admission or had a Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) scores of -4 or -5 at the time of CAM-ICU assessment. The primary outcome was duration of delirium. The secondary outcomes included ICU length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS, overall mortality, occurrence of adverse events (AEs), and whether antipsychotics were continued at hospital discharge.

RESULTS

A total of 84 patients were included, of these 45 and 39 received monotherapy and combination therapy, respectively. Median Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) scores were significantly higher in the monotherapy group (18 vs 13, P = 0.006). Median duration of delirium was not significantly different between the monotherapy and combination therapy groups (8 vs 8 days, P = 0.932). Median ICU and hospital LOS, and occurrence of AEs were not significantly different. A significant difference in mortality was found between monotherapy and combination therapy (31% vs 10%, P = 0.02). Antipsychotics were continued at hospital discharge in 64% of the monotherapy and in 44% of the combination therapy group.

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

In patients with ICU delirium, there was no difference in duration of delirium among patients receiving monotherapy compared with combination therapy with antipsychotics, though they may be sicker and have a higher mortality. Patients commonly remain on antipsychotics at hospital discharge, the implications of which warrant further study.

Comparative Safety Analysis of Oral Antipsychotics for In-Hospital Adverse Clinical Events in Older Adults After Major Surgery : A Nationwide Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Antipsychotics are commonly used to manage postoperative delirium. Recent studies reported that haloperidol use has declined, and atypical antipsychotic use has increased over time.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the risk for in-hospital adverse events associated with oral haloperidol, olanzapine, quetiapine, and risperidone in older patients after major surgery.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

U.S. hospitals in the Premier Healthcare Database.

PATIENTS

17 115 patients aged 65 years and older without psychiatric disorders who were prescribed an oral antipsychotic drug after major surgery from 2009 to 2018.

INTERVENTIONS

Haloperidol (≤4 mg on the day of initiation), olanzapine (≤10 mg), quetiapine (≤150 mg), and risperidone (≤4 mg).

MEASUREMENTS

The risk ratios (RRs) for in-hospital death, cardiac arrhythmia events, pneumonia, and stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) were estimated after propensity score overlap weighting.

RESULTS

The weighted population had a mean age of 79.6 years, was 60.5% female, and had in-hospital death of 3.1%. Among the 4 antipsychotics, quetiapine was the most prescribed (53.0% of total exposure). There was no statistically significant difference in the risk for in-hospital death among patients treated with haloperidol (3.7%, reference group), olanzapine (2.8%; RR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.42 to 1.27]), quetiapine (2.6%; RR, 0.70 [CI, 0.47 to 1.04]), and risperidone (3.3%; RR, 0.90 [CI, 0.53 to 1.41]). The risk for nonfatal clinical events ranged from 2.0% to 2.6% for a cardiac arrhythmia event, 4.2% to 4.6% for pneumonia, and 0.6% to 1.2% for stroke or TIA, with no statistically significant differences by treatment group.

LIMITATION

Residual confounding by delirium severity; lack of untreated group; restriction to oral low-to-moderate dose treatment.

CONCLUSION

These results suggest that atypical antipsychotics and haloperidol have similar rates of in-hospital adverse clinical events in older patients with postoperative delirium who receive an oral low-to-moderate dose antipsychotic drug.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

National Institute on Aging.

Trazodone and Mianserin for Delirium: A Retrospective Chart Review

BACKGROUND

Although antipsychotics are commonly used for delirium, their adverse effects are a serious concern in light of extrapyramidal symptoms and cardiovascular disturbances. In clinical practice, sedative antidepressants are frequently used as an alternative treatment for delirium; however, there is scarce evidence. Thus, we conducted a retrospective chart review to examine the use and effectiveness of trazodone and mianserin for delirium.

METHODS

Patients who were admitted to a university hospital during 4 years and received either trazodone or mianserin on a regular schedule as monotherapy for the treatment of delirium were included. The rates of and times to the improvement of delirium were compared.

RESULTS

Among 3971 patients who developed delirium, 379 (9.5%) and 341 (8.6%) patients received trazodone and mianserin on a regular schedule; 52 and 46 patients met the eligibility criteria (ie, monotherapy) for trazodone and mianserin, respectively. The percentages of patients 65 years or older were 86.5% (n = 45) for trazodone and 89.1% (n = 41) for mianserin. The rates of the improvement of delirium were 63.5% for trazodone and 50.0% for mianserin. Times to the improvement of delirium were 5.3 days (95% confidence interval, 3.2-7.4 days) for trazodone and 9.3 days (95% confidence interval, 5.3-13.3 days) for mianserin. There were no significant differences in the primary outcomes between the 2 groups ( P = 0.17 and P = 0.13, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Considering potentially serious, sometimes lethal, adverse effects of antipsychotics, sedative antidepressants such as trazodone and mianserin may be a treatment option for delirium, especially in the elderly.

Variations in analgesic, sedation, and delirium management between trauma and non-trauma critically ill children

INTRODUCTION

Studies have shown the benefit of intensive care unit (ICU) bundled protocols; however, they are primarily derived from medical patients. We hypothesized that patients and their medication profiles are different between critically ill medical, surgical, and trauma patients.

METHODS

The Pediatric Health Information System 2017 dataset was used to perform a retrospective cohort study of critically ill children. The pediatric medical, surgical, and trauma cohorts were separated based on ICD-10 codes. Data collected included demographics, secondary diagnoses, outcomes, and medication data. Medications were grouped as opiates, GABA-agonists, alpha-2 agonists, anti-psychotics, paralytics, and "other" sedatives. A non-parametric Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (KS test) and odds ratios (reference group: medical cohort) were calculated to compare medication administration between the study cohorts for the first 30 ICU days.

RESULTS

A total of 4488 critically ill children (medical 2078, surgical 1650, and trauma 760) were identified. The trauma cohort had increased incidence of delirium (medical 10.8%, surgical 11.5%, trauma 13.8%; p < 0.01) and mortality (medical 5.4%, surgical 2.4%, trauma 11.7%; p < 0.01). For all study cohorts, > 50% received GABA-agonists on ICU days 0-30. With the KS test, there was a significant difference in administration of opiates, GABA-agonists, alpha-2 agonists, anti-psychotics, and "other" sedatives over the first 30 days in the ICU. Relative to medical patients, trauma patients had significantly higher odds of receiving anti-psychotics on ICU days 10-20 and 22-24.

CONCLUSION

Critically ill pediatric trauma, medical, and surgical patients are distinctly different patient populations with differing pharmacologic profiles for analgesia, sedation, and delirium.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III (Retrospective Comparative Study).

Risk Factors for Delirium and Association of Antipsychotic Use with Delirium Progression in Critically Ill Trauma Patients

Background

Delirium occurs frequently in critically ill and injured patients and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Limited data exists on the risk factors for developing delirium in critically ill trauma patients and the effect of antipsychotic (AP) medications on delirium progression.

Objective

The objective of this study is to determine the incidence of delirium in critically ill trauma versus non-trauma surgical patients and determine if the presence of trauma was associated with intensive care unit (ICU) delirium. Secondary outcomes included identifying risk factors for delirium and determining the impact of AP medication use on delirium progression in critically ill trauma patients.

Methods

This retrospective review studies adult trauma/surgical ICU patients admitted between May 2017-July 2018 to a level I trauma and tertiary referral center. Regression modeling was used to determine the impact of AP use on delirium-free days.

Results

Delirium was more common in critically ill trauma patients versus non-trauma surgical ICU patients [54/157 (34.4%) vs 42/270 (15.6%), P < .001]. Of the 54 trauma patients with delirium, 28 (52%) received an AP medication for delirium treatment and in the multiple linear regression analysis, AP use was significantly associated with fewer delirium-free days ( P = .02).

Discussion

Higher admission sequential organ failure assessment scores and increased length of stay were significantly associated with delirium onset in critically ill trauma patients. Use of AP medications for delirium treatment in this population had a negative impact on delirium-free days.

Management of Delirium in the Intensive Care Unit

In the intensive care unit, delirium is a major contributor to morbidity and mortality in adult patients. Patients with delirium have been shown to have increased length of stay, decreased functional outcomes, and increased risk for requiring placement at the time of discharge. In addition, decreased cognitive function and dementia have been shown to be long-term complications from delirium. The mainstay of treatment and prevention include therapy- and behavioral-based interventions, including frequent orientation, cognitive stimulation, mobilization, sleep restoration, and providing hearing and visual aids. Refractory delirium may require pharmacologic intervention with antipsychotics or alpha-2 agonists.

Profiling Delirium Progression in Elderly Patients via Continuous-Time Markov Multi-State Transition Models

Poor recognition of delirium among hospitalized elderlies is a typical challenge for health care professionals. Considering methodological insufficiency for assessing time-varying diseases, a continuous-time Markov multi-state transition model (CTMMTM) was used to investigate delirium evolution in elderly patients. This is a longitudinal observational study performed in September 2016 in an Italian hospital. Change of delirium states was modeled according to the 4AT score. A Cox model (CM) and a CTMMTM were used for identifying factors affecting delirium onset both with a two-state and three-state model. In this study, 78 patients were enrolled and evaluated for 5 days. Both the CM and the CTMMTM show that urine catheter (UC), aging, drugs, and invasive devices (ID) are risk factors for delirium onset. The CTMMTM model shows that transition from no-delirium/cognitive impairment to delirium was associated with aging (HR = 1.14; 95%CI, 1.05, 1.23) and neuroleptics (HR = 4.3; 1.57, 11.77), dopaminergic drugs (HR = 3.89; 1.2, 12.6), UC (HR = 2.92; 1.09, 7.79) and ID (HR = 1.67; 103, 2.71). These results are confirmed by the multivariable model. Aging, ID, antibiotics, drugs affecting the central nervous system, and absence of moving ability are identified as the significant predictors of delirium. Additionally, it seems that modeling with CTMMTM may show associations that are not directly detectable with the traditional CM.

Prevalence of high-risk medications in patients enrolled in the Hospital Elder Life Program

OBJECTIVE

The study aimed to assess the prevalence of newly prescribed antipsychotic/benzodiazepine medication, as well as 30-day readmissions, among Hospital Elder Life Program (HELP)-enrolled patients.

DESIGN

Retrospective case-control study.

SETTING

HELP intervention took place in eight hospital units. The standard care group was selected from eight additional hospital units.

PARTICIPANTS

Hospitalized patients, aged 65 years and older, enrolled in HELP during between January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2018 were included in the HELP cohort. Patients hospitalized in eight additional units during the same time frame were part of the standard care group.

MEASUREMENTS

Antipsychotic/benzodiazepine medications were pulled from the electronic health record. History of chronic mental illnesses were classified by ICD10 codes. Basic descriptive statistics were used to analyze patient characteristics and comorbidities. Chi-squared and t-tests were performed to detect statistical differences as appropriate.

RESULTS

There were 1411 patients in the HELP group and 10,807 patients in the standard care group. The HELP group was likely to be older, female and to have a shorten length of stay (all p ≤ 0.02). Our study demonstrated that approximately 8.9% (n = 125) of patients enrolled in HELP received an order for antipsychotics during their hospital admission, while 31.5% (n = 3400) from the standard care group (p < 0.001). The difference in benzodiazepine prescription in patients enrolled in HELP was also less when comparing the two groups (22.8% HELP vs 25.6% standard care; p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients enrolled in the HELP group were less likely to receive a prescription for antipsychotics or benzodiazepines. The majority of patients enrolled in HELP were discharged to a more independent environment (home or assisted living) and there was a relatively low 30-day readmission rate among HELP patients.

Haloperidol, clonidine and resolution of delirium in critically ill patients: a prospective cohort study

Purpose

Haloperidol and clonidine are commonly used to treat agitation in delirious intensive care unit (ICU) patients, but it is unclear whether these agents may shorten the duration of delirium. The objective of this study was to determine whether haloperidol, clonidine, or their combined administration to delirious ICU patients results in delirium resolution.

Methods

This was a cohort study on a mixed ICU, excluding patients with a primary neurological disorder. The main outcome was the probability of delirium resolution, using propensity score matching and Markov multinomial logistic regression models for daily transitions. Secondary outcomes were delirium duration, number of delirium days, ventilation days, length of stay in the ICU and hospital, and ICU mortality.

Results

A total of 3614 patients were included (1165 delirious [32%]; 2449 non-delirious [68%]). Delirium occurred on 4708 (18.9%) of 24,906 days. The probability of delirium resolution was lower in delirious patients who received haloperidol (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.39–0.57), clonidine (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.63–0.97), or both (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.36–0.56) compared to untreated delirious patients. Delirious patients who received haloperidol, clonidine, or both had generally longer delirium duration, more delirium and ventilation days, and spent more time in the ICU and in hospital than untreated delirious patients. These agents had no effect on ICU mortality.

Conclusion

Haloperidol and clonidine use in delirious ICU patients may be associated with reduced probability of delirium resolution. This finding, however, merits further investigation given inherent limitations of this observational analysis.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00134-021-06355-9.

Pharmacologic Management of Intensive Care Unit Delirium: Clinical Prescribing Practices and Outcomes in More Than 8500 Patient Encounters

BACKGROUND

Pharmacologic agents are frequently utilized for management of intensive care unit (ICU) delirium, yet prescribing patterns and impact of medication choices on patient outcomes are poorly described. We sought to describe prescribing practices for management of ICU delirium and investigate the independent association of medication choice on key in-hospital outcomes including delirium resolution, in-hospital mortality, and days alive and free of the ICU or hospital.

METHODS

A retrospective study of delirious adult ICU patients at a tertiary academic medical center. Data were obtained regarding daily mental status (normal, delirious, and comatose), pharmacologic treatment, hospital course, and survival via electronic health record. Daily transition models were constructed to assess the independent association of previous day mental status and medication administration on mental status the following day and in-hospital mortality, after adjusting for prespecified covariates. Linear regression models investigated the association of medication administration on days alive and free of the ICU or the hospital during the first 30 days after ICU admission.

RESULTS

We identified 8591 encounters of ICU delirium. Half (45.6%) of patients received pharmacologic treatment for delirium, including 45.4% receiving antipsychotics, 2.2% guanfacine, and 0.84% valproic acid. Median highest Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) score was 1 (0, 1) in patients initiated on medications and 0 (-1, 0) for nonrecipients. Haloperidol, olanzapine, and quetiapine comprised >97% of antipsychotics utilized with 48% receiving 2 or more and 20.6% continued on antipsychotic medications at hospital discharge. Haloperidol and olanzapine were associated with greater odds of continued delirium (odds ratio [OR], 1.48; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.30-1.65; P < .001 and OR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.20-1.56; P = .003, respectively) and increased hazard of in-hospital mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 1.46; 95% CI, 1.10-1.93; P = .01 and HR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.14-2.45; P = .01, respectively) while quetiapine showed a decreased hazard of in-hospital mortality (HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.40-0.84; P = .01). Haloperidol, olanzapine, and quetiapine were associated with fewer days alive and free of hospitalization (all P < .001). There was no significant association of any antipsychotic medication with days alive and free of the ICU. Neither guanfacine nor valproic acid were associated with in-hospital outcomes examined.

CONCLUSIONS

Pharmacologic interventions for management of ICU delirium are common, most often with antipsychotics, and frequently continued at hospital discharge. These medications may not portend benefit, may introduce additional harm, and should be used with caution for delirium management. Continuation of these medications through hospitalization and discharge draws into question their safety and role in patient recovery.

Antipsychotics and Lorazepam During Delirium: Are We Harming Older Patients? A Real-Life Data Study

BACKGROUND

Delirium affects approximately one out of three older hospitalized patients and is associated with poor clinical outcomes. Approaches used to manage delirium consist of non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions. Antipsychotics and lorazepam are commonly used to treat symptoms of delirium, but conflicting data exist on the effect of these drugs on the outcomes of delirium.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate whether the use of antipsychotics, with or without lorazepam, increases the risk of prolonged hospital stay, post-discharge institutionalization, and in-hospital mortality in older patients with delirium.

METHODS

In this retrospective chart review study, we included acutely ill patients aged ≥ 65 years who were admitted to a geriatric ward and diagnosed with delirium. Patients were stratified into three groups based on whether or not they received antipsychotics and lorazepam to manage delirium: (0) no antipsychotics; (1) antipsychotics only; and (2) antipsychotics plus lorazepam. Length of hospital stay (LOS) and frequencies of post-discharge institutionalization and in-hospital mortality were compared.

RESULTS

In total, 212 patients with delirium were included (mean age 81.9 ± 5.6 years); 40 did not receive antipsychotics (18.9%), 123 received antipsychotics only (58.0%) and 49 received antipsychotics and lorazepam (23.1%). There was a trend to a longer LOS in patients who received both antipsychotics and lorazepam (median LOS group 0 = 8.0 days, group 1 = 10.0 days, and group 2 = 12.0 days). Furthermore, trends to a higher incidence of post-discharge institutionalization and in-hospital mortality were observed in patients who received both treatments (institutionalization group 0 = 45.0%, group 1 = 59.3%, group 2 = 81.6%; and in-hospital mortality group 0 = 7.5%, group 1 = 10.6%, group 2 = 16.3%).

CONCLUSION

The use of antipsychotics, with or without lorazepam, during delirium is associated with increased risks of poor outcomes. These findings suggest that clinicians should be cautious about routine prescribing of these drugs to older patients with delirium. Further investigation is needed to clarify this association.

Therapeutic options for agitation in the intensive care unit

Agitation is common in the intensive care unit (ICU). There are numerous contributing factors, including pain, underlying disease, withdrawal syndrome, delirium and some medication. Agitation can compromise patient safety through accidental removal of tubes and catheters, prolong the duration of stay in the ICU, and may be related to various complications. This review aims to analyse evidence-based medical literature to improve management of agitation and to consider pharmacological strategies. The non-pharmacological approach is considered to reduce the risk of agitation. Pharmacological treatment of agitated patients is detailed and is based on a judicious choice of neuroleptics, benzodiazepines and α2 agonists, and on whether a withdrawal syndrome is identified. Specific management of agitation in elderly patients, brain-injured patients and patients with sleep deprivation are also discussed. This review proposes a practical approach for managing agitation in the ICU.

Risk factors for delirium: are therapeutic interventions part of it?

Background: Delirium is associated with increased morbidity and mortality in critically ill patients. Research on risk factors for delirium allows clinicians to identify high-risk patients, which is the basis for early prevention and diagnosis. Besides the risk factors for delirium that are commonly studied, here we more focused on the less-studied therapeutic interventions for critically ill patients which are potentially modifiable. Materials and methods: A total of 320 non-comatose patients admitted to the ICU for more than 24 hrs during 9 months were eligible for the study. Delirium was screened once daily using the CAM-ICU. Demographics, admission clinical data, and daily interventions were collected. Results: Ninety-two patients (28.75%) experienced delirium at least once. Delirious patients were more likely to have longer duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU stay, and hospital stay. Most of the less-studied therapeutic interventions were linked to delirium in the univariate analysis, including gastric tube, artificial airway, deep intravenous catheter, arterial line, urinary catheter, use of vasoactive drugs, and sedative medication. After adjusting with age and ICU length of stay, mechanical ventilation (OR: 5.123; 95% CI: 2.501-10.494), Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score≥20 at admission (OR: 1.897; 95% CI: 1.045-3.441), and gastric tube (OR: 1.935, 95% CI: 1.012-3.698) were associated with increased risk of delirium in multivariate analysis. Conclusion: Delirium was associated with prolonged mechanical ventilation, ICU stay, and hospital stay. Multivariate risk factors were gastric tube, mechanical ventilation, and APACHE II score. Although being a preliminary study, this study suggests the necessity of earliest removal of tubes and catheters when no longer needed.

Pharmacologic Treatment of Intensive Care Unit Delirium and the Impact on Duration of Delirium, Length of Intensive Care Unit Stay, Length of Hospitalization, and 28-Day Mortality

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether treatment of delirium affects outcomes.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective cohort study of patients admitted to the medical intensive care unit (ICU) from July 1, 2015, through June 30, 2016, was conducted. Patients with ICU delirium, defined by a positive Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU score, were included. Patients were stratified into 4 treatment groups based on exposure to melatonin and antipsychotic agents during ICU stay: no pharmacologic treatment, melatonin only, antipsychotics only, and both melatonin and antipsychotics. A time-dependent cause-specific hazards model with death as a competing risk was used to evaluate the effect of melatonin or antipsychotic drug use for delirium on duration of ICU delirium, length of ICU stay, and length of hospitalization. A logistic regression was used to evaluate 28-day mortality. Covariates significantly associated with exposure to melatonin and antipsychotics were included in the minimally adjusted model. Covariates significantly associated in the minimally adjusted model were included in a final adjusted model.

RESULTS

A total of 449 admissions to the medical ICU were included in the analysis. Exposure to melatonin or antipsychotic agents did not reduce the duration of ICU delirium, ICU/hospital length of stay, or 28-day mortality. However, antipsychotic use only was associated with longer hospitalization.

CONCLUSION

Antipsychotic drugs for the treatment ICU delirium may not provide the benefit documented in earlier literature. Further investigation on patient selection, type of antipsychotic, and dosing is needed.

Pharmacologic Management of Delirium in the ICU: A Review of the Literature

Purpose:

Conflicting data exists on the pharmacologic management of intensive care unit (ICU) delirium. This review appraises the current evidence of pharmacologic management of ICU delirium.

Materials and Methods:

A systematic literature search of MEDLINE and Embase was conducted to answer the population, intervention, comparison, and outcome (PICO) question of: “Does the use of a pharmacologic agent compared to standard of care or placebo improve ICU delirium in a critically ill patient population?”

Results:

After application of the PICO question and the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 13 articles were included. Of these articles, 7 were prospective randomized controlled trials, 1 was a prospective nonrandomized controlled trial, and 5 were retrospective investigations. The included articles differed in the agents evaluated, primary outcome, and method of identifying delirium.

Conclusion:

The variability of outcomes illustrates the need for a large-scale investigation to further evaluate the role of pharmacologic management of ICU delirium.

Child Psychiatry Engagement in the Management of Delirium in Critically Ill Children

Objectives

To characterize the engagement of child psychiatry by pediatric intensivists in cases of suspected delirium in a pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) prior to implementation of a delirium management algorithm with regards to recommendations, antipsychotic prescribing, and follow-up after PICU discharge.

Design

Retrospective chart review.

Setting

Single-center tertiary PICU.

Subjects

Sixteen patients who received child psychiatry consultation for suspected delirium while in the PICU.

Measurements and Main Results

Child psychiatry was consulted for 50 patients in the PICU during the 2-year period. Sixteen (32%) of these consultations were for delirium, and 15 (94%) of these patients were diagnosed with hyperactive delirium. Eighty-one percent of the patients were prescribed an antipsychotic, and over half of these patients had been initiated on the antipsychotic prior to child psychiatry consultation. All patients who transitioned from the PICU to the general floor received child psychiatry follow-up.

Conclusions

Child psychiatry can play an integral role in collaborative management of PICU delirium. Continuity of care with child psychiatry after transfer or discharge is particularly important given the prevalence of antipsychotic use. Furthermore, the results of this retrospective study would suggest that staff education surrounding the delirium screening tool increased awareness of delirium, resulting in an increase in child psychiatry consultations.

Risk Factors of Delirium in Sequential Sedation Patients in Intensive Care Units

Background

Delirium is a primary adverse event in ventilated patients who receive long-term monosedative treatment. Sequential sedation may reduce these adverse effects. This study evaluated risk factors for delirium in sequential sedation patients.

Methods

A total of 141 patients who underwent sequential sedation were enrolled. Delirium was diagnosed using Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) scale. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards regressions were used to predict risk factors.

Results

Older age (≥51) (RR = 2.432, 95% CL 1.316–4.494, p = 0.005), higher SOFA score (≥14) (RR = 2.022, 95% CL 1.076–3.798, p = 0.029), regular smoking (RR = 2.366, 95% CL 1.277–4.382, p = 0.006), and higher maintenance dose of midazolam (RR = 1.052, 95% CL 1.000–1.107, p = 0.049) and fentanyl (RR = 1.045, 95% CL 1.019–1.072, p = 0.001) when patients met sequential criteria, were independent risk factors of delirium. Sequential sedation with dexmedetomidine (RR = 0.448, 95% CL 0.209–0.963, p = 0.040) was associated with a lower risk of delirium.

Conclusions

Older age, higher SOFA score, regular smoking, and higher maintenance dose of midazolam and fentanyl when patients met sequential criteria were independent risk factors of delirium in sequential sedation patients. Sequential sedation with dexmedetomidine reduced risk of delirium.