A national survey of the management of delirium in UK intensive care units

Natural language processing diagnosed behavioural disturbance phenotypes in the intensive care unit: characteristics, prevalence, trajectory, treatment, and outcomes

BACKGROUND

Natural language processing (NLP) may help evaluate the characteristics, prevalence, trajectory, treatment, and outcomes of behavioural disturbance phenotypes in critically ill patients.

METHODS

We obtained electronic clinical notes, demographic information, outcomes, and treatment data from three medical-surgical ICUs. Using NLP, we screened for behavioural disturbance phenotypes based on words suggestive of an agitated state, a non-agitated state, or a combination of both.

RESULTS

We studied 2931 patients. Of these, 225 (7.7%) were NLP-Dx-BD positive for the agitated phenotype, 544 (18.6%) for the non-agitated phenotype and 667 (22.7%) for the combined phenotype. Patients with these phenotypes carried multiple clinical baseline differences. On time-dependent multivariable analysis to compensate for immortal time bias and after adjustment for key outcome predictors, agitated phenotype patients were more likely to receive antipsychotic medications (odds ratio [OR] 1.84, 1.35-2.51, p < 0.001) compared to non-agitated phenotype patients but not compared to combined phenotype patients (OR 1.27, 0.86-1.89, p = 0.229). Moreover, agitated phenotype patients were more likely to die than other phenotypes patients (OR 1.57, 1.10-2.25, p = 0.012 vs non-agitated phenotype; OR 4.61, 2.14-9.90, p < 0.001 vs. combined phenotype). This association was strongest in patients receiving mechanical ventilation when compared with the combined phenotype (OR 7.03, 2.07-23.79, p = 0.002). A similar increased risk was also seen for patients with the non-agitated phenotype compared with the combined phenotype (OR 6.10, 1.80-20.64, p = 0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

NLP-Dx-BD screening enabled identification of three behavioural disturbance phenotypes with different characteristics, prevalence, trajectory, treatment, and outcome. Such phenotype identification appears relevant to prognostication and trial design.

Distribution of delirium motor subtypes in the intensive care unit: a systematic scoping review

Background

Delirium is the most common cerebral dysfunction in the intensive care unit (ICU) and can be subdivided into a hypoactive, hyperactive, or mixed motor subtype based on the clinical manifestation. The aim of this review was to describe the distribution, pharmacological interventions, and outcomes of delirium motor subtypes in ICU patients.

Methods

This systematic scoping review was performed according to the PRISMA-ScR and Cochrane guidelines. We performed a systematic search in six major databases to identify relevant studies. A meta-regression analysis was performed where pooled estimates with 95% confidence intervals were computed by a random effect model.

Results

We included 131 studies comprising 13,902 delirious patients. There was a large between-study heterogeneity among studies, including differences in study design, setting, population, and outcome reporting. Hypoactive delirium was the most prevalent delirium motor subtype (50.3% [95% CI 46.0–54.7]), followed by mixed delirium (27.7% [95% CI 24.1–31.3]) and hyperactive delirium (22.7% [95% CI 19.0–26.5]). When comparing the delirium motor subtypes, patients with mixed delirium experienced the longest delirium duration, ICU and hospital length of stay, the highest ICU and hospital mortality, and more frequently received administration of specific agents (antipsychotics, α2-agonists, benzodiazepines, and propofol) during ICU stay. In studies with high average age for delirious patients (> 65 years), patients were more likely to experience hypoactive delirium.

Conclusions

Hypoactive delirium was the most prevalent motor subtype in critically ill patients. Mixed delirium had the worst outcomes in terms of delirium duration, length of stay, and mortality, and received more pharmacological interventions compared to other delirium motor subtypes. Few studies contributed to secondary outcomes; hence, these results should be interpreted with care. The large between-study heterogeneity suggests that a more standardized methodology in delirium research is warranted.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13054-022-03931-3.

Delirium-related distress in the ICU: A qualitative meta-synthesis of patient and family perspectives and experiences

BACKGROUND

Better understanding of patient and family member experiences of delirium and related distress during critical care is required to inform the development of targeted nonpharmacologic interventions.

OBJECTIVE

To examine and synthesize qualitative data on patient and family member delirium experiences and relieving factors in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU).

DESIGN

We conducted a systematic review and qualitative meta-synthesis. Eligible studies contained adult patient or family quotes about delirium during critical care, published in English in a peer-reviewed journal since 1980. Data sources included PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Cochrane and Clinicaltrials.gov.

METHODS

Systematic searches yielded 3238 identified articles, of which 14 reporting 13 studies were included. Two reviewers independently extracted data into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. Qualitative meta-synthesis was performed through line-by-line coding of relevant quotes, organization of codes into descriptive themes, and development of analytical themes. Five patients/family members with experience of ICU delirium contributed to the thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Qualitative meta-synthesis resulted in four major themes and two sub-themes. Key new patient and family-centric insights regarding delirium-related distress in the ICU included articulation of the distinct emotions experienced during and after delirium (for patients, predominantly fear, anger and shame); its 'whole-person' nature; and the value that patients and family members placed on clinicians' compassion, communication, and connectedness.

CONCLUSIONS

Distinct difficult emotions and other forms of distress are experienced by patients and families during ICU delirium, during which patients and families highly value human kindness and empathy. Future studies should further explore and address the many facets of delirium-related distress during critical care using these insights and include patient-reported measures of the predominant difficult emotions.

The 4 'A's test for detecting delirium in acute medical patients: a diagnostic accuracy study

BACKGROUND

Delirium is a common and serious neuropsychiatric syndrome, usually triggered by illness or drugs. It remains underdetected. One reason for this is a lack of brief, pragmatic assessment tools. The 4 'A's test (Arousal, Attention, Abbreviated Mental Test - 4, Acute change) (4AT) is a screening tool designed for routine use. This project evaluated its usability, diagnostic accuracy and cost.

METHODS

Phase 1 - the usability of the 4AT in routine practice was measured with two surveys and two qualitative studies of health-care professionals, and a review of current clinical use of the 4AT as well as its presence in guidelines and reports. Phase 2 - the 4AT's diagnostic accuracy was assessed in newly admitted acute medical patients aged ≥ 70 years. Its performance was compared with that of the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM; a longer screening tool). The performance of individual 4AT test items was related to cognitive status, length of stay, new institutionalisation, mortality at 12 weeks and outcomes. The method used was a prospective, double-blind diagnostic test accuracy study in emergency departments or in acute general medical wards in three UK sites. Each patient underwent a reference standard delirium assessment and was also randomised to receive an assessment with either the 4AT (n = 421) or the CAM (n = 420). A health economics analysis was also conducted.

RESULTS

Phase 1 found evidence that delirium awareness is increasing, but also that there is a need for education on delirium in general and on the 4AT in particular. Most users reported that the 4AT was useful, and it was in widespread use both in the UK and beyond. No changes to the 4AT were considered necessary. Phase 2 involved 785 individuals who had data for analysis; their mean age was 81.4 (standard deviation 6.4) years, 45% were male, 99% were white and 9% had a known dementia diagnosis. The 4AT (n = 392) had an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.90. A positive 4AT score (> 3) had a specificity of 95% [95% confidence interval (CI) 92% to 97%] and a sensitivity of 76% (95% CI 61% to 87%) for reference standard delirium. The CAM (n = 382) had a specificity of 100% (95% CI 98% to 100%) and a sensitivity of 40% (95% CI 26% to 57%) in the subset of participants whom it was possible to assess using this. Patients with positive 4AT scores had longer lengths of stay (median 5 days, interquartile range 2.0-14.0 days) than did those with negative 4AT scores (median 2 days, interquartile range 1.0-6.0 days), and they had a higher 12-week mortality rate (16.1% and 9.2%, respectively). The estimated 12-week costs of an initial inpatient stay for patients with delirium were more than double the costs of an inpatient stay for patients without delirium (e.g. in Scotland, £7559, 95% CI £7362 to £7755, vs. £4215, 95% CI £4175 to £4254). The estimated cost of false-positive cases was £4653, of false-negative cases was £8956, and of a missed diagnosis was £2067.

LIMITATIONS

Patients were aged ≥ 70 years and were assessed soon after they were admitted, limiting generalisability. The treatment of patients in accordance with reference standard diagnosis limited the ability to assess comparative cost-effectiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings support the use of the 4AT as a rapid delirium assessment instrument. The 4AT has acceptable diagnostic accuracy for acute older patients aged > 70 years.

FUTURE WORK

Further research should address the real-world implementation of delirium assessment. The 4AT should be tested in other populations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN53388093.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 40. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. The funder specified that any new delirium assessment tool should be compared against the CAM, but had no other role in the study design or conduct of the study.

Differential clinical characteristics, management and outcome of delirium among ward compared with intensive care unit patients

BACKGROUND

Delirium is common in hospitalised patients but its epidemiology remains poorly characterised.

AIMS

To test the hypothesis that patient demographics, clinical phenotype, management and outcomes of patient with delirium in hospital ward patients differ from intensive care unit (ICU) patients.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort of patients admitted to an Australian university-affiliated hospital between March 2013 and April 2017 and coded for delirium at discharge using the International Classification of Diseases System, 10th revision, criteria.

RESULTS

Among 61 032 hospitalised patients, 2864 (4.7%) were coded for delirium. From these, we studied a random sample of 100 ward patients and 100 ICU patients. Ward patients were older (median age: 84 vs 65 years; P < 0.0001), more likely to have dementia (38% vs 2% for ICU patients; P < 0.0001) and less likely to have had surgery (24% vs 62%; P < 0.0001). Of ward patients, 74% had hypoactive delirium, while 64% of ICU patients had agitated delirium (P < 0.0001). Persistent delirium at hospital discharge was more common among ward patients (66% vs 17%, P < 0.0001). On multivariable analysis, age and dementia predicted persistent delirium, while surgery predicted recovery.

CONCLUSIONS

Delirium in ward patients is profoundly different from delirium in ICU patients. It has a dominant hypoactive clinical phenotype, is preceded by dementia and is less likely to recover at hospital discharge. Therefore, delirium prevention, detection and goals of care should be adapted to the environment in which it occurs.

Routine management of postoperative delirium outside the ICU: Results of an international survey among anaesthesiologists

BACKGROUND

Postoperative delirium (POD) is a severe brain dysfunction. Although data indicate a high relevance, no survey has investigated the routine practice to monitor delirium outside the ICU setting after surgery. Prior to publishing of the new European Society of Anaesthesiology (ESA) guidelines on POD, an international survey was conducted to assess current practice.

METHODS

European Society of Anaesthesiology-endorsed online survey; Trial Registration: NCT-identifier: 02513537.

RESULTS

In total, 566 respondents from 62 countries accessed, and 564 (99.6%) completed the survey (completion rate). Overall, 385 (68%) of the respondents reported that delirium is either "very relevant" or "relevant" for their daily clinical practice. In all, 38 (7%) of the respondents routinely monitor for delirium in >50% of all patients. Asked on the monitoring time point, more than half (n = 308, 55%) indicated to screen before or at recovery room discharge, 235 (42%) up to the first postoperative day, 143 (25%) up to 3 days, and 77 (14%) up to 5 postoperative days. Although there is a lack of long-term monitoring, nearly all respondents (n = 530, 94%) reported to treat delirium. Availability of EEG/EMG-based monitoring to assess the depth of anaesthesia was high in the study group (n = 547, 97%) and was used by more than one-third of the respondents to reduce risk of burst suppression (n = 189, 34%).

CONCLUSION

Although delirium is perceived as a relevant condition among anaesthesiologists, there is a high demand for implementing monitoring strategies after publishing of the POD Guideline. The survey shows that tools necessary for POD Guideline implementation are available in the centres represented by the respondents.

Can haloperidol prophylaxis reduce the incidence of delirium in critically ill patients in intensive care units? A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of haloperidol in the prevention of delirium in intensive care unit (ICU) patients.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for eligible randomized controlled trials up to July 2019. No publication type or language restrictions were applied.

RESULTS

Compared to the placebo, haloperidol did not significantly reduce the incidence of delirium in all ICU patients (relative risk (RR), 0.83; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.62-1.10, p = 0.20). However, haloperidol prophylaxis could reduce the incidence of delirium exclusively in postoperative patients admitted to an ICU (RR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.47-0.86, p = 0.004). We observed no significant differences between the haloperidol and placebo groups in terms of length of ICU stay, all-cause mortality, and adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of prophylactic haloperidol might reduce the incidence of delirium in postoperative patients admitted to an ICU, but not in all ICU patients.

Haloperidol for the treatment of delirium in critically ill patients: A systematic review with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis

BACKGROUND

Haloperidol is the most frequently used drug to treat delirium in the critically ill patients. Yet, no systematic review has focussed on the effects of haloperidol in critically ill patients with delirium.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of haloperidol vs any intervention on all-cause mortality, serious adverse reactions/events, days alive without delirium, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), cognitive function and delirium severity in critically ill patients with delirium. We also report on QTc prolongation, delirium resolution and extrapyramidal symptoms.

RESULTS

We included 8 RCTs with 11 comparisons (n = 951). We adjudicated one trial as having overall low risk of bias. Three trials used rescue haloperidol; excluding these, we did not find an effect of haloperidol vs control on all-cause mortality (RR 1.01; 95% CI 0.33-3.06; I²  = 0%; 112 participants; 3 trials; 4 comparisons; very low certainty) or delirium severity (SMD -0.15; 95% CI -0.61-0.30; I²  = 27%; 134 participants; 3 trials; 4 comparisons; very low certainty). No trials reported adequately on serious adverse reactions/events. Only one trial reported on days alive without delirium, cognitive function and QTc prolongation, and no trials reported on HRQoL. Sensitivity analyses, including trials using rescue haloperidol, did not change the results.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence for the use of haloperidol to treat critically ill patients with delirium is sparse, of low quality and inconclusive. We therefore have no certainty regarding any beneficial, harmful or neutral effects of haloperidol in these patients.

Pharmacological interventions for the treatment of delirium in critically ill adults

BACKGROUND

Although delirium is typically an acute reversible cognitive impairment, its presence is associated with devastating impact on both short-term and long-term outcomes for critically ill patients. Advances in our understanding of the negative impact of delirium on patient outcomes have prompted trials evaluating multiple pharmacological interventions. However, considerable uncertainty surrounds the relative benefits and safety of available pharmacological interventions for this population.

OBJECTIVES

Primary objective1. To assess the effects of pharmacological interventions for treatment of delirium on duration of delirium in critically ill adults with confirmed or documented high risk of deliriumSecondary objectivesTo assess the following:1. effects of pharmacological interventions on delirium-free and coma-free days; days with coma; delirium relapse; duration of mechanical ventilation; intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay; mortality; and long-term outcomes (e.g. cognitive; discharge disposition; health-related quality of life); and2. the safety of such treatments for critically ill adult patients.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases from their inception date to 21 March 2019: Ovid MEDLINE®, Ovid MEDLINE® In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Embase Classic+Embase, and PsycINFO using the Ovid platform. We also searched the Cochrane Library on Wiley, the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Web of Science. We performed a grey literature search of relevant databases and websites using the resources listed in Grey Matters developed by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH). We also searched trial registries and abstracts from annual scientific critical care and delirium society meetings.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We sought randomized controlled trials (RCTs), including quasi-RCTs, of any pharmacological (drug) for treatment of delirium in critically ill adults. The drug intervention was to be compared to another active drug treatment, placebo, or a non-pharmacological intervention (e.g. mobilization). We did not apply any restrictions in terms of drug class, dose, route of administration, or duration of delirium or drug exposure. We defined critically ill patients as those treated in an ICU of any specialty (e.g. burn, cardiac, medical, surgical, trauma) or high-dependency unit.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently identified studies from the search results; four review authors (in pairs) performed data extraction and assessed risk of bias independently. We performed data synthesis through pairwise meta-analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA). Our hypothetical network structure was designed to be analysed at the drug class level and illustrated a network diagram of 'nodes' (i.e. drug classes) and 'edges' (i.e. comparisons between different drug classes from existing trials), thus describing a treatment network of all possible comparisons between drug classes. We assessed the quality of the body of evidence according to GRADE, as very low, low, moderate, or high.

MAIN RESULTS

We screened 7674 citations, from which 14 trials with 1844 participants met our inclusion criteria. Ten RCTs were placebo-controlled, and four reported comparisons of different drugs. Drugs examined in these trials were the following: antipsychotics (n = 10), alpha2 agonists (n = 3; all dexmedetomidine), statins (n = 2), opioids (n = 1; morphine), serotonin antagonists (n = 1; ondansetron), and cholinesterase (CHE) inhibitors (n = 1; rivastigmine). Only one of these trials consistently used non-pharmacological interventions that are known to improve patient outcomes in both intervention and control groups.Eleven studies (n = 1153 participants) contributed to analysis of the primary outcome. Results of the NMA showed that the intervention with the smallest ratio of means (RoM) (i.e. most preferred) compared with placebo was the alpha2 agonist dexmedetomidine (0.58; 95% credible interval (CrI) 0.26 to 1.27; surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) 0.895; moderate-quality evidence). In order of descending SUCRA values (best to worst), the next best interventions were atypical antipsychotics (RoM 0.80, 95% CrI 0.50 to 1.11; SUCRA 0.738; moderate-quality evidence), opioids (RoM 0.88, 95% CrI 0.37 to 2.01; SUCRA 0.578; very-low quality evidence), and typical antipsychotics (RoM 0.96, 95% CrI 0.64 to1.36; SUCRA 0.468; high-quality evidence).The NMAs of multiple secondary outcomes revealed that only the alpha2 agonist dexmedetomidine was associated with a shorter duration of mechanical ventilation (RoM 0.55, 95% CrI 0.34 to 0.89; moderate-quality evidence), and the CHE inhibitor rivastigmine was associated with a longer ICU stay (RoM 2.19, 95% CrI 1.47 to 3.27; moderate-quality evidence). Adverse events often were not reported in these trials or, when reported, were rare; pair-wise analysis of QTc prolongation in seven studies did not show significant differences between antipsychotics, ondansetron, dexmedetomidine, and placebo.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We identified trials of varying quality that examined six different drug classes for treatment of delirium in critically ill adults. We found evidence that the alpha2 agonist dexmedetomidine may shorten delirium duration, although this small effect (compared with placebo) was seen in pairwise analyses based on a single study and was not seen in the NMA results. Alpha2 agonists also ranked best for duration of mechanical ventilation and length of ICU stay, whereas the CHE inhibitor rivastigmine was associated with longer ICU stay. We found no evidence of a difference between placebo and any drug in terms of delirium-free and coma-free days, days with coma, physical restraint use, length of stay, long-term cognitive outcomes, or mortality. No studies reported delirium relapse, resolution of symptoms, or quality of life. The ten ongoing studies and the six studies awaiting classification that we identified, once published and assessed, may alter the conclusions of the review.

Arabic intensive care delirium screening checklist's validity and reliability: A multicenter study

PURPOSE

To develop an Arabic version of Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC) and assess its validity and reliability among critically ill patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Multicentered study of convenience sample of adult ICU patients. Arabic translation was performed with rigorous back-to-back translation methods. Concurrent validity was established by calculating the sensitivity and specificity of two examiner assessments compared to a psychiatric evaluation. Kappa coefficients describe interrater reliability, whereas Cronbach α and composite reliability depict internal consistency.

RESULTS

Three hundred critically ill patients were enrolled. Of these, validity testing was assessed in 180 patients. ICDSC screening was positive for delirium in 11% of enrolled patients. The area under the receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve is 0.9413, with predicted sensitivity 70% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 60-81%) and specificity 99% (95% CI: 98-100%). The Arabic ICDSC showed acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach α = 0.63 and composite reliability = 0.64). Interrater agreement was excellent (Kappa coefficient [ҡ] = 0.85).

CONCLUSIONS

Arabic ICDSC is a valid and reliable delirium-screening tool among Arabic-speaking ICU population. Future studies could address whether these findings are generalizable to a higher proportion of mechanically ventilated patients, and address acceptability and reliability in other Arabic language critical care settings.

Development of a Tool for the Assessment of Nurses' Attitudes Toward Delirium

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The prevalence of delirium during hospitalization is high in older patients and there is evidence of staff regarding them as unpopular or a burden. This study aims to develop an instrument examining nurses' attitudes toward patients with delirium.

METHODS

Stages included (a) content identification, (b) content development, (c) content critique, (e) pilot study with a test-retest reliability, (f) field study consisting of psychometric testing of the internal consistency and construct validity.

RESULTS

The Cronbach's alpha was 0.89 and the stability reliability was acceptable. The factor analysis resulted in three factors explaining a total of 56.5% of the variance. hese factors are "beliefs," "behavior," and "emotions," explaining 37.025%, 12.792%, and 5.652% of variance.

CONCLUSIONS

The Attitude Tool of Delirium (ATOD) is a reliable and valid instrument for the assessment of attitudes toward delirium.

Impact of an educational workshop upon psychiatrists' attitudes towards delirium care

OBJECTIVES

Improving knowledge about delirium care is a key target for health care. We describe the implementation of a four-part workshop focusing upon key aspects of delirium care.

METHODS

Attitudes towards and understanding of delirium diagnosis and management amongst psychiatrists were surveyed before and immediately after an educational workshop.

RESULTS

There were 62 participants. Pre-workshop, delirium was rated highly relevant to psychiatry. Overall level of confidence in diagnosis was modest, with the behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia considered the most challenging differential diagnosis. Only nine participants (15%) correctly identified DSM-5 delirium criteria. Preferred assessment of attention varied with six different approaches endorsed. Confidence was higher for managing hyperactive compared with hypoactive delirium (p&lt;0.001). Pharmacotherapy was more frequently endorsed for hyperactive compared with hypoactive presentations, with haloperidol the most popular agent (p&lt;0.001). A total of 41 (66%) participants completed post-workshop assessments. Post-workshop, there were significant increases to the perceived relevance of delirium (p = 0.003), confidence in overall diagnosis (p&lt;0.001) accuracy of awareness of DSM-5 criteria (p&lt;0.001), and confidence in treating different presentations (p&lt;0.001). The Months Backward Test was the preferred bedside test of attention (38/40 respondents).

CONCLUSIONS

This interactive educational intervention impacted positively upon knowledge and attitudes amongst psychiatrists towards key aspects of delirium care. Further investigation can examine the impact upon longer term knowledge and behaviour.

Pharmacological interventions for prevention and management of delirium in intensive care patients: a systematic overview of reviews and meta-analyses

OBJECTIVES

We assessed the evidence from reviews and meta-analyses of randomised clinical trials on the effects of pharmacological prevention and management of delirium in intensive care unit (ICU) patients.

METHODS

We searched for reviews in July 2017 in: Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index, BIOSIS Previews, CINAHL and LILACS. We assessed whether reviews were systematic according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and assessed the methodological quality using ROBIS.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcomes: all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, prevention of delirium and management of delirium.

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

quality of life; non-serious adverse events and cognitive function.

RESULTS

We included 378 reviews: 369 narrative reviews, eight semisystematic reviews which failed on a maximum of two arbitrary PRISMA criteria and one systematic review fulfilling all 27 PRISMA criteria. For the prevention of delirium, we identified the one systematic review and eight semisystematic reviews all assessing the effects of alpha-2-agonists. None found evidence of a reduction of mortality (systematic review RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.24). The systematic review and three semisystematic reviews found no evidence of an effect for the prevention of delirium (systematic review RR 0.85, 0.63 to 1.14). Conversely, four semisystematic reviews found a beneficial effect. Serious adverse events, quality of life, non-serious adverse events and cognitive function were not assessed. We did not identify any systematic or semisystematic reviews addressing other pharmacological interventions for the prevention of delirium. For the management of manifest delirium, we did not identify any systematic or semisystematic review assessing any pharmacological agents.

CONCLUSION

Based on systematic reviews, the evidence for the use of pharmacological interventions for prevention or management of delirium is poor or sparse. A systematic review with low risk of bias assessing the effects of pharmacological prevention of delirium and management of manifest delirium in ICU patients is urgently needed.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42016046628.

The effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions in reducing the incidence and duration of delirium in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effect of non-pharmacological interventions versus standard care on incidence and duration of delirium in critically ill patients.

METHODS

We searched electronic and grey literature for randomised clinical trials up to March 2018. Two reviewers independently screened, selected and extracted data. Meta-analysis was undertaken using random effects modelling.

RESULTS

We identified 15 trials (2812 participants). Eleven trials reported incidence of delirium. Pooled data from four trials of bright light therapy showed no significant effect between groups (n = 829 participants, RR 0.45, 99% CI 0.10-2.13, P = 0.19, very low quality evidence). Seven trials of various individual interventions also failed to report any significant effects. A total of eight trials reported duration of delirium. Pooled data from two trials of multicomponent physical therapy showed no significant effect [n = 404 participants, MD (days) - 0.65, 99% CI - 2.73 to 1.44, P = 0.42, low quality of evidence]. Four trials of various individual interventions also reported no significant effects. A trial of family voice reorientation showed a beneficial effect [n = 30, MD (days) - 1.30, 99% CI - 2.41 to - 0.19, P = 0.003, very low quality evidence].

CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence does not support the use of non-pharmacological interventions in reducing incidence and duration of delirium in critically ill patients. Future research should consider well-designed and well-described multicomponent interventions and include adequately defined outcome measures.

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 .).

Interventions for preventing intensive care unit delirium in adults

BACKGROUND

Delirium is defined as a disturbance in attention, awareness and cognition with reduced ability to direct, focus, sustain and shift attention, and reduced orientation to the environment. Critically ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) frequently develop ICU delirium. It can profoundly affect both them and their families because it is associated with increased mortality, longer duration of mechanical ventilation, longer hospital and ICU stay and long-term cognitive impairment. It also results in increased costs for society.

OBJECTIVES

To assess existing evidence for the effect of preventive interventions on ICU delirium, in-hospital mortality, the number of delirium- and coma-free days, ventilator-free days, length of stay in the ICU and cognitive impairment.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, BIOSIS, International Web of Science, Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, CINAHL from 1980 to 11 April 2018 without any language limits. We adapted the MEDLINE search for searching the other databases. Furthermore, we checked references, searched citations and contacted study authors to identify additional studies. We also checked the following trial registries: Current Controlled Trials; ClinicalTrials.gov; and CenterWatch.com (all on 24 April 2018).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of adult medical or surgical ICU patients receiving any intervention for preventing ICU delirium. The control could be standard ICU care, placebo or both. We assessed the quality of evidence with GRADE.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We checked titles and abstracts to exclude obviously irrelevant studies and obtained full reports on potentially relevant ones. Two review authors independently extracted data. If possible we conducted meta-analyses, otherwise we synthesized data narratively.

MAIN RESULTS

The electronic search yielded 8746 records. We included 12 RCTs (3885 participants) comparing usual care with the following interventions: commonly used drugs (four studies); sedation regimens (four studies); physical therapy or cognitive therapy, or both (one study); environmental interventions (two studies); and preventive nursing care (one study). We found 15 ongoing studies and five studies awaiting classification. The participants were 48 to 70 years old; 48% to 74% were male; the mean acute physiology and chronic health evaluation (APACHE II) score was 14 to 28 (range 0 to 71; higher scores correspond to more severe disease and a higher risk of death). With the exception of one study, all participants were mechanically ventilated in medical or surgical ICUs or mixed. The studies were overall at low risk of bias. Six studies were at high risk of detection bias due to lack of blinding of outcome assessors. We report results for the two most commonly explored approaches to delirium prevention: pharmacologic and a non-pharmacologic intervention.Haloperidol versus placebo (two RCTs, 1580 participants)The event rate of ICU delirium was measured in one study including 1439 participants. No difference was identified between groups, (risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87 to 1.17) (moderate-quality evidence). Haloperidol versus placebo neither reduced or increased in-hospital mortality, (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.22; 2 studies; 1580 participants (moderate-quality evidence)); the number of delirium- and coma-free days, (mean difference (MD) -0.60, 95% CI -1.37 to 0.17; 2 studies, 1580 participants (moderate-quality of evidence)); number of ventilator-free days (mean 23.8 (MD -0.30, 95% CI -0.93 to 0.33) 1 study; 1439 participants, (high-quality evidence)); length of ICU stay, (MD 0.18, 95% CI -0.60 to 0.97); 2 studies, 1580 participants; high-quality evidence). None of the studies measured cognitive impairment. In one study there were three serious adverse events in the intervention group and five in the placebo group; in the other there were five serious adverse events and three patients died, one in each group. None of the serious adverse events were judged to be related to interventions received (moderate-quality evidence).Physical and cognitive therapy interventions (one study, 65 participants)The study did not measure the event rate of ICU delirium. A physical and cognitive therapy intervention versus standard care neither reduced nor increased in-hospital mortality, (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.40 to 2.20, I² = 0; 1 study, 65 participants; very low-quality evidence); the number of delirium- and coma-free days, (MD -2.8, 95% CI -10.1 to 4.6, I² = 0; 1 study, 65 participants; very low-quality evidence); the number of ventilator-free days (within the first 28/30 days) was median 27.4 (IQR 0 to 29.2) and 25 (IQR 0 to 28.9); 1 study, 65 participants; very low-quality evidence, length of ICU stay, (MD 1.23, 95% CI -0.68 to 3.14, I² = 0; 1 study, 65 participants; very low-quality evidence); cognitive impairment measured by the MMSE: Mini-Mental State Examination with higher scores indicating better function, (MD 0.97, 95% CI -0.19 to 2.13, I² = 0; 1 study, 30 participants; very low-quality evidence); or measured by the Dysexecutive questionnaire (DEX) with lower scores indicating better function (MD -8.76, 95% CI -19.06 to 1.54, I² = 0; 1 study, 30 participants; very low-quality evidence). One patient experienced acute back pain accompanied by hypotensive urgency during physical therapy.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is probably little or no difference between haloperidol and placebo for preventing ICU delirium but further studies are needed to increase our confidence in the findings. There is insufficient evidence to determine the effects of physical and cognitive intervention on delirium. The effects of other pharmacological interventions, sedation, environmental, and preventive nursing interventions are unclear and warrant further investigation in large multicentre studies. Five studies are awaiting classification and we identified 15 ongoing studies, evaluating pharmacological interventions, sedation regimens, physical and occupational therapy combined or separately, and environmental interventions, that may alter the conclusions of the review in future.

Haloperidol for delirium in critically ill patients - protocol for a systematic review

BACKGROUND

In the intensive care unit, the prevalence of delirium is high. Delirium has been associated with morbidity and mortality including more ventilator days, longer intensive care unit stay, increased long-term mortality, and cognitive impairment. Thus, the burden of delirium for patients, relatives, and societies is considerable. The objective of this systematic review was to critically access the evidence of randomised clinical trials on the effects of haloperidol vs. placebo or any other agents for delirium in critically ill patients.

METHODS

We will search for randomised clinical trials in the following databases: Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index, BIOSIS, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, and Allied and Complementary Medicine Database. Two authors will independently screen and select references for inclusion using Covidence, extract data and assess the methodological quality of the included randomised clinical trials using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Any disagreement will be resolved by consensus. We will analyse the extracted data using Review Manager, STATA 15, and Trial Sequential.

ANALYSIS

The aim of this study was to assess the quality of the evidence, we will create a 'Summary of Findings' table containing our primary and secondary outcomes using the GRADE assessment.

DISCUSSION

Our ambition with this systematic review is to provide reliable and powered evidence to better inform decision makers on the use of or future trials with haloperidol for the management of delirium in critically ill patients.

Psychometric properties of the Arabic version of the confusion assessment method for the intensive care unit (CAM-ICU)

BACKGROUND

It is recommended that critically ill patients undergo routine delirium monitoring with a valid and reliable tool such as the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU). However, the validity and reliability of the Arabic version of the CAM-ICU has not been investigated. Here, we test the validity and reliability of the Arabic CAM-ICU.

METHODS

We conducted a psychometric study at ICUs in a tertiary-care hospital in Saudi Arabia. We recruited consecutive adult Arabic-speaking patients, who had stayed in the ICU for at least 24 hours, and had a Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) score ≥ - 2 at examination. Two well-trained examiners (ICU nurse and intensivist) independently assessed delirium in eligible patients with the Arabic CAM-ICU. Evaluations by the two examiners were compared with psychiatrist blind clinical assessment of delirium according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5). Subgroup analyses were conducted for age, invasive mechanical ventilation, and gender.

RESULTS

We included 108 patients (mean age: 62.6 ± 17.6; male: 51.9%), of whom 37% were on invasive mechanical ventilation. Delirium was diagnosed in 63% of enrolled patients as per the psychiatrist clinical assessment. The Arabic CAM-ICU sensitivity was 74% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.63-0.84) and 56% (95%CI = 0.44-0.68) for the ICU nurse and intensivist, respectively. Specificity was 98% (95%CI = 0.93-1.0) and 92% (95%CI = 0.84-1.0), respectively. Sensitivity was greater for mechanically-ventilated patients, women, and those aged ≥65 years. Specificity was greater for those aged < 65 years, non-mechanically-ventilated patients and men. The median duration to complete the Arabic CAM-ICU was 2 min (interquartile range, 2-3) and 4.5 min (IQR, 3-5) for the ICU nurse and intensivist, respectively. Inter-rater reliability (kappa) was 0.66.

CONCLUSIONS

The Arabic CAM-ICU demonstrated acceptable reliability and validity to assess delirium in Arabic-speaking ICU patients.

Designing a nurse-delivered delirium bundle: What intensive care unit staff, survivors, and their families think?

BACKGROUND

Implementation of quality improvement interventions can be enhanced by exploring the perspectives of those who will deliver and receive them. We designed a non-pharmacological bundle for delirium management for a feasibility trial, and we sought to obtain the views of intensive care unit (ICU) staff, survivors, and families on the barriers and facilitators to its implementation.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to determine the barriers and facilitators to a multicomponent bundle for delirium management in critically ill patients comprising (1) education and family participation, (2) sedation minimisation and pain, agitation, and delirium protocol, (3) early mobilisation, and (4) environmental interventions for sleep, orientation, communication, and cognitive stimulation.

METHODS

Nine focus group interviews were conducted with ICU staff (n = 68) in 12 UK ICUs. Three focus group interviews were conducted with ICU survivors (n = 12) and their family members (n = 2). Interviews were digitally recorded, transcribed, and thematically analysed using the Braun and Clarke framework.

RESULTS

Overall, staff, survivors, and their families agreed the bundle was acceptable. Facilitating factors for delivering the bundle were staff and relatives' education about potential benefits and encouraging family presence. Facilitating factors for sedation minimisation were evening ward rounds, using non-verbal pain scores, and targeting sedation scores. Barriers identified by staff were inadequate resources, poor education, relatives' anxiety, safety concerns, and ICU culture. Concerns were raised about patient confidentiality when displaying orientation materials and managing resources for early mobility. Survivors cited that flexible visiting and re-establishing normality were important factors; and staff workload, lack of awareness, and poor communication were factors that needed to be considered before implementation.

CONCLUSION

Generally, the bundle was deemed acceptable and deliverable. However, like any complex intervention, component adaptations will be required depending on resources available to the ICU; in particular, involvement of pharmacists in the ward round and physiotherapists in mobilising intubated patients.

Barriers to delirium assessment in the intensive care unit: A literature review

BACKGROUND

Delirium is a common syndrome that has both short and long-term negative outcomes for critically ill patients. Many studies over several years have found a knowledge gap and lack of evidence-based practice from critical care personnel, but there has been little exploration of the reasons for this.

AIM

To identify the perceived barriers to delirium assessment and management among critical care nurses.

METHOD

A literature review of published studies to examine barriers to effective delirium assessment using a comprehensive search strategy. Five relevant studies identified for review.

RESULTS

Few studies have investigated barriers to delirium assessment and management, but several themes reoccur throughout the literature. The perceived time consuming nature of the assessment tools is cited by many, as is the lack of medical prioritisation of results. Lack of education on delirium appears to be a significant factor and reinforces some of the stated misconceptions.

CONCLUSION

Many barriers exist to prevent effective assessment and management of delirium, but several of these are due to a lack of understanding or unfamiliarity with the condition and the assessment tools as well as lack of medical prioritisation of the results. Further research is needed on this topic.

Diagnostic accuracy of delirium assessment methods in critical care patients

PURPOSE

Delirium is a disorder of decreased ability to focus, sustain or shift attention, change in cognition and or perception. The main objective was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU (CAM-ICU) and Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC) among the nursing and medical staff in a multidisciplinary ICU.

METHODS AND MATERIAL

Three hundred ten verbally communicating and non-communicating patients (mean age in years 47.9, standard deviation [SD] 14.5, mean Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score 13.8, SD 6.4) were assessed by a psychiatrist, nurse and intensivist for delirium. Inter-rater agreement was measured by Cohen's kappa coefficient. Sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, likelihood ratios and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) were calculated.

RESULTS

CAM-ICU showed higher sensitivity and DOR (84%, 86.1) compared to ICDSC (78%, 36.9). ICDSC had specificity and positive predictive value (94.5%, 92%) equal to that of CAM-ICU. For both the assessment methods (CAM-ICU and ICDSC), DORs for intensivists (120.5, 53.0) were relatively higher than nurses (67.0, 27.0).

CONCLUSIONS

In our mixed ICU population, CAM-ICU remained more sensitive than ICDSC. Though sensitivity and DOR were higher for medical staff, other diagnostic parameters were similar for both medical and nursing staff.

Prevention, recognition and management of delirium in patients who are critically ill

Delirium is common in patients who are critically ill, often resulting in extended hospital stays and increased mortality and morbidity. There are several subtypes of delirium, which are often undiagnosed and untreated, resulting in suboptimal patient outcomes. This article examines delirium in patients in the intensive care unit, including its signs and symptoms, incidence, causes and subtypes. It outlines the assessment of delirium and the pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions that can be used to manage the condition, as well as describing the optimal prevention measures.

Perceptions, attitudes, and current practices regards delirium in China: A survey of 917 critical care nurses and physicians in China

The purpose of this study is to assess the knowledge, attitudes, and managements regarding delirium of intensive care nurses and physicans, and to assess the perceived barriers related to intensive care unit (ICU) delirium monitoring in China. A descriptive survey was distributed to 1156 critical care nurses and physicians from 74 tertiary and secondary hospitals across Shandong province, China. The overall response rate was 86.18% (n = 917). The majority of respondents (88%) believed that deirium was associated with prolonged mechanical ventilation, and 79.72% thought delirium was associated with prolonged length of hospitalization. Only 14.17% of respondents believed that delirium was common in the ICU setting. Only 25.62% of the respondents reported routine screening of ICU delirium, and only 15.81% utilized Confusion Assessment Method for Intensive Care Unit screening tools. "Lack of appropriate screening tools" and "time restraints" were the most common perceived barriers. 45.4% of the participants had never received any education on ICU delirium. In conclusion, most nurses and physicians consider ICU delirium to be a serious problem, but lack knowledge on delirium and monitor this condition poorly. The survey infers a disconnection between the perceived significance and current monitoring of ICU delirium. There is a critical unmet need for in-service education on ICU delirium for physicians and nurses in China.

Critical care nurses' knowledge and practice of delirium assessment

AIMS

The aim of this study was to examine perceived barriers to assessment of delirium for critical care nurses, and the impact of education on their knowledge and practice.

BACKGROUND

Delirium is a significant problem in critical care, leading to increased morbidity and mortality. Many authors have found variations in assessment by critical care nurses, but there has been limited analysis of the reasons for this. Education on the topic improves knowledge and practice, but the best approach has not been examined.

DESIGN

A questionnaire survey design.

METHODS

A self-reported questionnaire was distributed to critical care nurses (n=31) at a district general hospital. Data were analysed with descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Knowledge and practice were variable, but correlation was seen between nursing band and years of experience with better scores. Any type of education led to significantly improved scores. Several barriers to assessment were found, with the most common being lack of knowledge and difficulty in assessing intubated patients.

CONCLUSION

It is essential to improve practice in delirium assessment and management. Education is vital to improve the knowledge and practice of critical care nurses regarding delirium.

Intensive care nurses' experiences and perceptions of delirium and delirium care

OBJECTIVE

To explore nurses' experiences and perceptions of delirium, managing delirious patients, and screening for delirium, five years after introduction of the Confusion Assessment Method for Intensive Care into standard practice.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND SETTING

Twelve nurses from a medical-surgical intensive care unit in a large teaching hospital attended two focus group sessions. The collected qualitative data was thematically analysed using Braun and Clarke's framework (2006).

FINDINGS

The analysis identified seven themes: (1) Delirium as a Secondary Matter (2) Unpleasant Nature of Delirium (3) Scepticism About Delirium Assessment (4) Distrust in Delirium Management (5) Value of Communication (6) Non-pharmacological Therapy (7) Need for Reviewed Delirium Policy.

CONCLUSION

Nurses described perceiving delirium as a low priority matter and linked it to work culture within the intensive care specialty. Simultaneously, they expressed their readiness to challenge this culture and to promote the notion of providing high-quality delirium care. Nurses discussed their frustrations related to lack of confidence in assessing delirium, as well as lack of effective therapies in managing this group of patients. They declared their appreciation for non-pharmacological interventions in treatment of delirium, suggested improvements to current delirium approach and proposed introducing psychological support for nurses dealing with delirious patients.

Antipsychotic prescribing patterns during and after critical illness: a prospective cohort study

Background

Antipsychotics are used to treat delirium in the intensive care unit (ICU) despite unproven efficacy. We hypothesized that atypical antipsychotic treatment in the ICU is a risk factor for antipsychotic prescription at discharge, a practice that might increase risk since long-term use is associated with increased mortality.

Methods

After excluding patients on antipsychotics prior to admission, we examined antipsychotic use in a prospective cohort of ICU patients with acute respiratory failure and/or shock. We collected data on medication use from medical records and assessed patients for delirium using the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU. Using multivariable logistic regression, we analyzed whether age, delirium duration, atypical antipsychotic use, and discharge disposition (each selected a priori) were independent risk factors for discharge on an antipsychotic. We also examined admission Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score, haloperidol use, and days of benzodiazepine use in post hoc analyses.

Results

After excluding 18 patients due to prior antipsychotic use and three who withdrew, we included 500 patients. Among 208 (42%) treated with an antipsychotic, median (interquartile range) age was 59 (49–69) years and APACHE II score was 26 (22–32), characteristics that were similar among antipsychotic nonusers. Antipsychotic users were more likely than nonusers to have had delirium (93% vs. 61%, p < 0.001). Of the 208 antipsychotic users, 172 survived to hospital discharge, and 42 (24%) of these were prescribed an antipsychotic at discharge. Treatment with an atypical antipsychotic was the only independent risk factor for antipsychotic prescription at discharge (odds ratio 17.6, 95% confidence interval 4.9 to 63.3; p < 0.001). Neither age, delirium duration, nor discharge disposition were risk factors (p = 0.11, 0.38, and 0.12, respectively) in the primary regression model, and post hoc analyses found APACHE II (p = 0.07), haloperidol use (p = 0.16), and days of benzodiazepine use (p = 0.31) were also not risk factors for discharge on an antipsychotic.

Conclusions

In this study, antipsychotics were used to treat nearly half of all antipsychotic-naïve ICU patients and were prescribed at discharge to 24% of antipsychotic-treated patients. Treatment with an atypical antipsychotic greatly increased the odds of discharge with an antipsychotic prescription, a practice that should be examined carefully during medication reconciliation since these drugs carry “black box warnings” regarding long-term use.

"I Can Remember Sort of Vivid People…but to Me They Were Plasticine." Delusions on the Intensive Care Unit: What Do Patients Think Is Going On?

INTRODUCTION

Patients who develop intensive care unit (ICU) acquired delirium stay longer in the ICU, and hospital, and are at risk of long-term mental and physical health problems. Despite guidelines for patient assessment, risk limitation, and treatment in the ICU population, delirium and associated delusions remain a relatively common occurrence on the ICU. There is considerable information in the literature describing the incidence, suspected causes of, and discussion of the benefits and side-effects of the various treatments for delirium in the ICU. But peer-reviewed patient-focused research is almost non-existent. There is therefore a very limited understanding of the reality of delusions in the intensive care unit from the patient's point of view.

METHOD

A secondary analysis of the original interviews conducted by the University of Oxford Health Experiences Research Group was undertaken to explore themes relating specifically to sleep and delirium.

RESULTS

Patients describe a liminal existence on the ICU. On the threshold of consciousness their reality is uncertain and their sense of self is exposed. Lack of autonomy in an unfamiliar environment prompts patients to develop explanations and understandings for themselves with no foothold in fact.

CONCLUSION

Patients on the ICU are perhaps more disoriented than they appear and early psychological intervention in the form of repeated orientation whilst in the ICU might improve the patient experience and defend against development of side-effects.

Attitudes, knowledge and practices concerning delirium: a survey among intensive care unit professionals

BACKGROUND

Delirium is a common form of vital organ dysfunction in intensive care unit (ICU) patients and is associated with poor outcomes. Adherence to guideline recommendations pertaining to delirium is still suboptimal.

AIMS

We performed a survey aimed at identifying barriers for implementation that should be addressed in a tailored implementation intervention targeted at improved ICU delirium guideline adherence.

DESIGN

The survey was conducted among ICU professionals.

METHODS

An online survey was conducted among 360 ICU health care professionals (nurses, physicians and delirium consultants) from six ICUs in the southwest of the Netherlands as part of a multicentre prospective implementation project [response rate: 64% of 565 invited; 283 (79%) were nurses].

RESULTS

Although the majority (83%) of respondents considered delirium a common and major problem in the ICU, we identified several barriers for implementation of a delirium guideline. The most important barriers were knowledge deficit, low delirium screening rate, lack of trust in the reliability of delirium screening tools, belief that delirium is not preventable, low familiarity with delirium guidelines, low satisfaction with physician-described delirium management, poor collaboration between nurses and physicians, reluctance to change delirium care practices, lack of time, disbelief that patients would receive optimal care when adhering to the guideline and the perception that the delirium guideline is cumbersome or inconvenient in daily practice.

CONCLUSION

Although ICU professionals consider delirium a serious problem, several important barriers to adhere to guidelines on delirium management are still present today.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Identification of implementation barriers for adherence to guidelines pertaining to delirium is feasible with a survey. Results of this study may help to design-targeted implementation strategies for ICU delirium management.

Efficacy and safety of haloperidol for in-hospital delirium prevention and treatment: A systematic review of current evidence

OBJECTIVE

Haloperidol is generally considered the drug of choice for in-hospital delirium management. We conducted a systematic review to evaluate the evidence for the efficacy and safety of haloperidol for the prevention and treatment of delirium in hospitalized patients.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL), PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched up to April 21, 2015. We included English full-text randomized controlled trials using haloperidol for the prevention or treatment of delirium in adult hospitalized patients reporting on delirium incidence, duration, or severity as primary outcome. Quality of evidence was graded. Meta-analysis was not conducted because of between-study heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Twelve studies met our inclusion criteria, four prevention and eight treatment trials. Methodological limitations decreased the graded quality of included studies. Results from placebo-controlled prevention studies suggest a haloperidol-induced protective effect for delirium in older patients scheduled for surgery: two studies reported a significant reduction in ICU delirium incidence and one study found a significant reduction in delirium severity and duration. Although placebo-controlled trials are missing, pharmacological treatment of established delirium reduced symptom severity. Haloperidol administration was not associated with treatment-limiting side-effects, but few studies used a systematic approach to identify adverse events.

CONCLUSION

Although results on haloperidol for delirium management seem promising, current prevention trials lack external validity and treatment trials did not include a placebo arm on top of standard nonpharmacological care. We therefore conclude that the current use of haloperidol for in-hospital delirium is not based on robust and generalizable evidence.

Evaluating early administration of the hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA reductase inhibitor simvastatin in the prevention and treatment of delirium in critically ill ventilated patients (MoDUS trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The incidence of delirium in ventilated patients is estimated at up to 82%, and it is associated with longer intensive care and hospital stays, and long-term cognitive impairment and mortality. The pathophysiology of delirium has been linked with inflammation and neuronal apoptosis. Simvastatin has pleiotropic properties; it penetrates the brain and, as well as reducing cholesterol, reduces inflammation when used at clinically relevant doses over the short term. This is a single centre randomised, controlled trial which aims to test the hypothesis that treatment with simvastatin will modify delirium incidence and outcomes.

METHODS/DESIGN

The ongoing study will include 142 adults admitted to the Watford General Hospital Intensive Care Unit who require mechanical ventilation in the first 72 hours of admission. The primary outcome is the number of delirium- and coma-free days in the first 14 days. Secondary outcomes include incidence of delirium, delirium- and coma-free days in the first 28 days, days in delirium and in coma at 14 and 28 days, number of ventilator-free days at 28 days, length of critical care and hospital stay, mortality, cognitive decline and healthcare resource use. Informed consent will be taken from patient's consultee before randomisation to receive either simvastatin (80 mg) or placebo once daily. Daily data will be recorded until day 28 after randomisation or until discharge from the ICU if sooner. Surviving patients will be followed up on at six months from discharge. Plasma and urine samples will be taken to investigate the biological effect of simvastatin on systemic markers of inflammation, as related to the number of delirium- and coma-free days, and the potential of cholinesterase activity and beta-amyloid as predictors of the risk of delirium and long-term cognitive impairment.

DISCUSSION

This trial will test the efficacy of simvastatin on reducing delirium in the critically ill. If patients receiving the statin show a reduced number of days in delirium compared with the placebo group, the inflammatory theory implicated in the pathogenesis of delirium will be strengthened.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial was registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Registry ( ISRCTN89079989 ) on 26 March 2013.

A national survey of the diagnosis and management of suspected ventilator-associated pneumonia

BACKGROUND

Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) affects up to 20% of patients admitted to intensive care units (ICU). It is associated with increased morbidity, mortality and healthcare costs. Despite published guidelines, variability in diagnosis and management exists, the extent of which remains unclear. We sought to characterise consultant opinions surrounding diagnostic and management practice for VAP in the UK.

METHODS

An online survey was sent to all consultant members of the UK Intensive Care Society (n=∼1500). Data were collected regarding respondents' individual practice in the investigation and management of suspected VAP including use of diagnostic criteria, microbiological sampling, chest X-ray (CXR), bronchoscopy and antibiotic treatments.

RESULTS

339 (23%) responses were received from a broadly representative spectrum of ICU consultants. All respondents indicated that microbiological confirmation should be sought, the majority (57.8%) stating they would take an endotracheal aspirate prior to starting empirical antibiotics. Microbiology reporting services were described as qualitative only by 29.7%. Only 17% of respondents had access to routine reporting of CXRs by a radiologist. Little consensus exists regarding technique for bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) with the reported volume of saline used ranging from 5 to 500 mL. 24.5% of consultants felt inadequately trained in bronchoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

There is wide variability in the approach to diagnosis and management of VAP among UK consultants. Such variability challenges the reliability of the diagnosis of VAP and its reported incidence as a performance indicator in healthcare systems. The data presented suggest increased radiological and microbiological support, and standardisation of BAL technique, might improve this situation.

Recognition and management of delirium among doctors, nurses, physiotherapists, and psychologists: an Italian survey

BACKGROUND

There are no studies that have identified the ability to recognize and manage delirium among Italian health providers caring for patients at risk. Therefore, the Italian Association of Psychogeriatrics (AIP) conducted a multicenter survey among doctors, nurses, psychologists and physiotherapists to assess their competence regarding the theme of delirium and its management in the everyday clinical practice.

METHODS

The survey period was 1st June 2013 to 30th November 2013. The invitation to participate was sent via email, with publication on the AIP website. The survey included 14 questions and two case vignettes.

RESULTS

A total of 648/1,500 responses were collected. Most responders were doctors (n = 322/800), followed by nurses (n = 225/500), psychologists (n = 51/100), and physiotherapists (n = 30/100). Generally, doctors and psychologists correctly defined delirium, while nurses and physiotherapists did not. The most frequently used diagnostic tools were the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-IV. Delirium intensity was rarely assessed. Hypoactive delirium was generally managed with non-pharmacological approaches, while hyperactive delirium with a combination of non-pharmacological and pharmacological approaches. However, possible causes of delirium were under-assessed by half of doctors and by the majority of other professionals. Nurses, psychologists and physiotherapists did not answer the case vignettes, while doctors identified the correct answer in most cases.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first Italian survey among health providers caring for patients at risk of delirium. This is also the first survey including doctors, nurses, psychologists and physiotherapists. The results emphasize the importance of training to improve knowledge of this relevant unmet medical need.

Can intensive care unit delirium be prevented and reduced? Lessons learned and future directions

Delirium is a form of acute brain injury that occurs in up to 80% of critically ill patients. It is a source of enormous societal and financial burdens due to increased mortality, prolonged intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital stays, and long-term neuropsychological and functional deficits in ICU survivors. These poor outcomes are not only independently associated with the development of delirium but are also associated with increasing delirium duration. Therefore, interventions should strive both to prevent the occurrence of ICU delirium and to limit its persistence. Both patient-centered and ICU-acquired risk factors need to be addressed early in the ICU course to maximize the efficacy of prevention strategies and to improve long-term outcomes of ICU patients. In this article, we review strategies for early detection of patients who are delirious and who are at high risk for developing delirium, and we present a clinically useful ICU delirium prevention and reduction strategy for clinicians to incorporate into their daily practice.

Development of an abbreviated version of the delirium motor subtyping scale (DMSS-4)

BACKGROUND

Delirium is a common neuropsychiatric syndrome with considerable heterogeneity in clinical profile. Identification of clinical subtypes can allow for more targeted clinical and research efforts. We sought to develop a brief method for clinical subtyping in clinical and research settings.

METHODS

A multi-site database, including motor symptom assessments conducted in 487 patients from palliative care, adult and old age consultation-liaison psychiatry services was used to document motor activity disturbances as per the Delirium Motor Checklist (DMC). Latent class analysis (LCA) was used to identify the class structure underpinning DMC data and also items for a brief subtyping scale. The concordance of the abbreviated scale was then compared with the original Delirium Motor Subtype Scale (DMSS) in 375 patients having delirium as per the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (4th edition) criteria.

RESULTS

Latent class analysis identified four classes that corresponded closely with the four recognized motor subtypes of delirium. Further, LCA of items (n = 15) that loaded >60% to the model identified four features that reliably identified the classes/subtypes, and these were combined as a brief motor subtyping scale (DMSS-4). There was good concordance for subtype attribution between the original DMSS and the DMSS-4 (κ = 0.63).

CONCLUSIONS

The DMSS-4 allows for rapid assessment of clinical subtypes in delirium and has high concordance with the longer and well-validated DMSS. More consistent clinical subtyping in delirium can facilitate better delirium management and more focused research effort.

Improving delirium care through early intervention: from bench to bedside to boardroom

Delirium is a complex neuropsychiatric syndrome that impacts adversely upon patient outcomes and healthcare outcomes. Delirium occurs in approximately one in five hospitalised patients and is especially common in the elderly and patients who are highly morbid and/or have pre-existing cognitive impairment. However, efforts to improve management of delirium are hindered by gaps in our knowledge and issues that reflect a disparity between existing knowledge and real-world practice. This review focuses on evidence that can assist in prevention, earlier detection and more timely and effective pharmacological and non-pharmacological management of emergent cases and their aftermath. It points towards a new approach to delirium care, encompassing laboratory and clinical aspects and health services realignment supported by health managers prioritising delirium on the healthcare change agenda. Key areas for future research and service organisation are outlined in a plan for improved delirium care across the range of healthcare settings and patient populations in which it occurs.

Consensus and variations in opinions on delirium care: a survey of European delirium specialists

BACKGROUND

There are still substantial uncertainties over best practice in delirium care. The European Delirium Association (EDA) conducted a survey of its members and other interested parties on various aspects of delirium care.

METHODS

The invitation to participate in the online survey was distributed among the EDA membership. The survey covered assessment, treatment of hyperactive and hypoactive delirium, and organizational management.

RESULTS

A total of 200 responses were collected (United Kingdom 28.6%, Netherlands 25.3%, Italy 15%, Switzerland 9.7%, Germany 7.1%, Spain 3.8%, Portugal 2.5%, Ireland 2.5%, Sweden 0.6%, Denmark 0.6%, Austria 0.6%, and others 3.2%). Most of the responders were doctors (80%), working in geriatrics (45%) or internal medicine (14%). Ninety-two per cent of the responders assessed patients for delirium daily. The most commonly used assessment tools were the Confusion Assessment Method (52%) and the Delirium Observation Screening Scale (30%). The first-line choice in the management of hyperactive delirium was a combination of non-pharmacological and pharmacological approaches (61%). Conversely, non-pharmacological management was the first-line choice in hypoactive delirium (67%). Delirium awareness (34%), knowledge (33%), and lack of education (13%) were the most commonly reported barriers to improving the detection of delirium. Interestingly, 63% of the responders referred patients after an episode of delirium to a follow-up clinic.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first systematic survey involving an international group of specialists in delirium. Several areas of lack of consensus were found. These results emphasise the importance of further research to improve care of this major unmet medical need.

What do we really know about the treatment of delirium with antipsychotics? Ten key issues for delirium pharmacotherapy

Despite the significant burden of delirium among hospitalized adults, no pharmacologic intervention is approved for delirium treatment. Antipsychotic agents are the best studied but there are uncertainties as to how these agents can be optimally applied in everyday practice. We searched Medline and PubMed databases for publications from 1980 to April 2012 to identify studies of delirium treatment with antipsychotic agents. Studies of primary prevention using pharmacotherapy were not included. We identified 28 prospective studies that met our inclusion criteria, of which 15 were comparison studies (11 randomized), 2 of which were placebo-controlled. The quality of comparison studies was assessed using the Jadad scale. The DRS (N = 12) and DRS-R98 (N = 9) were the most commonly used instruments for measuring responsiveness. These studies suggest that around 75% of delirious patients who receive short-term treatment with low-dose antipsychotics experience clinical response. Response rates appear quite consistent across different patient groups and treatment settings. Studies do not suggest significant differences in efficacy for haloperidol versus atypical agents, but report higher rates of extrapyramidal side effects with haloperidol. Comorbid dementia may be associated with reduced response rates but this requires further study. The available evidence does not indicate major differences in response rates between clinical subtypes of delirium. The extent to which therapeutic effects can be explained by alleviation of specific symptoms (e.g. sleep or behavioral disturbances) versus a syndromal effect that encompasses both cognitive and noncognitive symptoms of delirium is not known. Future research needs to explore the relationship between therapeutic effects and changes in pathophysiological markers of delirium. Less than half of reports were rated as reasonable quality evidence on the Jadad scale, highlighting the need for future studies of better quality design, and in particular incorporating placebo-controlled work.

Effect of intravenous haloperidol on the duration of delirium and coma in critically ill patients (Hope-ICU): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Delirium is frequently diagnosed in critically ill patients and is associated with poor clinical outcomes. Haloperidol is the most commonly used drug for delirium despite little evidence of its effectiveness. The aim of this study was to establish whether early treatment with haloperidol would decrease the time that survivors of critical illness spent in delirium or coma.

METHODS

We did this double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised trial in a general adult intensive care unit (ICU). Critically ill patients (≥18 years) needing mechanical ventilation within 72 h of admission were enrolled. Patients were randomised (by an independent nurse, in 1:1 ratio, with permuted block size of four and six, using a centralised, secure web-based randomisation service) to receive haloperidol 2.5 mg or 0.9% saline placebo intravenously every 8 h, irrespective of coma or delirium status. Study drug was discontinued on ICU discharge, once delirium-free and coma-free for 2 consecutive days, or after a maximum of 14 days of treatment, whichever came first. Delirium was assessed using the confusion assessment method for the ICU (CAM-ICU). The primary outcome was delirium-free and coma-free days, defined as the number of days in the first 14 days after randomisation during which the patient was alive without delirium and not in coma from any cause. Patients who died within the 14 day study period were recorded as having 0 days free of delirium and coma. ICU clinical and research staff and patients were masked to treatment throughout the study. Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Registry, number ISRCTN83567338.

FINDINGS

142 patients were randomised, 141 were included in the final analysis (71 haloperidol, 70 placebo). Patients in the haloperidol group spent about the same number of days alive, without delirium, and without coma as did patients in the placebo group (median 5 days [IQR 0-10] vs 6 days [0-11] days; p=0.53). The most common adverse events were oversedation (11 patients in the haloperidol group vs six in the placebo group) and QTc prolongation (seven patients in the haloperidol group vs six in the placebo group). No patient had a serious adverse event related to the study drug.

INTERPRETATION

These results do not support the hypothesis that haloperidol modifies duration of delirium in critically ill patients. Although haloperidol can be used safely in this population of patients, pending the results of trials in progress, the use of intravenous haloperidol should be reserved for short-term management of acute agitation.

FUNDING

National Institute for Health Research.