Individual delirium symptoms: do they matter?

Incidence of Delirium in Critically Ill Patients With and Without COVID-19

BACKGROUND

It is known that patients with COVID-19 are at high risk of developing delirium. The aim of the study was to compare the incidence of delirium between critically ill patients with and without a diagnosis of COVID-19.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study conducted in a southern Brazilian hospital from March 2020 to January 2021. Patients were divided into two groups: the COVID-19 group consisted of patients with a diagnosis of COVID-19 confirmed by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) or serological tests who were admitted to specific ICUs. The non-COVID-19 group consisted of patients with other surgical and medical diagnoses who were admitted to non-COVID ICUs. All patients were evaluated daily using the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC). The two cohorts were compared in terms of the diagnosis of delirium.

RESULTS

Of the 649 patients who remained more than 48 h in the ICU, 523 were eligible for the study (COVID-19 group: 292, non-COVID-19 group: 231). There were 119 (22.7%) patients who had at least one episode of delirium, including 96 (32.9%) in the COVID-19 group and 23 (10.0%) in the non-COVID-19 group (odds ratio [OR] 4.42; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.69 to 7.26; p < 0.001). Among patients mechanically ventilated for two days or more, the incidence of delirium did not differ between groups (COVID-19: 89/211, 42.1% vs non-COVID-19: 19/47, 40.4%; p  =  0.82). Logistic regression showed that the duration of mechanical ventilation was the only independent factor associated with delirium (p  =  0.001).

CONCLUSION

COVID-19 can be associated with a higher incidence of delirium among critically ill patients, but there was no difference in this incidence between groups when mechanical ventilation lasted two days or more.

Poor prognostic impact of delirium: especially on mortality and institutionalisation

The course of delirium is associated with increased hospital costs, healthcare complications, increased mortality, and long-term poor outcomes. Despite delirium being long recognised as one of the most important prognostic components of patients with illnesses, delirium remains poorly understood, effective management options are limited, and no effective treatment has yet been established. This review evaluated the effects of delirium on mortality, institutionalisation, and dementia in various situations to clarify its prognostic seriousness to elucidate important areas for clinical practice and future research. The effect of delirium on mortality in COVID-19 patients was similar to that in other diseases. The effect of delirium on mortality in patients with delirium between the ages of 18 and 65 may be higher than in those with delirium aged over 65, but studies are scarce. Promoting recognition of delirium at all ages is needed. With careful attention to the specific factors in younger patients that contribute to delirium, healthcare providers may be able to decrease the poor impact of delirium on clinical outcomes. Evaluation of the association between interventions for delirium such as sedation in present clinical practice and the prognosis of delirium is lacking, and further clinical studies are essential.

Natural language processing diagnosed behavioral disturbance vs confusion assessment method for the intensive care unit: prevalence, patient characteristics, overlap, and association with treatment and outcome

PURPOSE

To compare the prevalence, characteristics, drug treatment for delirium, and outcomes of patients with Natural Language Processing (NLP) diagnosed behavioral disturbance (NLP-Dx-BD) vs Confusion Assessment Method for intensive care unit (CAM-ICU) positivity.

METHODS

In three combined medical-surgical ICUs, we obtained data on demographics, treatment with antipsychotic medications, and outcomes. We applied NLP to caregiver progress notes to diagnose behavioral disturbance and analyzed simultaneous CAM-ICU.

RESULTS

We assessed 2313 patients with a median lowest Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) score of - 2 (- 4.0 to - 1.0) and median highest RASS score of 1 (0 to 1). Overall, 1246 (53.9%) patients were NLP-Dx-BD positive (NLP-Dx-BDpos) and 578 (25%) were CAM-ICU positive (CAM-ICUpos). Among NLP-Dx-BDpos patients, 539 (43.3%) were also CAM-ICUpos. In contrast, among CAM-ICUpos patients, 539 (93.3%) were also NLP-Dx-BDpos. The use of antipsychotic medications was highest in patients in the CAM-ICUpos and NLP-Dx-BDpos group (24.3%) followed by the CAM-ICUneg and NLP-Dx-BDpos group (10.5%). In NLP-Dx-BDneg patients, antipsychotic medication use was lower at 5.1% for CAM-ICUpos and NLP-Dx-BDneg patients and 2.3% for CAM-ICUneg and NLP-Dx-BDneg patients (overall P < 0.001). Regardless of CAM-ICU status, after adjustment and on time-dependent Cox modelling, NLP-Dx-BD was associated with greater antipsychotic medication use. Finally, regardless of CAM-ICU status, NLP-Dx-BDpos patients had longer duration of ICU and hospital stay and greater hospital mortality (all P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

More patients were NLP-Dx-BD positive than CAM-ICU positive. NLP-Dx-BD and CAM-ICU assessment describe partly overlapping populations. However, NLP-Dx-BD identifies more patients likely to receive antipsychotic medications. In the absence of NLP-Dx-BD, treatment with antipsychotic medications is rare.

Delirium and Associated Length of Stay and Costs in Critically Ill Patients

Purpose

Delirium frequently affects critically ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). The purpose of this study is to evaluate the impact of delirium on ICU and hospital length of stay (LOS) and perform a cost analysis.

Materials and Methods

Prospective studies and randomized controlled trials of patients in the ICU with delirium published between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2020, were evaluated. Outcome variables including ICU and hospital LOS were obtained, and ICU and hospital costs were derived from the respective LOS.

Results

Forty-one studies met inclusion criteria. The mean difference of ICU LOS between patients with and without delirium was significant at 4.77 days (p < 0.001); for hospital LOS, this was significant at 6.67 days (p < 0.001). Cost data were extractable for 27 studies in which both ICU and hospital LOS were available. The mean difference of ICU costs between patients with and without delirium was significant at $3,921 (p < 0.001); for hospital costs, the mean difference was $5,936 (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

ICU and hospital LOS and associated costs were significantly higher for patients with delirium, compared to those without delirium. Further research is necessary to elucidate other determinants of increased costs and cost-reducing strategies for critically ill patients with delirium. This can provide insight into the required resources for the prevention of delirium, which may contribute to decreasing healthcare expenditure while optimizing the quality of care.

Association Between Incident Delirium Treatment With Haloperidol and Mortality in Critically Ill Adults

OBJECTIVES

Haloperidol is commonly administered in the ICU to reduce the burden of delirium and its related symptoms despite no clear evidence showing haloperidol helps to resolve delirium or improve survival. We evaluated the association between haloperidol, when used to treat incident ICU delirium and its symptoms, and mortality.

DESIGN

Post hoc cohort analysis of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, delirium prevention trial.

SETTING

Fourteen Dutch ICUs between July 2013 and December 2016.

PATIENTS

One-thousand four-hundred ninety-five critically ill adults free from delirium at ICU admission having an expected ICU stay greater than or equal to 2 days.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients received preventive haloperidol or placebo for up to 28 days until delirium occurrence, death, or ICU discharge. If delirium occurred, treatment with open-label IV haloperidol 2 mg tid (up to 5 mg tid per delirium symptoms) was administered at clinician discretion.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Patients were evaluated tid for delirium and coma for 28 days. Time-varying Cox hazards models were constructed for 28-day and 90-day mortality, controlling for study-arm, delirium and coma days, age, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation-II score, sepsis, mechanical ventilation, and ICU length of stay. Among the 1,495 patients, 542 (36%) developed delirium within 28 days (median [interquartile range] with delirium 4 d [2-7 d]). A total of 477 of 542 (88%) received treatment haloperidol (2.1 mg [1.0-3.8 mg] daily) for 6 days (3-11 d). Each milligram of treatment haloperidol administered daily was associated with decreased mortality at 28 days (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.91-0.95) and 90 days (hazard ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.96-0.98). Treatment haloperidol administered later in the ICU course was less protective of death. Results were stable by prevention study-arm, predelirium haloperidol exposure, and haloperidol treatment protocol adherence.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment of incident delirium and its symptoms with haloperidol may be associated with a dose-dependent improvement in survival. Future randomized trials need to confirm these results.

Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Prevention and Management of Pain, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium, Immobility, and Sleep Disruption in Adult Patients in the ICU

OBJECTIVE

To update and expand the 2013 Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Pain, Agitation, and Delirium in Adult Patients in the ICU.

DESIGN

Thirty-two international experts, four methodologists, and four critical illness survivors met virtually at least monthly. All section groups gathered face-to-face at annual Society of Critical Care Medicine congresses; virtual connections included those unable to attend. A formal conflict of interest policy was developed a priori and enforced throughout the process. Teleconferences and electronic discussions among subgroups and whole panel were part of the guidelines' development. A general content review was completed face-to-face by all panel members in January 2017.

METHODS

Content experts, methodologists, and ICU survivors were represented in each of the five sections of the guidelines: Pain, Agitation/sedation, Delirium, Immobility (mobilization/rehabilitation), and Sleep (disruption). Each section created Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome, and nonactionable, descriptive questions based on perceived clinical relevance. The guideline group then voted their ranking, and patients prioritized their importance. For each Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome question, sections searched the best available evidence, determined its quality, and formulated recommendations as "strong," "conditional," or "good" practice statements based on Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation principles. In addition, evidence gaps and clinical caveats were explicitly identified.

RESULTS

The Pain, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium, Immobility (mobilization/rehabilitation), and Sleep (disruption) panel issued 37 recommendations (three strong and 34 conditional), two good practice statements, and 32 ungraded, nonactionable statements. Three questions from the patient-centered prioritized question list remained without recommendation.

CONCLUSIONS

We found substantial agreement among a large, interdisciplinary cohort of international experts regarding evidence supporting recommendations, and the remaining literature gaps in the assessment, prevention, and treatment of Pain, Agitation/sedation, Delirium, Immobility (mobilization/rehabilitation), and Sleep (disruption) in critically ill adults. Highlighting this evidence and the research needs will improve Pain, Agitation/sedation, Delirium, Immobility (mobilization/rehabilitation), and Sleep (disruption) management and provide the foundation for improved outcomes and science in this vulnerable population.

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.

Sleep physiology and disorders in aging and dementia

Sleep problems occur commonly in normal and pathologic aging. Older adults typically have more difficulty falling asleep and remaining asleep, report more daytime napping, and have an increased prevalence of primary sleep disorders such as insomnia, parasomnias, sleep apnea, and sleep-related movement disorders. Medical and psychiatric disorders as well as medications used to treat them also contribute to sleep disturbances in aging. Patients with mild cognitive impairment and dementia have more severe sleep problems, and disturbed sleep and sleep disorders contribute to earlier onset and more rapid progression of neurodegenerative disorders. Approaches to diagnosing and treating sleep disorders in the elderly are discussed.

Prevalence and risk factors related to haloperidol use for delirium in adult intensive care patients: the multinational AID-ICU inception cohort study

PURPOSE

We assessed the prevalence and variables associated with haloperidol use for delirium in ICU patients and explored any associations of haloperidol use with 90-day mortality.

METHODS

All acutely admitted, adult ICU patients were screened during a 2-week inception period. We followed the patient throughout their ICU stay and assessed 90-day mortality. We assessed patients and their variables in the first 24 and 72 h in ICU and studied their association together with that of ICU characteristics with haloperidol use.

RESULTS

We included 1260 patients from 99 ICUs in 13 countries. Delirium occurred in 314/1260 patients [25% (95% confidence interval 23-27)] of whom 145 received haloperidol [46% (41-52)]. Other interventions for delirium were benzodiazepines in 36% (31-42), dexmedetomidine in 21% (17-26), quetiapine in 19% (14-23) and olanzapine in 9% (6-12) of the patients with delirium. In the first 24 h in the ICU, all subtypes of delirium [hyperactive, adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 29.7 (12.9-74.5); mixed 10.0 (5.0-20.2); hypoactive 3.0 (1.2-6.7)] and circulatory support 2.7 (1.7-4.3) were associated with haloperidol use. At 72 h after ICU admission, circulatory support remained associated with subsequent use of haloperidol, aOR 2.6 (1.1-6.9). Haloperidol use within 0-24 h and within 0-72 h of ICU admission was not associated with 90-day mortality [aOR 1.2 (0.5-2.5); p = 0.66] and [aOR 1.9 (1.0-3.9); p = 0.07], respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In our study, haloperidol was the main pharmacological agent used for delirium in adult patients regardless of delirium subtype. Benzodiazepines, other anti-psychotics and dexmedetomidine were other frequently used agents. Haloperidol use was not statistically significantly associated with increased 90-day mortality.

Screening for delirium with the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC): Symptom profile and utility of individual items in the identification of delirium dependent on the level of sedation

OBJECTIVE

The importance of the proper identification of delirium, with its high incidence and adversities in the intensive care setting, has been widely recognized. One common screening instrument is the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC); however, the symptom profile and key features of delirium dependent on the level of sedation have not yet been evaluated.

METHOD

In this prospective cohort study, the ICDSC was evaluated versus the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, 4th edition, text revision, diagnosis of delirium set as standard with respect to the symptom profile, and correct identification of delirium. The aim of this study was to identify key features of delirium in the intensive care setting dependent on the Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale levels of sedation: drowsiness versus alert and calmness.ResultThe 88 delirious patients of 225 were older, had more severe disease, and prolonged hospitalization. Irrespective of the level of sedation, delirium was correctly classified by items related to inattention, disorientation, psychomotor alterations, inappropriate speech or mood, and symptom fluctuation. In the drowsy patients, inattention reached substantial sensitivity and specificity, whereas psychomotor alterations and sleep-wake cycle disturbances were sensitive lacked specificity. The positive prediction was substantial across items, whereas the negative prediction was only moderate. In the alert and calm patient, the sensitivities were substantial for psychomotor alterations, sleep-wake cycle disturbances, and symptom fluctuations; however, these fluctuations were not specific. The positive prediction was moderate and the negative prediction substantial. Between the nondelirious drowsy and alert, the symptom profile was similar; however, drowsiness was associated with alterations in consciousness.Significance of resultsIn the clinical routine, irrespective of the level of sedation, delirium was characterized by the ICDSC items for inattention, disorientation, psychomotor alterations, inappropriate speech or mood and symptom fluctuation. Further, drowsiness caused altered levels of consciousness.

Attention, vigilance, and visuospatial function in hospitalized elderly medical patients: relationship to delirium syndromal status and motor subtype profile

ABSTRACTBackground:The early and effective detection of neurocognitive disorders poses a key diagnostic challenge. We examined performance on common cognitive bedside tests according to differing delirium syndromal status and clinical (motor) subtypes in hospitalized elderly medical inpatients.

METHODS

A battery of nine bedside cognitive tests was performed on elderly medical inpatients with DSM-IV delirium, subsyndromal delirium (SSD), and no delirium (ND). Patients with delirium were compared according to clinical (motor) subtypes.

RESULTS

A total of 198 patients (mean age 79.14 ± 8.26) were assessed with full syndromal delirium (FSD: n = 110), SSD (n = 45), and ND (n = 43). Delirium status was not associated with differences in terms of gender distribution, age, or overall medication use. Dementia burden increased with greater delirium status. Overall, the ability to meaningfully engage with the tests varied from 59% for the Vigilance B test to 85% for Spatial Span Forward test and was lowest in patients with FSD, where engagement ranged from 32% for the Vigilance B test to 77% for the Spatial Span Forwards test. The ND group was distinguished from SSD group for the Months of the year backwards, Vigilance B, global VSP, Clock Drawing test, and Interlocking Pentagons test. The SSD group was distinguished from the FSD group by Vigilance A, Spatial Span Forward, and Spatial Span Backwards. Regarding differences among motor subtypes in terms of percentage engagement and performance, the No subtype group had higher ratings across all tests. Delirious patients with no subtype had significantly lower scores on the DRS-R98 than for the other three subtype categories.

CONCLUSIONS

Simple bedside tests of attention, vigilance, and visuospatial ability are useful in distinguishing neurocognitive disorders, including SSD from other presentations.

Preoperative Risk Factors for Subsyndromal Delirium in Older Adults Who Undergo Joint Replacement Surgery

BACKGROUND

Older adults with subsyndromal delirium have similar risks for adverse outcomes following joint replacement surgery as those who suffer from delirium.

PURPOSE

This study examined relationships among subsyndromal delirium and select preoperative risk factors in older adults following major orthopaedic surgery.

METHODS

Delirium assessments of a sample of 62 adults 65 years of age or older were completed on postoperative Days 1, 2, and 3 following joint replacement surgery. Data were analyzed for relationships among delirium symptoms and the following preoperative risk factors: increased comorbidity burden, cognitive impairment, fall history, and preoperative fasting time.

RESULTS

Postoperative subsyndromal delirium occurred in 68% of study participants. A recent fall history and a longer preoperative fasting time were associated with delirium symptoms (p ≤ .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Older adults with a recent history of falls within the past 6 months or a longer duration of preoperative fasting time may be at higher risk for delirium symptoms following joint replacement surgery.

Delirium Assessment Tools for Use in Critically Ill Adults: A Psychometric Analysis and Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Delirium is highly prevalent in critically ill patients. Its detection with valid tools is crucial.

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the development and psychometric properties of delirium assessment tools for critically ill adults.

METHODS

Databases were searched to identify relevant studies. Inclusion criteria were English language, publication before January 2015, 30 or more patients, and patient population of critically ill adults (>18 years old). Search terms were delirium, scales, critically ill patients, adult, validity, and reliability. Thirty-six manuscripts were identified, encompassing 5 delirium assessment tools (Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU), Cognitive Test for Delirium, Delirium Detection Score, Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC), and Nursing Delirium Screening Scale). Two independent reviewers analyzed the psychometric properties of these tools by using a standardized scoring system (range, 0-20) to assess the tool development process, reliability, validity, feasibility, and implementation of each tool.

RESULTS

Psychometric properties were very good for the CAM-ICU (19.6) and the ICDSC (19.2), moderate for the Nursing Delirium Screening Scale (13.6), low for the Delirium Detection Score (11.2), and very low for the Cognitive Test for Delirium (8.2).

CONCLUSIONS

The results indicate that the CAM-ICU and the ICDSC are the most valid and reliable delirium assessment tools for critically ill adults. Additional studies are needed to further validate these tools in critically ill patients with neurological disorders and those at various levels of sedation or consciousness.

Validation and Psychometric Properties of the German Version of the Delirium Motor Subtype Scale (DMSS)

Objective: Delirium has been characterized into its subtypes—hypoactive, hyperactive, mixed, or no motor subtype—along with the use of the Delirium Motor Symptom Scale (DMSS). The German version of this scale (DMSS-G), however, has not yet been validated. Method: We determined internal consistency, reliability, and validity of the DMSS-G in the surgical intensive care unit, using DSM-IV-TR criteria and the Delirium Rating Scale–Revised–98. Results: In total, 289 patients were included, and out of these, 122 were delirious. The DMSS-G showed excellent internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.92) and interrater reliability (Fleiss κ = 0.83). Additionally, the overall concurrent validity was substantial (Cramer’s V = 0.69); within subtypes, hyperactive, hypoactive, or mixed, the concurrent validity remained at least substantial (Cohen’s κ = 0.73-0.82) and the sensitivity ranged from 60% to 97%. In contrast, in those with no motor subtype, we found the concurrent validity (Cohen’s κ = 0.31) and sensitivity to be low (22%). Overall, specificity for all individual subtypes was high (82% to 100%). The DMSS was very sensitive in both rating hyperactive and hypoactive motor symptoms of delirium. Conclusion: The DMSS-G is a highly reliable and valid instrument for detecting motor symptoms in delirium, which provides an accurate instrument to classify the motor subtypes of delirium.

Polypharmacy and Delirium in Critically Ill Older Adults: Recognition and Prevention

Among older adults, polypharmacy is a sequelae of admission to the intensive care unit and is associated with increased medication-associated adverse events, drug interactions, and health care costs. Delirium is prevalent in critically ill geriatric patients and medications remain an underappreciated modifiable risk for delirium in this setting. This article reviews the literature on polypharmacy and delirium, with a focus on highlighting the relationships between polypharmacy and delirium in critically ill, older adults. Discussed are clinician strategies on how to recognize and reduce medication-associated delirium and recommendations that help prevent polypharmacy when interventions to reduce the burden of delirium in this vulnerable population are being formulated.

Delirium in critically ill patients

Delirium is common in critically ill patients and associated with increased length of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) and long-term cognitive impairment. The pathophysiology of delirium has been explained by neuroinflammation, an aberrant stress response, neurotransmitter imbalances, and neuronal network alterations. Delirium develops mostly in vulnerable patients (e.g., elderly and cognitively impaired) in the throes of a critical illness. Delirium is by definition due to an underlying condition and can be identified at ICU admission using prediction models. Treatment of delirium can be improved with frequent monitoring, as early detection and subsequent treatment of the underlying condition can improve outcome. Cautious use or avoidance of benzodiazepines may reduce the likelihood of developing delirium. Nonpharmacologic strategies with early mobilization, reducing causes for sleep deprivation, and reorientation measures may be effective in the prevention of delirium. Antipsychotics are effective in treating hallucinations and agitation, but do not reduce the duration of delirium. Combined pain, agitation, and delirium protocols seem to improve the outcome of critically ill patients and may reduce delirium incidence.

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.

Outcome of delirium in critically ill patients: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To determine the relation between delirium in critically ill patients and their outcomes in the short term (in the intensive care unit and in hospital) and after discharge from hospital.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, and PsychINFO, with no language restrictions, up to 1 January 2015.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTION STUDIES

Reports were eligible for inclusion if they were prospective observational cohorts or clinical trials of adults in intensive care units who were assessed with a validated delirium screening or rating system, and if the association was measured between delirium and at least one of four clinical endpoints (death during admission, length of stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, and any outcome after hospital discharge). Studies were excluded if they primarily enrolled patients with a neurological disorder or patients admitted to intensive care after cardiac surgery or organ/tissue transplantation, or centered on sedation management or alcohol or substance withdrawal. Data were extracted on characteristics of studies, populations sampled, identification of delirium, and outcomes. Random effects models and meta-regression analyses were used to pool data from individual studies.

RESULTS

Delirium was identified in 5280 of 16,595 (31.8%) critically ill patients reported in 42 studies. When compared with control patients without delirium, patients with delirium had significantly higher mortality during admission (risk ratio 2.19, 94% confidence interval 1.78 to 2.70; P<0.001) as well as longer durations of mechanical ventilation and lengths of stay in the intensive care unit and in hospital (standard mean differences 1.79 (95% confidence interval 0.31 to 3.27; P<0.001), 1.38 (0.99 to 1.77; P<0.001), and 0.97 (0.61 to 1.33; P<0.001), respectively). Available studies indicated an association between delirium and cognitive impairment after discharge.

CONCLUSIONS

Nearly a third of patients admitted to an intensive care unit develop delirium, and these patients are at increased risk of dying during admission, longer stays in hospital, and cognitive impairment after discharge.

Prognostic Significance of Postoperative Subsyndromal Delirium

BACKGROUND

Whether postoperative subsyndromal delirium (SSD) is a separate syndrome from delirium and has clinical relevance is not well understood.

OBJECTIVES

We sought to investigate SSD in older surgical patients and to determine its prognostic significance.

METHODS

We performed a prospective cohort study of patients who were 65 years or older and were scheduled for noncardiac surgery. Postoperative delirium was determined using the Confusion Assessment Method. SSD was defined as the presence of at least one of the possible 10 symptoms of delirium, as defined by the Confusion Assessment Method, but not meeting the criteria for delirium.

RESULTS

The number of features of SSD on the first postoperative day was associated with the subsequent development of delirium on the next day, after controlling for other risk factors. When compared with a patient with no SSD features, a patient with 1 SSD feature was 1.07 times more likely to have delirium on the next day (95% CI: 0.42-2.53), with 2 features was 3.32 times more likely to have it (95% CI: 1.42-7.57), and with ≥ 2 features was 8.37 times more likely to have it (95% CI: 4.98-14.53). Furthermore, there was a significant relationship between the number of features of SSD and increased length of hospital stay and worsened functional status at 1 month after surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

SSD is prevalent in at-risk surgical patients and has prognostic significance. Only a single symptom of SSD was sufficient to cause a significant increase in hospital length of stay and further decline in functional status. These results suggest that monitoring for SSD is indicated in at-risk patients.

Cool extremities, a diagnostic sign recorded in Shang Han Lun, still good prognosis index for septic patients in today's medical intensive care unit

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate and compare the predictive value of the physical signs mentioned by ZHANG Zhong-jing in Treatise on Cold Damaged Diseases (Shang Han Lun), together with other clinically determined diagnostic scores and laboratory values in modern medicine on 28-day mortality in septic patients.

METHODS

Three-year prospective observation was conducted in medical intensive care unit in two local community hospitals. In all, 126 patients with severe sepsis and/or septic shock were consecutively enrolled. Ten diagnostic signs (lack of fever, lethargy, delirium, clammy skin, mottled skin, edematous limbs, cool extremities, threadlike pulse, tachycardia, and abdominal distension), acute physiology and chronic health evaluation (APACHE) II, cardiovascular component (CV score) in multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS) score and blood sampled for cytokine measurement, including tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α), interleukin (IL)-6, IL-8, IL-10 and IL-18, were collected within 24 h after admission. Main outcome was 28-day mortality; independent predictors were determined by multivariate logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

Significant correlation between lack of fever, cool extremities, abdominal distension, plasma IL-10 level and mortality emerged. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves for cool extremities (0.73, 95% confidence interval: 0.64-0.82, P<0.01) and IL-10 (0.74, 95% confidence interval: 0.66-0.83, P<0.01) indicated comparable discrimination between survivors and non-survivors.

CONCLUSIONS

Assessment of cool extremities in septic patients, which showed comparable discriminant ability as IL-10, proves prognostic value of diagnostic signs recorded in Treatise on Cold Damaged Diseases, and may provide a quicker, easily-observed, and non-invasive predictor of sepsis mortality.

Different functional outcomes in patients with delirium and subsyndromal delirium one month after hospital discharge

BACKGROUND

Subsyndromal delirium has an increasing relevance in the medical literature. There are only three studies in hospitalized elderly patients. Our goal is to demonstrate the importance of this syndrome in a population with more complexity and cognitive impairment than in previous studies.

METHODS

Prospective multicentre study in three tertiary hospitals. The health outcomes recorded in the follow-up at 1 month were the persistence of delirium, hospital readmission, discharge destination, death, Barthel index and the Delirium Rating Scale Revised 98. To assess the impact of delirium in the Barthel index at 30 days, we adjusted univariate and multivariate linear regression models.

RESULTS

85 patients were enrolled; 75.3% of the patients had at least 1 positive item in the Confusion Assessment Method; 45 patients (53%) were diagnosed with delirium and 19 (22.3%) with subsyndromal delirium (SSD). The 30-day risk of death was associated with lower levels of albumin (p = 0.021) and the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale in Geriatrics (CIRS-G; p = 0.003). Adjusting for CIRS-G and the initial Barthel index, the diagnosis of delirium appears to be related to a lower Barthel index at 30 days (p = 0.019), showing a significant linear gradient (p < 0.005).

CONCLUSION

SSD could help get more accurate diagnoses as well as improve patient management.

[Subsyndromal delirium in elderly patients: a systematic review]

In this systemic review, the articles published between 1990 and November 2012 on subsyndromal delirium (SSD), and specifically those with reference to geriatric patients, were analysed. In SSD, symptoms from the three nuclear domains of delirium (cognitive, circadian and higher order thinking) are simultaneously present, with mild to moderate severity. Although the search for these clinical characteristics is a useful guide, there are no universally accepted diagnostic criteria for SSD. Regardless of the criteria used for diagnosis, SSD is persistently associated with poor functional and cognitive outcome, longer hospital stay, institutionalisation, and increased mortality. Studies are needed on the physiopathology, treatment and prevention in the field of SSD, which is a particularly important clinical condition in geriatric patients.

Agitation during prolonged mechanical ventilation at a long-term acute care hospital: risk factors, treatments, and outcomes

INTRODUCTION

The prevalence, risk factors, treatment practices, and outcomes of agitation in patients undergoing prolonged mechanical ventilation (PMV) in the long-term acute care hospital (LTACH) setting are not well understood. We compared agitation risk factors, management strategies, and outcomes between patients who developed agitation and those who did not, in LTACH patients undergoing PMV.

METHODS

Patients admitted to an LTACH for PMV over a 1-year period were categorized into agitated and nonagitated groups. The presence of agitation risk factors, management strategies, and relevant outcomes were extracted and compared between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

A total of 80 patients were included, 41% (33) with agitation and 59% (47) without. Compared to the nonagitated group, the agitated group had a lower Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score (P < .0006), a greater transfer rate from an academic center (P = .05), a greater delirium frequency at both baseline (P = .04) and during admission (P < .001), and a greater rate of benzodiazepine discontinuation (P = .02). Although the use of scheduled antipsychotic (P = .0005) or restraint (P = .002) therapy was more common in the agitated group, use of benzodiazepines (P = .16), opioids (P = .11), or psychiatric evaluation (P = .90) was not. Weaning success, duration of LTACH stay, and daily costs were similar.

CONCLUSION

Agitation among the LTACH patients undergoing PMV is associated with greater delirium and use of antipsychotics and restraints but does not influence weaning success or LTACH stay. Strategies focused on agitation prevention and treatment in this population need to be developed and formally evaluated.

Pharmacologic prevention and treatment of delirium in critically ill and non-critically ill hospitalised patients: a review of data from prospective, randomised studies

Delirium occurs commonly in acutely ill hospitalised patients, particularly in the elderly or in cardiac or orthopaedic surgery patients, or those in intensive care units (ICUs). Delirium worsens outcome. Pharmaceutical agents such as antipsychotics and, in the critically ill, dexmedetomidine, are considered therapeutic despite uncertainty regarding their efficacy and safety. Using MEDLINE, we reviewed randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published between 1977 and April 2012 evaluating a pharmacologic intervention to prevent or treat delirium in critically ill and non-critically ill hospitalised patients. The number of prospective RCTs remains limited. Any conclusions about pharmacologic efficacy are limited by the small size of many studies, the inconsistency by which non-pharmacologic delirium prevention strategies were incorporated, the lack of a true placebo arm and a failure to incorporate ICU and non-ICU clinical outcomes. A research framework for future evaluation of the use of medications in both ICU and non-ICU is proposed.

Optimising the recognition of delirium in the intensive care unit

Delirium affects up to 80% of critically ill patients and negatively influences patient outcome. Consensus guidelines advocate that a validated screening tool like the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) or the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC) be used to identify delirium rather than a subjective approach. The CAM-ICU and ICDSC have the most rigorous psychometric data to support their use. The differences between these two instruments are far less important to the outcome of patients than the regular and reliable use of either in routine ICU care. Implementation of a large-scale delirium screening effort is both feasible and sustainable and should be accompanied by both didactic and bedside education. An ICU clinical road map should be used on a daily basis that promotes delirium assessment, establishes a targeted sedation goal and defines the analgesic/sedative regimen that is best suited to maintain patient comfort, prevent delirium and promote wakefulness.

Delirium in the ICU: an overview

Delirium is characterized by a disturbance of consciousness with accompanying change in cognition. Delirium typically manifests as a constellation of symptoms with an acute onset and a fluctuating course. Delirium is extremely common in the intensive care unit (ICU) especially amongst mechanically ventilated patients. Three subtypes have been recognized: hyperactive, hypoactive, and mixed. Delirium is frequently undiagnosed unless specific diagnostic instruments are used. The CAM-ICU is the most widely studied and validated diagnostic instrument. However, the accuracy of this tool may be less than ideal without adequate training of the providers applying it. The presence of delirium has important prognostic implications; in mechanically ventilated patients it is associated with a 2.5-fold increase in short-term mortality and a 3.2-fold increase in 6-month mortality. Nonpharmacological approaches, such as physical and occupational therapy, decrease the duration of delirium and should be encouraged. Pharmacological treatment for delirium traditionally includes haloperidol; however, more data for haloperidol are needed given the paucity of placebo-controlled trials testing its efficacy to treat delirium in the ICU. Second-generation antipsychotics have emerged as an alternative for the treatment of delirium, and they may have a better safety profile. Dexmedetomidine may prove to be a valuable adjunctive agent for patients with delirium in the ICU.

Delirium prevention and treatment

Little is known of nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic delirium prevention and treatment in the critical care setting. Trials emphasizing early mobilization suggest that this nonpharmacologic approach is associated with an improvement in delirium incidence. Titration and reduction of opiate analgesics and sedatives may improve subsyndromal delirium rates. All critical care caregivers should rigorously screen for alcohol abuse, apply alcohol withdrawal scales in alcoholic patients, and titrate sedative drugs accordingly. No nonpharmacologic approach or drug has been shown to be beneficial once delirium is established. Considering the importance and the consequences of delirium in the critical care setting, studies to further address prevention and rigorous trials addressing pharmacologic intervention are urgently needed.

Current Perceptions and Practices Surrounding the Recognition and Treatment of Delirium in the Intensive Care Unit: A Survey of 250 Critical Care Pharmacists from Eight States

Background:

Pharmacists are key members of the intensive care unit (ICU) team; however, few data exist regarding their clinical role, perceptions, and current practices in recognizing and managing delirium.

Objective:

To describe current practices and perceptions of ICU pharmacists regarding delirium recognition and treatment relative to current recommendations.

Methods:

A self-administered survey was distributed to 457 pharmacists in 8 states who are members of the Society of Critical Care Medicine or the American College of Clinical Pharmacy and who spend 25% or more of their time providing clinical ICU pharmacy services.

Results:

A total of 250 (55%) pharmacists responded. A delirium screening tool was routinely used by few (7%) pharmacists. Lack of time (34%) and the belief that screening is a nursing role (24%) were key barriers to pharmacist screenings. Most (85%) said that delirium should be pharmacologically managed; 66% responded that 2 or more medications should be used. The treatments of first choice included Haloperidol (76%), an atypical antipsychotic (14%), or a benzodiazepine (10%). Frequently used treatments were Haloperidol (87%), quetiapine (59%), and lorazepam (47%). Haloperidol was perceived by many (42%) to have 1 or more randomized trials supporting its use for delirium and Food and Drug Administration approval for this indication (34%). Haloperidol was most often administered on a scheduled basis (62%), intravenously (92%), and al a daily dose of 5–10 mg (58%). While the QTc interval was frequently measured at least once per shift using an electrocardiogram strip (64%), it was not routinely measured in 20% of ICUs, and 60% continued haloperidol when the QTc exceeded 500 msec.

Conclusions:

Current practices and perceptions surrounding recognition and treatment of delirium in patients in the ICU by the critical care pharmacists surveyed are heterogeneous. Antipsychotics are frequently recommended by pharmacists for delirium treatment, despite a lack of rigorous evidence to support their use. While pharmacists are ideally suited to lead delirium recognition efforts and provide treatment recommendations in this area, these roles need further elucidation. The optimal pedagogical strategy to support these efforts remains unclear, and the potential impact of pharmacists’ efforts on patients’ outcomes is unknown.

Impact of quetiapine on resolution of individual delirium symptoms in critically ill patients with delirium: a post-hoc analysis of a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study

INTRODUCTION

We hypothesized that delirium symptoms may respond differently to antipsychotic therapy. The purpose of this paper was to retrospectively compare duration and time to first resolution of individual delirium symptoms from the database of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study comparing quetiapine (Q) or placebo (P), both with haloperidol rescue, for critically ill patients with delirium.

METHODS

Data for 10 delirium symptoms from the eight-domain, intensive care delirium screening checklist (ICDSC) previously collected every 12 hours were extracted for 29 study patients. Data between the Q and P groups were compared using a cut-off P-value of ≤ 0.10 for this exploratory study.

RESULTS

Baseline ICDSC scores (5 (4 to 7) (Q) vs 5 (4 to 6)) (median, interquartile range (IQR)) and % of patients with each ICDSC symptom were similar in the two groups (all P > 0.10). Among patients with the delirium symptom at baseline, use of Q may lead to a shorter time (days) to first resolution of symptom fluctuation (4 (Q) vs. 14, P = 0.004), inattention (3 vs. 8, P = .10) and disorientation (2 vs. 10, P = 0.10) but a longer time to first resolution of agitation (3 vs. 1, P = 0.04) and hyperactivity (5 vs. 1, P = 0.07). Among all patients, Q-treated patients tended to spend a smaller percent of time with inattention (47 (0 to 67) vs. 78 (43 to 100), P = 0.025), hallucinations (0 (0 to 17) vs. 28 (0 to 43), P = 0.10) and symptom fluctuation (47 (19 to 67) vs. 89 (33 to 00), P = 0.04] and there was a trend for Q-treated patients to spend a greater percent of time at an appropriate level of consciousness (26% (13 to 63%) vs. 14% (0 to 33%), P = 0.17].

CONCLUSIONS

Our exploratory analysis suggests that quetiapine may resolve several intensive care unit (ICU) delirium symptoms faster than the placebo. Individual symptom resolution appears to differ in association with the pharmacologic intervention (that is, P vs Q, both with as needed haloperidol). Future studies evaluating antipsychotics in ICU patients with delirium should measure duration and resolution of individual delirium symptoms and their relation to long-term outcomes.

Prevalence and associated factors for delirium in critically ill patients at a Japanese intensive care unit

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the prevalence and associated factors of delirium in critically ill patients during an intensive care unit (ICU) stay.

METHODS

We investigated 103 of 172 patients admitted consecutively to a university-based 20-bed ICU in a 3-month period. Six ICU physicians, who were familiar with the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU (CAM-ICU), assessed patient delirium daily. Patient demographics, diagnosis, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score, mechanical ventilation and maximum serum C-reactive protein (max-CRP) level during the ICU stay (max-CRP) were compared between patients who developed delirium and those who did not.

RESULTS

Twenty-one (20%) of 103 patients and 13 (76%) of 17 mechanically ventilated patients developed delirium. APACHE II scores and max-CRP were significantly higher in patients who experienced delirium than in those who did not (P<.001). Use of a mechanical ventilator (P=.002), max-CRP (P=.032) and length of ICU stay (P=.043) were identified as independent associations for delirium development.

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence of delirium was 20% in ICU patients and 80% in ventilated patients in a Japanese ICU.

Subtle deficits of attention after surgery: quantifying indicators of sub syndrome delirium

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether attentional impairments are reliable neuropsychological markers of sub syndrome delirium.

METHOD

A prospective cohort study with repeated assessment beginning pre-operatively and continuing through the first post-operative week. Computerized assessments of attention and the Mini-Mental State Examination were administered with one hundred patients admitted for elective orthopedic surgery, 70 years and over and free of dementia. Acute change of cognitive status was used to identify cases of sub syndrome delirium.

RESULTS

There were significant differences of post-surgical performance between the 'no delirium' and 'sub-syndrome delirium' groups of reaction time, global cognition, accuracy and greater variability of reaction time (p < 0.041). There were significant within subject main effects on reaction time (p = 0.001), variability of reaction time (p = 0.022) and MMSE (p = 0.000) across the cohort; but no significant interaction effect of 'diagnosis' * 'time' on the computerized measures of attention (p > 0.195).

CONCLUSION

The distinction between people with sub syndrome delirium and no delirium is difficult to quantify but computerized measures of attention might provide a sensitive indicator. Sub syndrome delirium is an observable marker of a clinical abnormality that should be exploited to improve care management for vulnerable patients.

Plasma tryptophan and tyrosine levels are independent risk factors for delirium in critically ill patients

AIM

The pathophysiology of delirium remains elusive though neurotransmitters and their precursor large neutral amino acids (LNAAs) may play a role. This pilot study investigated whether alterations of tryptophan (Trp), phenylalanine (Phe), and tyrosine (Tyr) plasma levels were associated with a higher risk of transitioning to delirium in critically ill patients.

METHODS

Plasma LNAA concentrations were determined on days 1 and 3 in mechanically ventilated (MV) patients from the MENDS randomized controlled trial (dexmedetomidine vs. lorazepam sedation). Three independent variables were calculated by dividing plasma concentrations of Trp, Phe, and Tyr by the sum of all other LNAA concentrations. Delirium was assessed daily using the confusion assessment method for the intensive care unit (CAM-ICU). Markov regression models were used to analyze independent associations between plasma LNAA ratios and transition to delirium after adjusting for covariates.

RESULTS

The 97 patients included in the analysis had a high severity of illness (median APACHE II, 28; IQR, 24-32). After adjusting for confounders, only high or very low tryptophan/LNAA ratios (p = 0.0003), and tyrosine/LNAA ratios (p = 0.02) were associated with increased risk of transitioning to delirium, while phenylalanine levels were not (p = 0.27). Older age, higher APACHE II scores and increasing fentanyl exposure were also associated with higher probabilities of transitioning to delirium.

CONCLUSIONS

In this pilot study, plasma tryptophan/LNAA and tyrosine/LNAA ratios were associated with transition to delirium in MV patients, suggesting that alterations of amino acids may be important in the pathogenesis of ICU delirium. Future studies evaluating the role of amino acid precursors of neurotransmitters are warranted in critically ill patients.

Motor subtypes of delirium: past, present and future

Clinical subtyping of delirium according to motor-activity profile has considerable potential to account for the heterogeneity of this complex and multifactorial syndrome. Previous work has identified a range of clinically important differences between motor subtypes in relation to detection, causation, treatment experience and prognosis, but studies have been hampered by inconsistent methodology, especially in relation to definition of subtypes. This article considers research to date, including a number of recent studies that have attempted to address these issues and identify a means of achieving greater consistency in approaches to subtyping. Possibilities for future work are discussed and a research plan for the field is outlined.

Assessment of Delirium in the Intensive Care Unit: Nursing Practices And Perceptions

Background Despite practice guidelines promoting delirium assessment in intensive care, few data exist regarding current delirium assessment practices among nurses and how these practices compare with those for sedation assessment.

Objectives To identify current practices and perceptions of intensive care nurses regarding delirium assessment and to compare practices for assessing delirium with practices for assessing sedation.

Methods A paper/Web-based survey was administered to 601 staff nurses working in 16 intensive care units at 5 acute care hospitals with sedation guidelines specifying delirium assessment in the Boston, Massachusetts area.

Results Overall, 331 nurses (55%) responded. Only 3% ranked delirium as the most important condition to evaluate, compared with altered level of consciousness (44%), presence of pain (23%), or improper placement of an invasive device (21%). Delirium assessment was less common than sedation assessment (47% vs 98%, P &lt; .001) and was more common among nurses who worked in medical intensive care units (55% vs 40%, P = .03) and at academic centers (53% vs 13%, P &lt; .001). Preferred methods for assessing delirium included assessing ability to follow commands (78%), checking for agitation-related events (71%), the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (36%), the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (11%), and psychiatric consultation (9%). Barriers to assessment included intubation (38%), complexity of the tool for assessing delirium (34%), and sedation level (13%).

Conclusions Practice and perceptions of delirium assessment vary widely among critical care nurses despite the presence of institutional sedation guidelines that promote delirium assessment.

Delirium phenomenology: what can we learn from the symptoms of delirium?

OBJECTIVES

This review focuses on phenomenological studies of delirium, including subsyndromal and prodromal concepts, and their relevance to other elements of clinical profile.

METHODS

A Medline search using the keywords delirium, phenomenology, and symptoms for new data articles published in English between 1998 and 2008 was utilized. The search was supplemented by additional material not identified by Medline but known to the authors.

RESULTS

Understanding of prodromal and subsyndromal concepts is still in its infancy. The characteristic profile can differentiate delirium from other neuropsychiatric disorders. Clinical (motoric) subtyping holds potential but more consistent methods are needed. Studies are almost entirely cross-sectional in design and generally lack comprehensive symptom assessment. Multiple assessment tools are available but are oriented towards hyperactive features and few have demonstrated ability to distinguish delirium from dementia. There is insufficient evidence linking specific phenomenology with etiology, pathophysiology, management, course, and outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the major advancements of the past decade in many aspects of delirium research, further phenomenological work is crucial to targeting studies of causation, pathophysiology, treatment, and prognosis. We identified eight key areas for future studies.

Understanding international differences in terminology for delirium and other types of acute brain dysfunction in critically ill patients

BACKGROUND

Delirium (acute brain dysfunction) is a potentially life threatening disturbance in brain function that frequently occurs in critically ill patients. While this area of brain dysfunction in critical care is rapidly advancing, striking limitations in use of terminology related to delirium internationally are hindering cross-talk and collaborative research. In the English literature, synonyms of delirium such as the Intensive Care Unit syndrome, acute brain dysfunction, acute brain failure, psychosis, confusion, and encephalopathy are widely used. This often leads to scientific "confusion" regarding published data and methodology within studies, which is further exacerbated by organizational, cultural and language barriers.

OBJECTIVE

We undertook this multinational effort to identify conflicts in terminology and phenomenology of delirium to facilitate communication across medical disciplines and languages.

METHODS

The evaluation of the terminology used for acute brain dysfunction was determined conducting communications with 24 authors from academic communities throughout countries/regions that speak the 13 variants of the Romanic languages included into this manuscript.

RESULTS

In the 13 languages utilizing Romanic characters, included in this report, we identified the following terms used to define major types of acute brain dysfunction: coma, delirium, delirio, delirium tremens, délire, confusion mentale, delir, delier, Durchgangs-Syndrom, acute verwardheid, intensiv-psykose, IVA-psykos, IVA-syndrom, akutt konfusion/forvirring. Interestingly two terms are very consistent: 100 % of the selected languages use the term coma or koma to describe patients unresponsive to verbal and/or physical stimuli, and 100% use delirium tremens to define delirium due to alcohol withdrawal. Conversely, only 54% use the term delirium to indicate the disorder as defined by the DSM-IV as an acute change in mental status, inattention, disorganized thinking and altered level of consciousness.

CONCLUSIONS

Attempts towards standardization in terminology, or at least awareness of differences across languages and specialties, will help cross-talk among clinicians and researchers.