-
Intensive & Critical Care Nursing Feb 2023Does early mobilisation as standalone or part of a bundle intervention, compared to usual care, prevent and/or shorten delirium in adult patients in Intensive Care Units? (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
Does early mobilisation as standalone or part of a bundle intervention, compared to usual care, prevent and/or shorten delirium in adult patients in Intensive Care Units?
BACKGROUND
Early mobilisation is recommended for the prevention and treatment of delirium in critically ill patients, but the evidence remains inconclusive.
METHOD
Systematic literature search in Pubmed, CINAHL, PEDRo, Cochrane from inception to March 2022, and hand search in previous meta-analysis. Included were randomized trials or quality-improvement projects. meta-analysis was performed for Odds Ratios or mean differences including 95% Confidence Intervals for presence/duration of delirium. Risk of bias was assessed by using Joanna Briggs Quality criteria. meta-regression was performed to analyse heterogeneity.
RESULTS
The search led to 13 studies of low-moderate risk of bias including 2,164 patients. Early mobilisation reduced the risk of delirium by 47 % (13 studies, 2,164 patients, low to moderate risk of bias: Odds Ratio 0.53 (95 % Confidence Interval 0.34 till 0.83, p = 0.01), with significant heterogeneity (I = 78 %, p < 0.001). Early mobilisation also reduced the duration of delirium by 1.8 days (3 studies, 296 patients, low-moderate risk of bias: Mean difference -1.78 days (95 % Confidence Interval -2.73 till -0.83 days, p < 0.001), heterogeneity 0 % (p = 0.41). Other analyses such as low risk of bias studies, randomised trials, studies published ≥ 2017, high intensity, and mobilisation as stand-alone intervention showed no significant results, with conflicting certainty of evidence and high heterogeneity. meta-regression could not explain heterogeneity.
CONCLUSION
There is an uncertain effect of mobilisation on delirium. Provision of early mobilisation to critical ill patients might prevent delirium. There is a possible effect of early mobilisation to shorten the duration of delirium. Due to the heterogeneity in the findings, further research to define the best method and dosage of early rehabilitation is required.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Critical Illness; Delirium; Early Ambulation; Physical Therapy Modalities
PubMed: 37440187
DOI: 10.1016/j.iccn.2022.103334 -
Journal of Psychiatric Research Jun 2020We performed a network meta-analysis to build clear hierarchies of efficacy and tolerability of pharmacological interventions for the treatment and prevention of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
We performed a network meta-analysis to build clear hierarchies of efficacy and tolerability of pharmacological interventions for the treatment and prevention of delirium. Electronic databases including PubMed, Google Scholar, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PsycINFO, and MEDLINE were searched published up to February 22, 2019. A total of 108 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating pharmacotherapy on delirium were included for analysis, and the strength of evidence (SoE) was evaluated for critical outcomes. In terms of treatment, quetiapine (low SoE), morphine (low SoE), and dexmedetomidine (moderate SoE) were effective in the intensive care unit (ICU) patients. In terms of prevention, dexmedetomidine (high SoE) and risperidone (high SoE) significantly reduced the incidence of delirium in ICU surgical patients, while ramelteon (high SoE) reduced the incidence of delirium in ICU medical patients. Despite the efficacy, dexmedetomidine and risperidone demonstrated higher drop-out rate (moderate to high SoE). Haloperidol and other antipsychotics, except for quetiapine and risperidone, showed no benefit. None of the agents showed benefit in non-ICU patients. In conclusion, dexmedetomidine may be a drug of choice for both treating and preventing delirium of the ICU and postsurgical patients. However, it may be less tolerable, and side-effects should be adequately managed. Current evidence does not support the routine use of antipsychotics. For medical patients, oral ramelteon might be useful for prevention.
Topics: Antipsychotic Agents; Delirium; Haloperidol; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Risperidone
PubMed: 32302794
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2020.03.012 -
Critical Care (London, England) Apr 2015Despite recommendations from professional societies and patient safety organizations, the majority of ICU patients worldwide are not routinely monitored for delirium,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
Despite recommendations from professional societies and patient safety organizations, the majority of ICU patients worldwide are not routinely monitored for delirium, thus preventing timely prevention and management. The purpose of this systematic review is to summarize what types of implementation strategies have been tested to improve ICU clinicians' ability to effectively assess, prevent and treat delirium and to evaluate the effect of these strategies on clinical outcomes.
METHOD
We searched PubMed, Embase, PsychINFO, Cochrane and CINAHL (January 2000 and April 2014) for studies on implementation strategies that included delirium-oriented interventions in adult ICU patients. Studies were suitable for inclusion if implementation strategies' efficacy, in terms of a clinical outcome, or process outcome was described.
RESULTS
We included 21 studies, all including process measures, while 9 reported both process measures and clinical outcomes. Some individual strategies such as "audit and feedback" and "tailored interventions" may be important to establish clinical outcome improvements, but otherwise robust data on effectiveness of specific implementation strategies were scarce. Successful implementation interventions were frequently reported to change process measures, such as improvements in adherence to delirium screening with up to 92%, but relating process measures to outcome changes was generally not possible. In meta-analyses, reduced mortality and ICU length of stay reduction were statistically more likely with implementation programs that employed more (six or more) rather than less implementation strategies and when a framework was used that either integrated current evidence on pain, agitation and delirium management (PAD) or when a strategy of early awakening, breathing, delirium screening and early exercise (ABCDE bundle) was employed. Using implementation strategies aimed at organizational change, next to behavioral change, was also associated with reduced mortality.
CONCLUSION
Our findings may indicate that multi-component implementation programs with a higher number of strategies targeting ICU delirium assessment, prevention and treatment and integrated within PAD or ABCDE bundle have the potential to improve clinical outcomes. However, prospective confirmation of these findings is needed to inform the most effective implementation practice with regard to integrated delirium management and such research should clearly delineate effective practice change from improvements in clinical outcomes.
Topics: Clinical Trials as Topic; Critical Care; Delirium; Disease Management; Humans; Intensive Care Units; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 25888230
DOI: 10.1186/s13054-015-0886-9 -
Critical Care Medicine Dec 2018Use systematic review and meta-analytic methodology to estimate the pooled incidence, prevalence, and proportion of delirium cases for each delirium subtype (hypoactive,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
Use systematic review and meta-analytic methodology to estimate the pooled incidence, prevalence, and proportion of delirium cases for each delirium subtype (hypoactive, hyperactive, and mixed) in an adult ICU population.
DATA SOURCES
We conducted a search of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and PsycINFO databases following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses standards from database inception until October 22, 2017, with no restrictions.
STUDY SELECTION
We included original research conducted in adults admitted to any medical, surgical, or speciality ICU that reported incidence or prevalence estimates of delirium according to delirium subtype.
DATA EXTRACTION
Data were extracted on sample size, population demographics, condition information, and reported delirium estimates.
DATA SYNTHESIS
Forty-eight studies (27,342 patients; 4,550 with delirium) with an overall pooled prevalence of 31% (95% CI, 24-41; I = 99%) met inclusion criteria. The pooled incidence (n = 18 studies) of delirium subtypes were hyperactive (4% [95% CI, 2-6]; I = 92%]), hypoactive (11% [95% CI, 8-17; I = 97%]), and mixed (7% [95% CI, 4-11; I = 97%]). The pooled prevalence (n = 31 studies) of delirium subtypes were hyperactive (4% [95% CI, 3-6; I = 94%]), hypoactive (17% [95% CI, 13-22; I = 97%]), and mixed (10% [95% CI, 6-16; I = 99%]). The pooled prevalence of hypoactive delirium in study populations with a similarly high severity of illness or mechanically ventilated was higher (severity of illness: 29% [95% CI, 18-46%; I = 95%], 100% mechanically ventilated: 35% [95% CI, 23-55%; I = 93%]) compared with the pooled prevalence of hypoactive delirium.
CONCLUSIONS
Despite significant heterogeneity between studies, these data show the majority of delirious ICU patients to have hypoactive delirium, a finding with potential monitoring, management, and prognostic implications. The prevalence of hypoactive delirium varies between-study populations and is higher in patients with greater severity of illness.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Delirium; Female; Humans; Incidence; Intensive Care Units; Male; Middle Aged; Prevalence; Respiration, Artificial; Severity of Illness Index
PubMed: 30234569
DOI: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000003402 -
Journal of Clinical Nursing May 2023To identify the most accurate postoperative delirium screening tools for detecting postoperative delirium among patients who underwent general anaesthesia surgery in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
To identify the most accurate postoperative delirium screening tools for detecting postoperative delirium among patients who underwent general anaesthesia surgery in general wards.
BACKGROUND
The lack of detection of postoperative delirium can negatively affect the patient's condition, along with their postoperative treatment and rehabilitation, and it can prolong their hospitalisation, persists cognitive dysfunction and increases mortality. Screening for postoperative delirium in hospitalised patients as nursing assessment is routine clinical practice for early detection.
DESIGN
A systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, KoreaMed and Cochrane electronic databases were searched using the key words delirium, postoperative, assessment or screening, and adult for articles published up to April 2020, with no limit on the year of publishing. Only prospective cohort studies reporting sensitivity and specificity values were included. We followed the recommendations of the Cochrane Handbook of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Reviews and the PRISMA checklist. The Quality Assessment of the Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool was used for data extraction and quality assessment, while a bivariate random-effects meta-analysis model was used for pooling and comparing diagnostic accuracy and providing a summary of evidence.
RESULTS
Six delirium assessment tools were evaluated from nine papers including 3088 patients. Due to the limited number of papers, the meta-analysis included the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) and its variants, Delirium Detection Score (DDS) and Nurses' Delirium Screening Checklist (NuDESC). Overall, NuDESC demonstrated higher sensitivity than CAM or DDS, while all showed high specificity (0.90 or greater).
CONCLUSION
This review suggested that NuDESC can be employed as an accurate screening tool with high specificity for assessing postoperative delirium during routine checkups. However, it is necessary to consider suitable cut-off values, which is the reference point, in accordance with the clinical setting and the patients' condition.
RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE
NuDESC reported the best evidence of diagnostic accuracy, and we recommend clinical nurses to employ this easy-to-use and validated tool for daily screening of postoperative delirium in general wards to facilitate its early detection and the accurate estimation of its prevalence.
Topics: Humans; Adult; Emergence Delirium; Delirium; Prospective Studies; Anesthetics; Anesthesia, General
PubMed: 34881476
DOI: 10.1111/jocn.16157 -
British Journal of Anaesthesia Aug 2023Benzodiazepine use is associated with delirium, and guidelines recommend avoiding them in older and critically ill patients. Their perioperative use remains common... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Effect of perioperative benzodiazepine use on intraoperative awareness and postoperative delirium: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and observational studies.
BACKGROUND
Benzodiazepine use is associated with delirium, and guidelines recommend avoiding them in older and critically ill patients. Their perioperative use remains common because of perceived benefits.
METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycInfo, and Web of Science from inception to June 2021. Pairs of reviewers identified randomised controlled trials and prospective observational studies comparing perioperative use of benzodiazepines with other agents or placebo in patients undergoing surgery. Two reviewers independently abstracted data, which we combined using a random-effects model. Our primary outcomes were delirium, intraoperative awareness, and mortality.
RESULTS
We included 34 randomised controlled trials (n=4354) and nine observational studies (n=3309). Observational studies were considered separately. Perioperative benzodiazepines did not increase the risk of delirium (n=1352; risk ratio [RR] 1.43; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.9-2.27; I=72%; P=0.13; very low-quality evidence). Use of benzodiazepines instead of dexmedetomidine did, however, increase the risk of delirium (five studies; n=429; RR 1.83; 95% CI: 1.24-2.72; I=13%; P=0.002). Perioperative benzodiazepine use decreased the risk of intraoperative awareness (n=2245; RR 0.26; 95% CI: 0.12-0.58; I=35%; P=0.001; very low-quality evidence). When considering non-events, perioperative benzodiazepine use increased the probability of not having intraoperative awareness (RR 1.07; 95% CI: 1.01-1.13; I=98%; P=0.03; very low-quality evidence). Mortality was reported by one randomised controlled trial (n=800; RR 0.90; 95% CI: 0.20-3.1; P=0.80; very low quality).
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, perioperative benzodiazepine use did not increase postoperative delirium and decreased intraoperative awareness. Previously observed relationships of benzodiazepine use with delirium could be explained by comparisons with dexmedetomidine.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL
PROSPERO CRD42019128144.
Topics: Humans; Aged; Benzodiazepines; Emergence Delirium; Dexmedetomidine; Intraoperative Awareness; Delirium; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Observational Studies as Topic
PubMed: 36621439
DOI: 10.1016/j.bja.2022.12.001 -
British Journal of Anaesthesia Feb 2023Systematic reviews to date have neglected to exclusively include studies using a validated diagnostic scale for postoperative delirium and monitoring patients for more... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Perioperative risk factors associated with increased incidence of postoperative delirium: systematic review, meta-analysis, and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system report of clinical literature.
BACKGROUND
Systematic reviews to date have neglected to exclusively include studies using a validated diagnostic scale for postoperative delirium and monitoring patients for more than 24 h. Evidence on current risk factors is evolving with significantly heterogeneous study designs, inconsistent reporting of results, and a lack of adjustment for bias.
METHODS
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to identify risk factors for postoperative delirium in an adult patient population. Study designs suitable for this review included full-text articles, RCTs, observational studies, cohort studies, and case-control studies. Extracted variables from the 169 (7.4%) selected studies were included in qualitative synthesis, quantitative synthesis, and a postoperative delirium checklist. The 16 variables included in the checklist were selected based on consistency, direction of effect, number of studies, and clinical utility as a reference for future studies.
RESULTS
A total of 576 variables were extracted, but only six were eligible for meta-analysis. Age (mean difference [MD]=4.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.93-6.94; P<0.001), American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status >2 (odds ratio [OR]=2.27; 95% CI, 1.47-3.52; P<0.001), Charlson Comorbidity Index ≥2 (OR=1.9; 95% CI, 1.11-3.25; P=0.0202), and Mini-Mental State Examination (MD=-1.94; 95% CI, -3.6 to -0.27; P=0.0224) were statistically significant.
CONCLUSIONS
Risk factors can assist in clinical decision-making and identification of high-risk patients. Literature analysis identified inconsistent methodology, leading to challenges in interpretation. A standardised format and evidence-based approach should guide future studies.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Emergence Delirium; Incidence; Risk Factors; Bias; Case-Control Studies; Observational Studies as Topic
PubMed: 35810005
DOI: 10.1016/j.bja.2022.05.032 -
Journal of Neuroinflammation Jun 2015Animal studies show that peripheral inflammatory stimuli may activate microglial cells in the brain implicating an important role for microglia in sepsis-associated... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Animal studies show that peripheral inflammatory stimuli may activate microglial cells in the brain implicating an important role for microglia in sepsis-associated delirium. We systematically reviewed animal experiments related to the effects of systemic inflammation on the microglial and inflammatory response in the brain.
METHODS
We searched PubMed between January 1, 1950 and December 1, 2013 and Embase between January 1, 1988 and December 1, 2013 for animal studies on the influence of peripheral inflammatory stimuli on microglia and the brain. Identified studies were systematically scored on methodological quality. Two investigators extracted independently data on animal species, gender, age, and genetic background; number of animals; infectious stimulus; microglial cells; and other inflammatory parameters in the brain, including methods, time points after inoculation, and brain regions.
RESULTS
Fifty-one studies were identified of which the majority was performed in mice (n = 30) or in rats (n = 19). Lipopolysaccharide (LPS) (dose ranging between 0.33 and 200 mg/kg) was used as a peripheral infectious stimulus in 39 studies (76 %), and live or heat-killed pathogens were used in 12 studies (24 %). Information about animal characteristics such as species, strain, sex, age, and weight were defined in 41 studies (80 %), and complete methods of the disease model were described in 35 studies (68 %). Studies were also heterogeneous with respect to methods used to assess microglial activation; markers used mostly were the ionized calcium binding adaptor molecule-1 (Iba-1), cluster of differentiation 68 (CD68), and CD11b. After LPS challenge microglial activation was seen 6 h after challenge and remained present for at least 3 days. Live Escherichia coli resulted in microglial activation after 2 days, and heat-killed bacteria after 2 weeks. Concomitant with microglial response, inflammatory parameters in the brain were reviewed in 23 of 51 studies (45 %). Microglial activation was associated with an increase in Toll-like receptor (TLR-2 and TLR-4), tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α), and interleukin 1 beta (IL-1β) messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) expression or protein levels.
INTERPRETATION
Animal experiments robustly showed that peripheral inflammatory stimuli cause microglial activation. We observed distinct differences in microglial activation between systemic stimulation with (supranatural doses) LPS and live or heat-killed bacteria.
Topics: Animals; Delirium; Disease Models, Animal; Escherichia coli; Female; Inflammation; Lipopolysaccharides; Male; Mice; Microglia; Rats; Sepsis
PubMed: 26048578
DOI: 10.1186/s12974-015-0332-6 -
Intensive Care Medicine Jul 2022Conventional gabaminergic sedatives such as benzodiazepines and propofol are commonly used in mechanically ventilated patients in the intensive care unit (ICU).... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Conventional gabaminergic sedatives such as benzodiazepines and propofol are commonly used in mechanically ventilated patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). Dexmedetomidine is an alternative sedative that may achieve lighter sedation, reduce delirium, and provide analgesia. Our objective was to perform a comprehensive systematic review summarizing the large body of evidence, determining if dexmedetomidine reduces delirium compared to conventional sedatives. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP from inception to October 2021. Independent pairs of reviewers identified randomized clinical trials comparing dexmedetomidine to other sedatives for mechanically ventilated adults in the ICU. We conducted meta-analyses using random-effects models. The results were reported as relative risks (RRs) for binary outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes, with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). In total, 77 randomized trials (n = 11,997) were included. Compared to other sedatives, dexmedetomidine reduced the risk of delirium (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.81; moderate certainty), the duration of mechanical ventilation (MD - 1.8 h, 95% CI - 2.89 to - 0.71; low certainty), and ICU length of stay (MD - 0.32 days, 95% CI - 0.42 to - 0.22; low certainty). Dexmedetomidine use increased the risk of bradycardia (RR 2.39, 95% CI 1.82 to 3.13; moderate certainty) and hypotension (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.63; low certainty). In mechanically ventilated adults, the use of dexmedetomidine compared to other sedatives, resulted in a lower risk of delirium, and a modest reduction in duration of mechanical ventilation and ICU stay, but increased the risks of bradycardia and hypotension.
Topics: Adult; Bradycardia; Critical Illness; Delirium; Dexmedetomidine; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Hypotension; Intensive Care Units; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Respiration, Artificial
PubMed: 35648198
DOI: 10.1007/s00134-022-06712-2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2016Delirium is a common mental disorder, which is distressing and has serious adverse outcomes in hospitalised patients. Prevention of delirium is desirable from the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Delirium is a common mental disorder, which is distressing and has serious adverse outcomes in hospitalised patients. Prevention of delirium is desirable from the perspective of patients and carers, and healthcare providers. It is currently unclear, however, whether interventions for preventing delirium are effective.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness of interventions for preventing delirium in hospitalised non-Intensive Care Unit (ICU) patients.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched ALOIS - the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's Specialized Register on 4 December 2015 for all randomised studies on preventing delirium. We also searched MEDLINE (Ovid SP), EMBASE (Ovid SP), PsycINFO (Ovid SP), Central (The Cochrane Library), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), LILACS (BIREME), Web of Science core collection (ISI Web of Science), ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO meta register of trials, ICTRP.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of single and multi- component non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions for preventing delirium in hospitalised non-ICU patients.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors examined titles and abstracts of citations identified by the search for eligibility and extracted data independently, with any disagreements settled by consensus. The primary outcome was incidence of delirium; secondary outcomes included duration and severity of delirium, institutional care at discharge, quality of life and healthcare costs. We used risk ratios (RRs) as measures of treatment effect for dichotomous outcomes; and between group mean differences and standard deviations for continuous outcomes.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 39 trials that recruited 16,082 participants, assessing 22 different interventions or comparisons. Fourteen trials were placebo-controlled, 15 evaluated a delirium prevention intervention against usual care, and 10 compared two different interventions. Thirty-two studies were conducted in patients undergoing surgery, the majority in orthopaedic settings. Seven studies were conducted in general medical or geriatric medicine settings.We found multi-component interventions reduced the incidence of delirium compared to usual care (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.81; seven studies; 1950 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Effect sizes were similar in medical (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.92; four studies; 1365 participants) and surgical settings (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.85; three studies; 585 participants). In the subgroup of patients with pre-existing dementia, the effect of multi-component interventions remains uncertain (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.36; one study, 50 participants; low-quality evidence).There is no clear evidence that cholinesterase inhibitors are effective in preventing delirium compared to placebo (RR 0.68, 95% CI, 0.17 to 2.62; two studies, 113 participants; very low-quality evidence).Three trials provide no clear evidence of an effect of antipsychotic medications as a group on the incidence of delirium (RR 0.73, 95% CI, 0.33 to 1.59; 916 participants; very low-quality evidence). In a pre-planned subgroup analysis there was no evidence for effectiveness of a typical antipsychotic (haloperidol) (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.60; two studies; 516 participants, low-quality evidence). However, delirium incidence was lower (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.52; one study; 400 participants, moderate-quality evidence) for patients treated with an atypical antipsychotic (olanzapine) compared to placebo (moderate-quality evidence).There is no clear evidence that melatonin or melatonin agonists reduce delirium incidence compared to placebo (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.89; three studies, 529 participants; low-quality evidence).There is moderate-quality evidence that Bispectral Index (BIS)-guided anaesthesia reduces the incidence of delirium compared to BIS-blinded anaesthesia or clinical judgement (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.85; two studies; 2057 participants).It is not possible to generate robust evidence statements for a range of additional pharmacological and anaesthetic interventions due to small numbers of trials, of variable methodological quality.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is strong evidence supporting multi-component interventions to prevent delirium in hospitalised patients. There is no clear evidence that cholinesterase inhibitors, antipsychotic medication or melatonin reduce the incidence of delirium. Using the Bispectral Index to monitor and control depth of anaesthesia reduces the incidence of postoperative delirium. The role of drugs and other anaesthetic techniques to prevent delirium remains uncertain.
Topics: Anesthesia, Epidural; Anesthetics, Inhalation; Antipsychotic Agents; Cholinesterase Inhibitors; Cytidine Diphosphate Choline; Delirium; Hospitalization; Humans; Melatonin; Nootropic Agents; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26967259
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005563.pub3