-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2015Terminally ill people experience a variety of symptoms in the last hours and days of life, including delirium, agitation, anxiety, terminal restlessness, dyspnoea, pain,... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Terminally ill people experience a variety of symptoms in the last hours and days of life, including delirium, agitation, anxiety, terminal restlessness, dyspnoea, pain, vomiting, and psychological and physical distress. In the terminal phase of life, these symptoms may become refractory, and unable to be controlled by supportive and palliative therapies specifically targeted to these symptoms. Palliative sedation therapy is one potential solution to providing relief from these refractory symptoms. Sedation in terminally ill people is intended to provide relief from refractory symptoms that are not controlled by other methods. Sedative drugs such as benzodiazepines are titrated to achieve the desired level of sedation; the level of sedation can be easily maintained and the effect is reversible.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the evidence for the benefit of palliative pharmacological sedation on quality of life, survival, and specific refractory symptoms in terminally ill adults during their last few days of life.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2014, Issue 11), MEDLINE (1946 to November 2014), and EMBASE (1974 to December 2014), using search terms representing the sedative drug names and classes, disease stage, and study designs.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, non-RCTs, and observational studies (e.g. before-and-after, interrupted-time-series) with quantitative outcomes. We excluded studies with only qualitative outcomes or that had no comparison (i.e. no control group or no within-group comparison) (e.g. single arm case series).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts of citations, and full text of potentially eligible studies. Two review authors independently carried out data extraction using standard data extraction forms. A third review author acted as arbiter for both stages. We carried out no meta-analyses due to insufficient data for pooling on any outcome; therefore, we reported outcomes narratively.
MAIN RESULTS
The searches resulted in 14 included studies, involving 4167 adults, of whom 1137 received palliative sedation. More than 95% of people had cancer. No studies were randomised or quasi-randomised. All were consecutive case series, with only three having prospective data collection. Risk of bias was high, due to lack of randomisation. No studies measured quality of life or participant well-being, which was the primary outcome of the review. Five studies measured symptom control, using four different methods, so pooling was not possible. The results demonstrated that despite sedation, delirium and dyspnoea were still troublesome symptoms in these people in the last few days of life. Control of other symptoms appeared to be similar in sedated and non-sedated people. Only one study measured unintended adverse effects of sedative drugs and found no major events; however, four of 70 participants appeared to have drug-induced delirium. The study noticed no respiratory suppression. Thirteen of the 14 studies measured survival time from admission or referral to death, and all demonstrated no statistically significant difference between sedated and non-sedated groups.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There was insufficient evidence about the efficacy of palliative sedation in terms of a person's quality of life or symptom control. There was evidence that palliative sedation did not hasten death, which has been a concern of physicians and families in prescribing this treatment. However, this evidence comes from low quality studies, so should be interpreted with caution. Further studies that specifically measure the efficacy and quality of life in sedated people, compared with non-sedated people, and quantify adverse effects are required.
Topics: Adult; Conscious Sedation; Deep Sedation; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Palliative Care; Selection Bias; Terminal Care; Terminally Ill
PubMed: 25879099
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010206.pub2 -
Journal of the American Geriatrics... Apr 2016To evaluate the effectiveness of antipsychotic medications in preventing and treating delirium. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness of antipsychotic medications in preventing and treating delirium.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
SETTING
PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched from January 1, 1988, to November 26, 2013.
PARTICIPANTS
Adult surgical and medical inpatients.
INTERVENTION
Antipsychotic administration for delirium prevention or treatment in randomized controlled trials or cohort studies.
MEASUREMENTS
Two authors independently reviewed all citations, extracted relevant data, and assessed studies for potential bias. Heterogeneity was considered as chi-square P < .1 or I(2) > 50%. Using a random-effects model (I(2) > 50%) or a fixed-effects model (I(2) < 50%), odds ratios (ORs) were calculated for dichotomous outcomes (delirium incidence and mortality), and mean or standardized mean difference for continuous outcomes (delirium duration, severity, hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS)). Sensitivity analyses included postoperative prevention studies only, exclusion of studies with high risk of bias, and typical versus atypical antipsychotics.
RESULTS
Screening of 10,877 eligible records identified 19 studies. In seven studies comparing antipsychotics with placebo or no treatment for delirium prevention after surgery, there was no significant effect on delirium incidence (OR = 0.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.23-1.34, I(2) = 93%). Using data reported from all 19 studies, antipsychotic use was not associated with change in delirium duration, severity, or hospital or ICU LOS, with high heterogeneity among studies. No association with mortality was detected (OR = 0.90, 95% CI = 0.62-1.29, I(2) = 0%).
CONCLUSION
Current evidence does not support the use of antipsychotics for prevention or treatment of delirium. Additional methodologically rigorous studies using standardized outcome measures are needed.
Topics: Adult; Antipsychotic Agents; Delirium; Hospitalization; Humans
PubMed: 27004732
DOI: 10.1111/jgs.14076 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2021Delirium is an acute neuropsychological disorder that is common in hospitalised patients. It can be distressing to patients and carers and it is associated with serious... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Delirium is an acute neuropsychological disorder that is common in hospitalised patients. It can be distressing to patients and carers and it is associated with serious adverse outcomes. Treatment options for established delirium are limited and so prevention of delirium is desirable. Non-pharmacological interventions are thought to be important in delirium prevention. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions designed to prevent delirium in hospitalised patients outside intensive care units (ICU).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched ALOIS, the specialised register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group, with additional searches conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS, Web of Science Core Collection, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization Portal/ICTRP to 16 September 2020. There were no language or date restrictions applied to the electronic searches, and no methodological filters were used to restrict the search.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of single and multicomponent non-pharmacological interventions for preventing delirium in hospitalised adults cared for outside intensive care or high dependency settings. We only included non-pharmacological interventions which were designed and implemented to prevent delirium. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently examined titles and abstracts identified by the search for eligibility and extracted data from full-text articles. Any disagreements on eligibility and inclusion were resolved by consensus. We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. The primary outcomes were: incidence of delirium; inpatient and later mortality; and new diagnosis of dementia. We included secondary and adverse outcomes as pre-specified in the review protocol. We used risk ratios (RRs) as measures of treatment effect for dichotomous outcomes and between-group mean differences for continuous outcomes. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using GRADE. A complementary exploratory analysis was undertaker using a Bayesian component network meta-analysis fixed-effect model to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of the individual components of multicomponent interventions and describe which components were most strongly associated with reducing the incidence of delirium.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 22 RCTs that recruited a total of 5718 adult participants. Fourteen trials compared a multicomponent delirium prevention intervention with usual care. Two trials compared liberal and restrictive blood transfusion thresholds. The remaining six trials each investigated a different non-pharmacological intervention. Incidence of delirium was reported in all studies. Using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, we identified risks of bias in all included trials. All were at high risk of performance bias as participants and personnel were not blinded to the interventions. Nine trials were at high risk of detection bias due to lack of blinding of outcome assessors and three more were at unclear risk in this domain. Pooled data showed that multi-component non-pharmacological interventions probably reduce the incidence of delirium compared to usual care (10.5% incidence in the intervention group, compared to 18.4% in the control group, risk ratio (RR) 0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46 to 0.71, I = 39%; 14 studies; 3693 participants; moderate-certainty evidence, downgraded due to risk of bias). There may be little or no effect of multicomponent interventions on inpatient mortality compared to usual care (5.2% in the intervention group, compared to 4.5% in the control group, RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.74, I = 15%; 10 studies; 2640 participants; low-certainty evidence downgraded due to inconsistency and imprecision). No studies of multicomponent interventions reported data on new diagnoses of dementia. Multicomponent interventions may result in a small reduction of around a day in the duration of a delirium episode (mean difference (MD) -0.93, 95% CI -2.01 to 0.14 days, I = 65%; 351 participants; low-certainty evidence downgraded due to risk of bias and imprecision). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of multicomponent interventions on delirium severity (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.49, 95% CI -1.13 to 0.14, I=64%; 147 participants; very low-certainty evidence downgraded due to risk of bias and serious imprecision). Multicomponent interventions may result in a reduction in hospital length of stay compared to usual care (MD -1.30 days, 95% CI -2.56 to -0.04 days, I=91%; 3351 participants; low-certainty evidence downgraded due to risk of bias and inconsistency), but little to no difference in new care home admission at the time of hospital discharge (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.07; 536 participants; low-certainty evidence downgraded due to risk of bias and imprecision). Reporting of other adverse outcomes was limited. Our exploratory component network meta-analysis found that re-orientation (including use of familiar objects), cognitive stimulation and sleep hygiene were associated with reduced risk of incident delirium. Attention to nutrition and hydration, oxygenation, medication review, assessment of mood and bowel and bladder care were probably associated with a reduction in incident delirium but estimates included the possibility of no benefit or harm. Reducing sensory deprivation, identification of infection, mobilisation and pain control all had summary estimates that suggested potential increases in delirium incidence, but the uncertainty in the estimates was substantial. Evidence from two trials suggests that use of a liberal transfusion threshold over a restrictive transfusion threshold probably results in little to no difference in incident delirium (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.36; I = 9%; 294 participants; moderate-certainty evidence downgraded due to risk of bias). Six other interventions were examined, but evidence for each was limited to single studies and we identified no evidence of delirium prevention. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate-certainty evidence regarding the benefit of multicomponent non-pharmacological interventions for the prevention of delirium in hospitalised adults, estimated to reduce incidence by 43% compared to usual care. We found no evidence of an effect on mortality. There is emerging evidence that these interventions may reduce hospital length of stay, with a trend towards reduced delirium duration, although the effect on delirium severity remains uncertain. Further research should focus on implementation and detailed analysis of the components of the interventions to support more effective, tailored practice recommendations.
Topics: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Bias; Blood Transfusion; Combined Modality Therapy; Delirium; Hospital Mortality; Humans; Incidence; Inpatients; Length of Stay; Network Meta-Analysis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 34280303
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013307.pub2 -
British Journal of Anaesthesia Feb 2023Postoperative delirium (POD) is the most common serious postoperative complication in older adults. It has uncertain aetiology, limited preventative strategies, and poor... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Postoperative delirium (POD) is the most common serious postoperative complication in older adults. It has uncertain aetiology, limited preventative strategies, and poor long-term outcomes. This updated systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to estimate the effect of processed electroencephalography (pEEG)-guided general anaesthesia during surgery on POD incidence.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis by searching OVID MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) electronic databases. Studies of adult patients having general anaesthesia for any surgery where pEEG was used and POD was an outcome measure were included. Full-text reports of RCTs published from database inception until August 28, 2021, were included. Trials were excluded if sedation rather than general anaesthesia was administered, or the setting was intensive care. The primary outcome was POD assessed by validated tools. The study was prospectively registered with PROSPERO.
RESULTS
Nine studies, which included 4648 eligible subjects, were identified. The incidence of POD in the pEEG-guided general anaesthesia or lighter pEEG target group was 19.0% (440/2310) compared with 23.3% (545/2338) in the usual care or deeper pEEG target group (pooled odds ratio=0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-1.00; P=0.054). Significant heterogeneity was detected (I=53%).
CONCLUSIONS
Our primary analysis demonstrated a highly sensitive result with a pooled analysis of trials in which the intervention group adhered to manufacturer's recommended guidelines, showing reduced incidence of POD with pEEG guidance. High clinical heterogeneity limits inferences from this and any future meta-analyses.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION
CRD42020199404 (PROSPERO).
Topics: Humans; Aged; Emergence Delirium; Anesthesia, General; Postoperative Complications; Electroencephalography
PubMed: 35183345
DOI: 10.1016/j.bja.2022.01.006 -
Anesthesia and Analgesia Aug 2021Both frailty and postoperative delirium (POD) are common in elective surgical patients 65 years of age and older. However, the association between preoperative frailty... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Both frailty and postoperative delirium (POD) are common in elective surgical patients 65 years of age and older. However, the association between preoperative frailty and POD remains difficult to characterize owing to the large number of frailty and POD assessment tools used in the literature, only a few of which are validated. Furthermore, some validated frailty tools fail to provide clear score cutoffs for distinguishing frail and nonfrail patients. We performed a meta-analysis to estimate the relationship between preoperative frailty and POD.
METHODS
We searched several major databases for articles that investigated the relationship between preoperative frailty and POD in patients with mean age ≥65 years who were undergoing elective, nonemergent inpatient surgery. Inclusion criteria included articles published in English no earlier than 1999. Both preoperative frailty and POD must have been measured with validated tools using clear cutoff scores for frailty and delirium. Articles were selected and data extracted independently by 2 researchers. Risk of bias (ROBINS-I) and presence of confounders were summarized. Odds ratios (ORs) for POD associated with frailty relative to nonfrailty were computed with adjusted ORs when available. Original estimates were pooled by random effects analysis. Statistical significance was set at 2-sided P < .05.
RESULTS
Nine studies qualified for meta-analysis. The Fried score or a modified version of it was used in 5 studies. Frailty prevalence ranged from 18.6% to 56%. Delirium was assessed with the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) or Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) in 7 studies, Delirium Observation Scale in 1 study, and Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist in 1 study. The incidence of POD ranged from 7% to 56%. ROBINS-I risk of bias was low in 1 study, moderate in 4 studies, serious in 3 studies, and critical in 1 study. Random effects analysis (n = 794) of the OR for POD in frail versus nonfrail patients based on adjusted OR estimates was significant with an OR of 2.14 and a 95% confidence interval of 1.43-3.19. The I2 value was in the low range at 5.5, suggesting small variability from random effects. Funnel-plot analysis did not definitively support either the presence or absence of publication bias.
CONCLUSIONS
This meta-analysis provides evidence for a significant association between preoperative frailty and POD in elective surgical patients age 65 years or older.
Topics: Age Factors; Aged; Delirium; Elective Surgical Procedures; Female; Frail Elderly; Frailty; Humans; Incidence; Male; Postoperative Cognitive Complications; Prevalence; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34257192
DOI: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000005609 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2022Hip fractures are a major healthcare problem, presenting a huge challenge and burden to individuals and healthcare systems. The number of hip fractures globally is... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Hip fractures are a major healthcare problem, presenting a huge challenge and burden to individuals and healthcare systems. The number of hip fractures globally is rising rapidly. The majority of hip fractures are treated surgically. This review evaluates evidence for types of arthroplasty: hemiarthroplasties (HAs), which replace part of the hip joint; and total hip arthroplasties (THAs), which replace all of it.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effects of different designs, articulations, and fixation techniques of arthroplasties for treating hip fractures in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, seven other databases and one trials register in July 2020.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing different arthroplasties for treating fragility intracapsular hip fractures in older adults. We included THAs and HAs inserted with or without cement, and comparisons between different articulations, sizes, and types of prostheses. We excluded studies of people with specific pathologies other than osteoporosis and with hip fractures resulting from high-energy trauma.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We collected data for seven outcomes: activities of daily living, functional status, health-related quality of life, mobility (all early: within four months of surgery), early mortality and at 12 months after surgery, delirium, and unplanned return to theatre at the end of follow-up.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 58 studies (50 RCTs, 8 quasi-RCTs) with 10,654 participants with 10,662 fractures. All studies reported intracapsular fractures, except one study of extracapsular fractures. The mean age of participants in the studies ranged from 63 years to 87 years, and 71% were women. We report here the findings of three comparisons that represent the most substantial body of evidence in the review. Other comparisons were also reported, but with many fewer participants. All studies had unclear risks of bias in at least one domain and were at high risk of detection bias. We downgraded the certainty of many outcomes for imprecision, and for risks of bias where sensitivity analysis indicated that bias sometimes influenced the size or direction of the effect estimate. HA: cemented versus uncemented (17 studies, 3644 participants) There was moderate-certainty evidence of a benefit with cemented HA consistent with clinically small to large differences in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.20, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.34; 3 studies, 1122 participants), and reduction in the risk of mortality at 12 months (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.96; 15 studies, 3727 participants). We found moderate-certainty evidence of little or no difference in performance of activities of daily living (ADL) (SMD -0.03, 95% CI -0.21 to 0.16; 4 studies, 1275 participants), and independent mobility (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.14; 3 studies, 980 participants). We found low-certainty evidence of little or no difference in delirium (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.06; 2 studies, 800 participants), early mortality (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.13; 12 studies, 3136 participants) or unplanned return to theatre (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.10; 6 studies, 2336 participants). For functional status, there was very low-certainty evidence showing no clinically important differences. The risks of most adverse events were similar. However, cemented HAs led to less periprosthetic fractures intraoperatively (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.46; 7 studies, 1669 participants) and postoperatively (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.57; 6 studies, 2819 participants), but had a higher risk of pulmonary embolus (RR 3.56, 95% CI 1.26 to 10.11, 6 studies, 2499 participants). Bipolar HA versus unipolar HA (13 studies, 1499 participants) We found low-certainty evidence of little or no difference between bipolar and unipolar HAs in early mortality (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.64; 4 studies, 573 participants) and 12-month mortality (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.53; 8 studies, 839 participants). We are unsure of the effect for delirium, HRQoL, and unplanned return to theatre, which all indicated little or no difference between articulation, because the certainty of the evidence was very low. No studies reported on early ADL, functional status and mobility. The overall risk of adverse events was similar. The absolute risk of dislocation was low (approximately 1.6%) and there was no evidence of any difference between treatments. THA versus HA (17 studies, 3232 participants) The difference in the risk of mortality at 12 months was consistent with clinically relevant benefits and harms (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.22; 11 studies, 2667 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference in unplanned return to theatre, but this effect estimate includes clinically relevant benefits of THA (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.07, favours THA; 10 studies, 2594 participants; low-certainty evidence). We found low-certainty evidence of little or no difference between THA and HA in delirium (RR 1.41, 95% CI 0.60 to 3.33; 2 studies, 357 participants), and mobility (MD -0.40, 95% CI -0.96 to 0.16, favours THA; 1 study, 83 participants). We are unsure of the effect for early functional status, ADL, HRQoL, and mortality, which indicated little or no difference between interventions, because the certainty of the evidence was very low. The overall risks of adverse events were similar. There was an increased risk of dislocation with THA (RR 1.96, 95% CI 1.17 to 3.27; 12 studies, 2719 participants) and no evidence of a difference in deep infection.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
For people undergoing HA for intracapsular hip fracture, it is likely that a cemented prosthesis will yield an improved global outcome, particularly in terms of HRQoL and mortality. There is no evidence to suggest a bipolar HA is superior to a unipolar prosthesis. Any benefit of THA compared with hemiarthroplasty is likely to be small and not clinically appreciable. We encourage researchers to focus on alternative implants in current clinical practice, such as dual-mobility bearings, for which there is limited available evidence.
Topics: Activities of Daily Living; Aged; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip; Female; Hip Fractures; Hip Joint; Humans; Middle Aged; Quality of Life
PubMed: 35156194
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013410.pub2 -
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 -
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 -
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