-
Australian Critical Care : Official... Jul 2023Sleep disturbance and delirium are common problems experienced by critically ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). These interrelated issues increase the length... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
Sleep disturbance and delirium are common problems experienced by critically ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). These interrelated issues increase the length of stay in the ICU but might also negatively affect long-term health outcomes. The objective of this study was to identify the nonpharmacological interventions provided to improve sleep or prevent delirium in ICU patients or both and integrate their effect sizes.
REVIEW METHODS
This study was a registered systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library from their inception until December 2021. We included randomised controlled trials and nonrandomised controlled trials-(RCT) that provided nonpharmacological interventions and reported sleep or delirium as outcome variables. Studies not published in English or whose full text was not available were excluded. The quality of the evidence was assessed with version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for RCTs and the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I).
RESULTS
The systematic review included 118 studies, and the meta-analysis included 100 studies. Overall nonpharmacological interventions had significant effects on subjective sleep quality (standardised mean difference = 0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.05 to 0.56), delirium incidence (odds ratio = 0.62, 95% CI = 0.53 to 0.73), and delirium duration (standardised mean difference = -0.68, 95% CI = -0.93 to -0.43). In individual interventions, aromatherapy, music, and massage effectively improved sleep. Exercise, family participation, information giving, cognitive stimulation, bright light therapy, architectural intervention, and bundles/protocols effectively reduced delirium. Light/noise blocking was the only intervention that ensured both sleep improvement and delirium prevention.
CONCLUSIONS
Our results suggest nonpharmacological interventions improve sleep and prevent delirium in ICU patients. We recommend that ICU nurses use nonpharmacological interventions that promote person-environment compatibility in their clinical practice. The results of our review can guide nurses in adopting interventions related to sleep and delirium.
PROSPERO REFERENCE NUMBER
CRD42021230815.
Topics: Humans; Critical Illness; Delirium; Sleep; Intensive Care Units; Critical Care
PubMed: 35718628
DOI: 10.1016/j.aucc.2022.04.006 -
International Journal of Nursing Studies Feb 2023The effect of the ABCDEF bundle (Assess, prevent, and manage pain; Both spontaneous awakening and spontaneous breathing trials; Choice of analgesia and sedation;... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The effect of the ABCDEF bundle (Assess, prevent, and manage pain; Both spontaneous awakening and spontaneous breathing trials; Choice of analgesia and sedation; Delirium: assess, prevent, and manage; Early mobility and exercise; and Family engagement and empowerment) on patient outcomes such as delirium is potentially optimised when the bundle is implemented in its entirety.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically synthesise the evidence on the effectiveness of the ABCDEF bundle delivered in its entirety on delirium, function, and quality of life in adult intensive care unit patients.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCE
Electronic databases including MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Joanna Briggs Institute's Evidence Based Practice, Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, and Embase were searched from 2000 until December 2021.
REVIEW METHODS
Inclusion criteria included (1) adult intensive care unit patients (2) studies that described the ABCDE or ABCDEF bundle in its entirety (3) studies that evaluated delirium, functional outcomes, or quality of life. Studies were excluded if they investigated long-term intensive care unit rehabilitation patients. Two reviewers independently screened records and full text, extracted data, and undertook quality appraisals with discrepancies discussed until consensus was reached. Random effects meta-analyses were conducted for delirium but was not possible for other outcomes. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was used to assess the certainty of the synthesised findings of the body of evidence. The study protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD 42019126407).
RESULTS
A total of 18 studies (29,576 patients) were included in the descriptive synthesis. Meta-analysis of six studies (2000 patients) identified decreased delirium incidence following implementation of the ABCDEF bundle when compared with standard practice, (risk ratio = 0.57; CI, 0.36-0.90 p = 0.02) although heterogeneity was high (I = 92%). When compared with standard practice, a meta-analysis of five studies (3418 patients) showed the ABCDEF bundle statistically significantly reduced the duration of intensive care unit delirium (mean difference (days) - 1.37, 95% CI -2.61 to -0.13 p = 0.03; I 96%). Valid functional assessments were included in two studies, and quality of life assessment in one.
CONCLUSIONS
Although the evidence on the effect of the ABCDEF bundle delivered in its entirety is limited, positive patient delirium outcomes have been shown in this meta-analysis. As this meta-analysis was based on only 4736 patients in eight studies, further evidence is required to support its use in the adult intensive care unit.
REGISTRATION DETAILS
PROSPERO (CRD 42019126407).
Topics: Adult; Humans; Critical Illness; Quality of Life; Australia; Intensive Care Units; Critical Care; Delirium
PubMed: 36577261
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2022.104410 -
Neurosurgical Review Feb 2022Delirium is a frequent occurring complication in surgical patients. Nevertheless, a scientific work-up of the clinical relevance of delirium after intracranial surgery... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Delirium is a frequent occurring complication in surgical patients. Nevertheless, a scientific work-up of the clinical relevance of delirium after intracranial surgery is lacking. We conducted a systematic review (CRD42020166656) to evaluate the current diagnostic work-up, incidence, risk factors and health outcomes of delirium in this population. Five databases (Embase, Medline, Web of Science, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central) were searched from inception through March 31st, 2021. Twenty-four studies (5589 patients) were included for qualitative analysis and twenty-one studies for quantitative analysis (5083 patients). Validated delirium screening tools were used in 70% of the studies, consisting of the Confusion Assessment Method (intensive care unit) (45%), Delirium Observation Screening Scale (5%), Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (10%), Neelon and Champagne Confusion Scale (5%) and Nursing Delirium Screening Scale (5%). Incidence of post-operative delirium after intracranial surgery was 19%, ranging from 12 to 26% caused by variation in clinical features and delirium assessment methods. Meta-regression for age and gender did not show a correlation with delirium. We present an overview of risk factors and health outcomes associated with the onset of delirium. Our review highlights the need of future research on delirium in neurosurgery, which should focus on optimizing diagnosis and assessing prognostic significance and management.
Topics: Critical Care; Delirium; Humans; Incidence; Intensive Care Units; Neurosurgery
PubMed: 34396454
DOI: 10.1007/s10143-021-01619-w -
JAMA Network Open Jan 2023Despite discrete etiologies leading to delirium, it is treated as a common end point in hospital and in clinical trials, and delirium research may be hampered by the...
IMPORTANCE
Despite discrete etiologies leading to delirium, it is treated as a common end point in hospital and in clinical trials, and delirium research may be hampered by the attempt to treat all instances of delirium similarly, leaving delirium management as an unmet need. An individualized approach based on unique patterns of delirium pathophysiology, as reflected in predisposing factors and precipitants, may be necessary, but there exists no accepted method of grouping delirium into distinct etiologic subgroups.
OBJECTIVE
To conduct a systematic review to identify potential predisposing and precipitating factors associated with delirium in adult patients agnostic to setting.
EVIDENCE REVIEW
A literature search was performed of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and PsycINFO from database inception to December 2021 using search Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms consciousness disorders, confusion, causality, and disease susceptibility, with constraints of cohort or case-control studies. Two reviewers selected studies that met the following criteria for inclusion: published in English, prospective cohort or case-control study, at least 50 participants, delirium assessment in person by a physician or trained research personnel using a reference standard, and results including a multivariable model to identify independent factors associated with delirium.
FINDINGS
A total of 315 studies were included with a mean (SD) Newcastle-Ottawa Scale score of 8.3 (0.8) out of 9. Across 101 144 patients (50 006 [50.0%] male and 49 766 [49.1%] female patients) represented (24 015 with delirium), studies reported 33 predisposing and 112 precipitating factors associated with delirium. There was a diversity of factors associated with delirium, with substantial physiological heterogeneity.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In this systematic review, a comprehensive list of potential predisposing and precipitating factors associated with delirium was found across all clinical settings. These findings may be used to inform more precise study of delirium's heterogeneous pathophysiology and treatment.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Male; Female; Disease Susceptibility; Delirium; Precipitating Factors; Prospective Studies; Case-Control Studies
PubMed: 36607634
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.49950 -
Journal of the American Medical... Jan 2021To investigate the association between anticholinergic drug burden (ADB), measured with anticholinergic drug scales, and delirium and delirium severity. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
To investigate the association between anticholinergic drug burden (ADB), measured with anticholinergic drug scales, and delirium and delirium severity.
DESIGN
Systematic review.
SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS
All available studies.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was performed in Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science, CINAHL, Cochrane library, and Google Scholar. Studies evaluating the association between ADB (measured as a total score) and delirium or delirium severity, published in English, were eligible for inclusion.
RESULTS
Sixteen studies, including 148,756 persons, were included. Fifteen studies investigated delirium. ADB was measured with the Anticholinergic Risk Scale (ARS, n = 5), the Anticholinergic Cognitive Burden Scale (ACB, n = 6), the list of Chew (n = 1), the Anticholinergic Drug Scale (ADS, n = 5), a modified version of the ARS (n = 1), and a modified version of the ACB (n = 1). A high ADB, measured with the ARS, was associated with delirium (5/5). Also with the modified version of the ARS and ACB, an association was found between a high ADB and delirium during 3-month (1/1) and 1-year follow-up (1/1), respectively. When ADB was assessed with other scales, the results were inconclusive, with only 1 positive association for the ACB (1/6) and ADS (1/5) each. The possible association between ADB and delirium severity has also been investigated (ADS n = 2, Summers Drug Risk Number n = 1). One study found an association between a high ADB, measured with the ADS, and an increase in severity of delirium.
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
ADB assessed with the ARS is consistently associated with delirium. The association found between the modified versions of the ARS and ACB and delirium needs confirmation. When ADB was assessed with other scales, the findings were inconclusive. The current findings suggest that the ARS might be a useful tool to identify patients at increased risk for delirium.
Topics: Cholinergic Antagonists; Delirium; Humans; Pharmaceutical Preparations
PubMed: 32703688
DOI: 10.1016/j.jamda.2020.04.019 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Jun 2015To 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... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
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.
Topics: Adult; Cognition Disorders; Critical Care; Critical Illness; Delirium; Epidemiologic Methods; Female; Humans; Length of Stay; Male; Patient Discharge; Respiration, Artificial; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26041151
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.h2538 -
General Hospital Psychiatry 2022We conducted an updated, comprehensive, and contemporary systematic review to examine the efficacy of existing pharmacologic agents employed for management of delirium... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
We conducted an updated, comprehensive, and contemporary systematic review to examine the efficacy of existing pharmacologic agents employed for management of delirium symptoms among hospitalized adults.
METHODS
Searches of PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases from inception to May 2021 were performed to identify studies investigating efficacy of pharmacologic agents for management of delirium.
RESULTS
Of 11,424 articles obtained from searches, a total of 33 articles (N = 3030 participants) of randomized or non-randomized trials, in which pharmacologic treatment was compared to active comparator, placebo, or no treatment, met all criteria and were included in this review. Medications used for management of delirium symptoms included antipsychotic medications (N = 27), alpha-2 agonists (N = 5), benzodiazepines (N = 2), antidepressants (n = 1), acetylcholinesterase inhibitors (N = 2), melatonin (N = 2), opioids (N = 1), and antiemetics (N = 2). Despite somewhat mixed findings and a relative lack of high-quality trials, it appears that antipsychotic medications (e.g., haloperidol, olanzapine, risperidone, or quetiapine) and dexmedetomidine have the potential to improve delirium outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS
Pharmacologic agents can reduce delirium symptoms (e.g., agitation) in some hospitalized patients. Additional double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials are critically needed to investigate the efficacy of pharmacologic agents for diverse hospitalized populations (e.g., post-surgical patients, patients at the end-of-life, or in intensive care units).
Topics: Adult; Humans; Antipsychotic Agents; Delirium; Acetylcholinesterase; Haloperidol; Risperidone
PubMed: 36375344
DOI: 10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2022.10.010 -
Minerva Anestesiologica Jun 2022Postoperative delirium is a frequent occurrence in the elderly surgical population. As a comprehensive list of predictive factors remains unknown, an opioid-sparing... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Postoperative delirium is a frequent occurrence in the elderly surgical population. As a comprehensive list of predictive factors remains unknown, an opioid-sparing approach incorporating regional anesthesia techniques has been suggested to decrease its incidence. Due to the lack of conclusive evidence on the topic, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the potential impact of regional anesthesia and analgesia on postoperative delirium.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane central register of Controlled trials (CENTRAL) databases were searched for randomized trials comparing regional anesthesia or analgesia to systemic treatments in patients having any type of surgery. This systematic review and meta-analysis followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. We pooled the results separately for each of these two applications by random effects modelling. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system was used to evaluate the certainty of evidence and strength of conclusions.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
Eighteen trials (3361 subjects) were included. Using regional techniques for surgical anesthesia failed to reduce the risk of postoperative delirium, with a relative risk (RR) of 1.21 (95% CI: 0.79 to 1.85); P=0.3800. In contrast, regional analgesia reduced the relative risk of perioperative delirium by a RR of 0.53 (95% CI: 0.42 to 0.68; P<0.0001), when compared to systemic analgesia. Post-hoc subgroup analysis for hip fracture surgery yielded similar findings.
CONCLUSIONS
These results show that postoperative delirium may be decreased when regional techniques are used in the postoperative period as an analgesic strategy. Intraoperative regional anesthesia alone may not decrease postoperative delirium since there are other factors that may influence this outcome.
Topics: Aged; Anesthesia, Conduction; Anesthesia, Local; Delirium; Hip Fractures; Humans
PubMed: 35164487
DOI: 10.23736/S0375-9393.22.16076-1 -
Journal of the American Medical... Oct 2022To critically appraise and quantify the performance studies by employing machine learning (ML) to predict delirium. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To critically appraise and quantify the performance studies by employing machine learning (ML) to predict delirium.
DESIGN
A systematic review and meta-analysis.
SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS
Articles reporting the use of ML to predict delirium in adult patients were included. Studies were excluded if (1) the primary goal was only the identification of various risk factors for delirium; (2) the full-text article was not found; and (3) the article was published in a language other than English/Chinese.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library database, Web of Science, Grey literature, and other relevant databases for the related publications were searched (from inception to December 15, 2021). The data were extracted using a standard checklist, and the risk of bias was assessed through the prediction model risk of bias assessment tool. Meta-analysis with the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, sensitivity, and specificity as effect measures, was performed with Metadisc software. Cochran Q and I statistics were used to assess the heterogeneity. Meta-regression was performed to determine the potential effect of adjustment for the key covariates.
RESULTS
A total of 22 studies were included. Only 4 of 22 studies were quantitatively analyzed. The studies varied widely in reporting about the study participants, features and selection, handling of missing data, sample size calculations, and the intended clinical application of the model. For ML models, the overall pooled area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for predicting delirium was 0.89, sensitivity 0.85 (95% confidence interval 0.84‒0.85), and specificity 0.80 (95% confidence interval 0.81-0.80).
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
We found that the ML model showed excellent performance in predicting delirium. This review highlights the potential shortcomings of the current approaches, including low comparability and reproducibility. Finally, we present the various recommendations on how these challenges can be effectively addressed before deploying these models in prospective analyses.
Topics: Adult; Delirium; Humans; Machine Learning; Prospective Studies; ROC Curve; Reproducibility of Results
PubMed: 35922015
DOI: 10.1016/j.jamda.2022.06.020 -
Clinical Interventions in Aging 2019Vulnerable or "frail" patients are susceptible to the development of delirium when exposed to triggers such as surgical procedures. Once delirium occurs, interventions... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Vulnerable or "frail" patients are susceptible to the development of delirium when exposed to triggers such as surgical procedures. Once delirium occurs, interventions have little effect on severity or duration, emphasizing the importance of primary prevention. This review provides an overview of interventions to prevent postoperative delirium in elderly patients undergoing elective surgery. A literature search was conducted in March 2018. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and before-and-after studies on interventions with potential effects on postoperative delirium in elderly surgical patients were included. Acute admission, planned ICU admission, and cardiac patients were excluded. Full texts were reviewed, and quality was assessed by two independent reviewers. Primary outcome was the incidence of delirium. Secondary outcomes were severity and duration of delirium. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) were calculated for incidences of delirium where similar intervention techniques were used. Thirty-one RCTs and four before-and-after studies were included for analysis. In 19 studies, intervention decreased the incidences of postoperative delirium. Severity was reduced in three out of nine studies which reported severity of delirium. Duration was reduced in three out of six studies. Pooled analysis showed a significant reduction in delirium incidence for dexmedetomidine treatment, and bispectral index (BIS)-guided anaesthesia. Based on sensitivity analyses, by leaving out studies with a high risk of bias, multicomponent interventions and antipsychotics can also significantly reduce the incidence of delirium. Multicomponent interventions, the use of antipsychotics, BIS-guidance, and dexmedetomidine treatment can successfully reduce the incidence of postoperative delirium in elderly patients undergoing elective, non-cardiac surgery. However, present studies are heterogeneous, and high-quality studies are scarce. Future studies should add these preventive methods to already existing multimodal and multidisciplinary interventions to tackle as many precipitating factors as possible, starting in the pre-admission period.
Topics: Aged; Antipsychotic Agents; Delirium; Elective Surgical Procedures; Hospitalization; Humans; Incidence; Postoperative Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 31354253
DOI: 10.2147/CIA.S201323