Delirium in advanced cancer patients

Unrecognised cognitive impairment in hospice patients: a pilot study

The presence of cognitive impairment in patients who are receiving hospice care can affect numerous practical, ethical and legal aspects of their healthcare. A number of factors can contribute to cognitive impairment in these patients. Prevalence rates of cognitive impairment vary widely, but it remains under-recognised and under-treated. The aims of this pilot study were to evaluate the presence and nature of cognitive deficits in patients receiving inpatient hospice care who did not have a known current or past diagnosis of a cognitive disorder or any obvious cognitive impairments. A convenience sample of 30 patients receiving inpatient hospice care underwent bedside cognitive testing. A comprehensive battery of tests was used, including the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and standardised neuropsychological tests of pre-morbid intellectual functioning, immediate and delayed recall, digit span forward and backward, verbal reasoning and letter and category fluency. On average, subjects were impaired on the MMSE and on tests of learning, verbal reasoning and letter and category fluency. Furthermore, 12 of the 30 subjects met DSM-IV cognitive impairment criteria for dementia based on impaired performance in memory and at least one other cognitive domain on testing. The results of this pilot study suggest that a sizable proportion of patients receiving inpatient hospice care have undetected but clinically significant cognitive impairments. Assessing for and helping patients, families and caregivers deal with cognitive impairment might benefit patients' quality of life, relationships and overall care at the end of life. Future research in this population is needed to evaluate the causes and time course of cognitive impairment over time, as well as any relationship between cognitive impairment and decision-making capacity.

Prospective validation of the palliative prognostic index in patients with cancer

The Palliative Prognostic Index (PPI) was devised and validated in patients with cancer in a hospice inpatient unit in Japan. The aim of this study was to test its accuracy in a different population, in a range of care settings and in those receiving palliative chemotherapy and radiotherapy. The information required to calculate the PPI was recorded for patients referred to a hospital-based consultancy palliative care service, a hospice home care service, and a hospice inpatient unit. One hundred ninety-four patients were included in the study, 43% of whom were receiving chemotherapy /or radiotherapy or both. Use of the PPI split patients into three subgroups based on PPI score. Group 1 corresponded to patients with PPI<or=4, median survival 68 days (95% confidence interval [CI] 52, 115 days). Group 2 corresponded to those with PPI>4 and <or=6, median survival 21 days (95% CI 13, 33), and Group 3 corresponded to patients with PPI>6, median survival five days (95% CI 3, 11). Using the PPI, survival of less than three weeks was predicted with a positive predictive value of 86% and negative predictive value of 76%. Survival of less than six weeks was predicted with a positive predictive value of 91% and negative predictive value of 64%. The PPI is quick and easy to use, and can be applied to patients with cancer, in hospital, in hospice, and at home. It may be used by general physicians to achieve prognostic accuracy comparable, if not superior, to that of physicians experienced in oncology and palliative care, and by oncology and palliative care specialists, to improve the accuracy of their survival predictions.

Psychiatric issues in palliative care: Recognition of delirium in patients enrolled in hospice care

Objectives:

Delirium is prevalent, difficult to assess, under-recognized, and undertreated in hospice and palliative care settings. Furthermore, it is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Under-recognition of delirium results in under-treatment and increased suffering. The intent of this study was to retrospectively evaluate the recognition of delirium in a large cohort of hospice patients by interdisciplinary hospice care teams.

Methods:

A retrospective chart review of 2,716 patients receiving hospice care was conducted in order to determine the baseline rate of recognition of delirium in patients with advanced, life-threatening illnesses by front-line hospice clinicians. Documentation of “delirium” as either a diagnosis or problem was used as an estimate of how often these disorders were considered significant issues by the treating interdisciplinary team.

Results:

Of the patients receiving home/long-term care, 17.8% (386/2168) had delirium documented as a diagnosis or significant problem. The presence of recognized delirium in this setting was associated with significant differences in marital status, ethnicity, hospice diagnosis, and age. Total length of hospice care was also significantly longer. Of patients receiving inpatient care, 28.3% (614/548) had delirium documented as a diagnosis or significant problem. Recognized delirium in this setting was associated with significant differences in gender, ethnicity, hospice diagnosis, and length of inpatient stay.

Significance of results:

If documentation is representative of the care that the interdisciplinary teams provide, delirium of any kind appears to be under-recognized in this population. In fact, it is on the low end of prevalence estimates in the literature. Improved delirium assessment is needed in order to minimize the impact of delirium on patients living with advanced, life-threatening illnesses and their caregivers.

First do no harm... Terminal restlessness or drug-induced delirium

Terminal restlessness is a term frequently used to refer to a clinical spectrum of unsettled behaviors in the last few days of life. Because there are many similarities between the clinical pictures observed in terminal restlessness and delirium, we postulate that at times what is referred to as terminal restlessness may actually be an acute delirium sometimes caused by medication used for symptom control. It is important therefore to consider the causes for this distressing clinical entity, treat it appropriately, and ensure the treatment provided does not increase its severity. This brief review aims to consider the medications that are commonly used toward the end of life that may result in a picture of delirium (or terminal restlessness). These include opioids, antisecretory agents, anxiolytics, antidepressants, antipsychotics, antiepileptics, steroids and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). This review also aims to raise awareness regarding the recognition and diagnosis of delirium and to highlight the fact that delirium may be reversible in up to half of all cases. Good management of delirium has the potential to significantly improve patient care at the end of life.

Delirium in advanced disease

Delirium in advanced disease, while common, is often not recognised or poorly treated. The aim of management of delirium is to assess and treat reversible causes in combination with environmental, psychological and pharmacological intervention to control symptoms. Delirium presents significant distress and impedes communication between patients and their families at the end of life. A structured approach to recognise, assess and manage delirium is essential for all clinicians caring for patients with terminal illness.

A retrospective chart review of the antiemetic effectiveness of risperidone in refractory opioid-induced nausea and vomiting in advanced cancer patients

Nausea and vomiting are distressing symptoms in advanced cancer patients. The causes of nausea and vomiting are multifactorial. Among the causes is opioid therapy, the mainstay of cancer pain management. When nausea or other opioid side effects occur, it may hamper pain management and undermine the quality of life of cancer patients. Risperidone exerts an antiemetic effect in animals, but there has been no clinical report on its antiemetic activity. We conducted a retrospective chart review to examine whether risperidone is useful for opioid-induced nausea and vomiting in advanced cancer patients (n=20). Risperidone was given as doses of 1mg once a day. Complete response was observed in 50% of patients (10/20) for nausea and 64% (7/11) for vomiting. Sedation (n=2) was documented as an adverse effect. This observation suggests that risperidone can be an effective antiemetic drug in the treatment of refractory opioid-induced nausea and vomiting in advanced cancer patients.

Interventions for preventing delirium in hospitalised patients

BACKGROUND

Delirium is a common mental disorder with serious adverse outcomes in hospitalised patients. It is associated with increases in mortality, physical morbidity, length of hospital stay, institutionalisation and costs to healthcare providers. A range of risk factors has been implicated in its aetiology, including aspects of the routine care and environment in hospitals. Prevention of delirium is clearly desirable from patients' and carers' perspectives, and to reduce hospital costs. Yet it is currently unclear whether interventions for prevention of delirium are effective, whether they can be successfully delivered in all environments, and whether different interventions are necessary for different groups of patients.

OBJECTIVES

Our primary objective was to determine the effectiveness of interventions designed to prevent delirium in hospitalised patients. We also aimed to highlight the quality and quantity of research evidence to prevent delirium in these settings.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Specialized Register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group on 28th September, 2005. As the searches in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO for the Specialized Register would not necessarily have picked up all delirium prevention trials, these databases were searched again on 28th October, 2005. We also examined reference lists of retrieved articles, reviews and books. Experts in this field were contacted and the Internet searched for further references and to locate unpublished trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials evaluating any interventions to prevent delirium in hospitalised patients.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data collection and quality assessment were performed by three reviewers independently and agreement reached by consensus.

MAIN RESULTS

Six studies with a total of 833 participants were identified for inclusion. All were conducted in surgical settings, five in orthopaedic surgery and one in patients undergoing resection for gastric or colon cancer. Only one study of 126 hip fracture patients comparing proactive geriatric consultation with usual care was sufficiently powered to detect a difference in the primary outcome, incident delirium. Total cumulative delirium incidence during admission was reduced in the intervention group (OR 0.48 [95% CI 0.23, 0.98]; RR 0.64 [95% CI 0.37, 0.98]), suggesting a 'number needed to treat' of 5.6 patients to prevent one case. The intervention was particularly effective in preventing severe delirium. In logistic regression analyses adjusting for pre fracture dementia and Activities of Daily Living impairment, there was no reduction in effect size, OR 0.6, but this no longer remained significant [95% CI 0.3,1.3]. There was no effect on the duration of delirium episodes, length of hospital stay, and cognitive status or institutionalisation at discharge. There was also no significant difference in cumulative delirium incidence between treatment and control groups in a sub-group of 50 patients with dementia (RR 0.9 [95% CI 0.59, 1.36]). In another trial of low dose haloperidol prophylaxis, there was no difference in delirium incidence but the severity and duration of a delirium episode, and length of hospital stay were all reduced. We identified no completed studies in hospitalised medical, care of the elderly, general surgery, cancer or intensive care patients. In outcomes, no studies examined for death, use of psychotropic medication, activities of daily living, psychological morbidity, quality of life, carers or staff psychological morbidity, cost of intervention and cost to health care services. Outcomes were only reported up to discharge, with no studies reporting medium or longer-term effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Research evidence on effectiveness of interventions to prevent delirium is sparse. Based on a single study, a programme of proactive geriatric consultation may reduce delirium incidence and severity in patients undergoing surgery for hip fracture. Prophylactic low dose haloperidol may reduce severity and duration of delirium episodes and shorten length of hospital admission in hip surgery. Further studies of delirium prevention are needed.

Antipsychotics for delirium

BACKGROUND

Delirium occurs in up to 30% of hospitalised patients and is associated with prolonged hospital stay and increased morbidity and mortality. Recently published reports have suggested that the standard drug for delirium, haloperidol, a typical antipsychotic that may cause adverse extrapyramidal symptoms among patients, may be replaced by atypical antipsychotics such as risperidone, olanzapine or quetiapine, that are as effective as haloperidol in controlling delirium, but that have a lower incidence of extrapyramidal adverse effects.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and incidence of adverse effects of haloperidol with risperidone, olanzapine, and quetiapine in the treatment of delirium.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The trials were identified from a search of the Specialized Register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group on 7 August 2006 using the search terms:haloperidol or haldol or risperidone or risperdal* or quetiapine or seroquel* or olanzapine or zyprexa* or aminotriazole or sertindole or leponex* or zeldox* or ziprasidone.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Types of studies included unconfounded, randomised trials with concealed allocation of subjects. For inclusion trials had to have assessed patients pre- and post-treatment. Where cross-over studies are included, only data from the first part of the study were examined. Interrupted time series were excluded. Length of trial and number of measurements did not influence the selection of trials for study. Where indicated, individual patient data were requested for further examination.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers extracted data from included trials. Data were pooled where possible, and analysed using appropriate statistical methods. Odds ratios of average differences were calculated. Only 'intention to treat' data were included. Analysis included haloperidol treated patients, compared with placebo.

MAIN RESULTS

Three studies were found that satisfied selection criteria. These studies compared haloperidol with risperidone, olanzapine, and placebo in the management of delirium and in the incidence of adverse drug reactions. Decrease in delirium scores were not significantly different comparing the effect of low dose haloperidol (< 3.0 mg per day) with the atypical antipsychotics olanzapine and risperidone (Odds ratio 0.63 (95% CI 10.29 - 1.38; p = 0.25). Low dose haloperidol did not have a higher incidence of adverse effects than the atypical antipsychotics. High dose haloperidol (> 4.5 mg per day) in one study was associated with an increased incidence of extrapyramidal adverse effects, compared with olanzapine. Low dose haloperidol decreased the severity and duration of delirium in post-operative patients, although not the incidence of delirium, compared to placebo controls in one study. There were no controlled trials comparing quetiapine with haloperidol.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence that haloperidol in low dosage has different efficacy in comparison with the atypical antipsychotics olanzapine and risperidone in the management of delirium or has a greater frequency of adverse drug effects than these drugs. High dose haloperidol was associated with a greater incidence of side effects, mainly parkinsonism, than the atypical antipsychotics. Low dose haloperidol may be effective in decreasing the degree and duration of delirium in post-operative patients, compared with placebo. These conclusions must be tempered by the observation that they are based on small studies of limited scope, and therefore will require further corroborating evidence before they can be translated into specific recommendation for the treatment of delirium.

Evaluation of the memorial delirium assessment scale (MDAS) for the screening of delirium by means of simulated cases by palliative care health professionals

BACKGROUND

Delirium is among the most common neuropsychiatric complications of advanced cancer. The Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale (MDAS) is a widely used and validated screening tool for delirium in cancer patients.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to assess the use of the MDAS by different palliative care health professionals after receiving formal training and a guiding manual for administration and scoring.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirty-one palliative care health professionals received a training session on the MDAS, including description of the tool, validation, and scoring. Participants also received copies of a proposed standardized manual for completion of the MDAS. Two of the investigators presented three simulated cases to the participants, who independently completed a scoring sheet for each case. The data were then analyzed according to the cases and the profession of the operators.

RESULTS

Thirty-one scoring sheets were analyzed (11 physicians, 12 nurses, and 8 others). A correct diagnosis was achieved by 30 (96.8%) of the 31 participants in case 1 (nondelirious, true score = 5, median = 5, range = 2-15), 28 of 31 (90.3%) in case 2 (severe mixed delirium, true score = 20, median = 18, range = 10-26), and 31 of 31 in case 3 (mild hypoactive delirium, true score = 14, median = 19, range = 13-25). Overall percentage of error was 31% for items 2, 3, and 4 (cognitive) and 45% for all other items (observational) (p < 0.001). The percentage of error did not differ between physicians and nurses and other palliative care professionals (p > 0.99).

CONCLUSIONS

Our preliminary results suggest that adequate training and a guiding manual can enhance the application of MDAS by palliative care health professionals in the teaching settings. Clinical studies to assess the utility of the MDAS as a screening tool are justified to further confirm these findings.

Phenomenology of delirium. Assessment of 100 adult cases using standardised measures

BACKGROUND

Delirium phenomenology is understudied.

AIMS

To investigate the relationship between cognitive and non-cognitive delirium symptoms and test the primacy of inattention in delirium.

METHOD

People with delirium (n=100) were assessed using the Delirium Rating Scale-Revised-98 (DRS-R98) and Cognitive Test for Delirium (CTD).

RESULTS

Sleep-wake cycle abnormalities and inattention were most frequent, while disorientation was the least frequent cognitive deficit. Patients with psychosis had either perceptual disturbances or delusions but not both. Neither delusions nor hallucinations were associated with cognitive impairments. Inattention was associated with severity of other cognitive disturbances but not with non-cognitive items. CTD comprehension correlated most closely with non-cognitive features of delirium.

CONCLUSIONS

Delirium phenomenology is consistent with broad dysfunction of higher cortical centres, characterised in particular by inattention and sleep-wake cycle disturbance. Attention and comprehension together are the cognitive items that best account for the syndrome of delirium. Psychosis in delirium differs from that in functional psychoses.

Barriers to pain management in the rehabilitation of the surgical oncology patient

Virtually every surgical oncology patient faces pain, and it can become a major barrier to rehabilitation and quality of life. Pain must be assessed as to its severity, etiology (somatic, visceral, or neuropathic), causation (directly from malignancy or from treatment side effects), and its impact on daily function. Treatments can include physical modalities, exercise, opioids, adjuvant medications, and interventional techniques. Barriers to treatment may include side effects, finances, and attitudes. New technologies in medication delivery systems, intrathecal pumps, injections, and surgery have greatly strengthened the armamentarium available to manage pain.

Objective evaluation of physical function in patients with advanced lung cancer: a preliminary report

PURPOSE

This prospective study was designed in order to compare the most common subjective measurements of physical function in patients with advanced lung cancer with an objective physical functional test (Simmonds Functional Assessment Tool [SFA]).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

One hundred patients agreed to participate and complete the study before or after their outpatient medical oncology appointment. Patients underwent assessment using the Karnofsky, the Brief fatigue Inventory, The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung patients (FACT-L) and the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS). These results were compared to the SFA tool. The SFA consists of six tasks: tying a belt, putting coins in a cup, reaching above head, standing up/sitting down, reaching forward and walking 50 feet.

RESULTS

Ninety-nine patients completed the study over 8 months: median Karnofsky performance status was 85 (70 to 100), Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) score (0 to 10) was generally low (0.5 to 2.8). SFA scores were significantly different in patients compared to a control group. The correlation between the subscales of the SFA and the Karnofsky, the Brief Fatigue Inventory, The FACT-L and the ESAS was generally low to moderate (r values: 0.22 to 0.38). There was generally a moderate correlation between the different subjective scales (r values: 0.3 to 0.62).

CONCLUSION

Adherence to the SFA tool was excellent. The low to moderate correlation between the abnormalities found in the objective SFA and the subjective fatigue tests suggest that objective evaluation of the functional capacity provides a potentially useful and independent end-point for clinical trials and therapeutic interventions. These assessment tools should be used complementary to each other to better assess the functional status of patients with advanced lung cancer. Large trials of objective functional assessment are justified.

Psychologic issues in palliative care

As medical science progresses and the life spans of patients with serious illnesses increase, the process that leads to death is becoming more feared than death itself. This fear is particularly intense in technologically advanced cultures with access to advanced medical care. The lives of patients who previously would have died rapidly are now often extended. As a result, images of suffering, such as dying in isolation and experiencing great pain, often are at the forefront of concerns about those struggling with terminal illnesses. This article provides medical practitioners with an overview of the issues and symptoms common in terminal illness, to help them work most effectively with their mental health colleagues.

Caring for patients with terminal delirium: palliative care unit and home care nurses’ experiences

AIM

To explore palliative care unit and home care nurses' experiences of caring for patients with terminal delirium.

DESIGN

A qualitative exploratory design using individual interviews.

SAMPLE

Participants included five nurses working in an interdisciplinary palliative care unit located in a large Canadian city hospital, and four nurses from a palliative home care nursing team located in the same city.

RESULTS

Nurses in both sites experienced multiple challenges caring for delirious patients. Additional education on delirium and collaborative teamwork were viewed as key factors in enhancing their ability to care for and support this patient and family population. Four core themes reflected the participants' perceptions and experiences: experiencing distress; the importance of presence; valuing the team; and the need to know more.

CONCLUSION

Findings suggest the need for interdisciplinary educational initiatives focused on the identification and management of terminal delirium, and targeted to the specific context in which nurses practise.

Hypoactive delirium: assessing the extent of the problem for inpatient specialist palliative care

Delirium is a common problem and cause of distress among patients with palliative care needs. The focus to date has been on managing the patient with agitated, hyperactive delirium, as these patients are very noticeable within the palliative care setting. This study in two parts shows that palliative care patients with agitated delirium are a minority of the total proportion of those with delirium. Part I: 100 acute admissions to a specialist palliative care unit were assessed and while 29% were found to have delirium, 86% of these had the hypoactive subtype of delirium. We also demonstrated a positive correlation between high ratings on a depression screening tool and delirium severity ratings. Part II: 8 specialist palliative care units took part in a point prevalence study of delirium over a 48-hour period. One hundred and nine patients were assessed and while 29.4% of these inpatients had delirium, 78% of them had the hypoactive subtype. Patients with hypoactive delirium may be much less noticeable or may be misdiagnosed as having depression or fatigue and the results of this study would advocate the routine use of delirium screening tools in all palliative care settings.

Which mini-mental state exam items can be used to screen for delirium and cognitive impairment?

Cognitive impairment is common in palliative care patients, but it is frequently undetected. The clinical consequence is that psychiatric states such as delirium, which often present with cognitive impairment, are inadequately treated. A short and simple questionnaire for screening of cognitive impairment is required for these patients, in order to proceed with more advanced testing if necessary. In this study, we explored the results from two samples of patients (n=290 and n=217) who had completed the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE). Cases of cognitive impairment are considered indicated by an MMSE score of less than 24 of the total 30. We found that caseness could be fairly accurately screened by using four of the original 20 MMSE items, and that a six-item questionnaire further greatly improved the discrimination.