The relationship among frailty, delirium and attentional tests to detect delirium: a cohort study

Frailty index and risk of delirium in hospitalized patients: a two-sample Mendelian randomization study

Objective

Observational studies suggest that the frailty index (FI) is closely related to delirium, but the relationship between them is still uncertain due to the influence of various confounding factors. Therefore, two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) was used to explore the causal relationship between the FI and delirium risk.

Methods

This study obtained pooled statistics for the FI and delirium from two of the most extensive genome-wide association studies. To make the results more robust and reliable, supplementary analyses were performed using several robust analytical methods (inverse-variance weighting, MR-Egger regression, and weighted median). In addition, this study used the MR-Egger intercept test, Cochran's Q test, funnel plots and the leave-one-out method to evaluate the pleiotropy and heterogeneity among the abovementioned genetic variation instrumental variables.

Results

Frailty might increase the relative risk of delirium, as shown by IVW (OR = 1.849, 95% CI 0.027∼2.067, P = 0.044), weighted median (OR = 1.726, 95% CI -0.178∼2.664, P = 0.083), MR-Egger regression (OR = 1.768, 95% CI -3.08∼6.171, P = 0.525) and leave-one-out sensitivity analysis (P = 0.058). Although the WME method and MR-Egger regression analysis showed no statistically significant causal relationship between the FI and the risk of delirium, the direction of the causal effect was consistent with the IVW method.

Conclusion

There is a notable correlation between a higher FI and an elevated risk of delirium. This indicates that healthcare providers should take proactive measures to prevent delirium in hospitalized patients with a higher FI.

Lateral wall thickness is not associated with revision risk of medially stable intertrochanteric fractures fixed with a sliding hip screw

Aims

This study aimed to determine whether lateral femoral wall thickness (LWT) < 20.5 mm was associated with increased revision risk of intertrochanteric fracture (ITF) of the hip following sliding hip screw (SHS) fixation when the medial calcar was intact. Additionally, the study assessed the association between LWT and patient mortality.

Methods

This retrospective study included ITF patients aged 50 years and over treated with SHS fixation between 2019 and 2021 at a major trauma centre. Demographic information, fracture type, delirium status, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, and length of stay were collected. LWT and tip apex distance were measured. Revision surgery and mortality were recorded at a mean follow-up of 19.5 months (1.6 to 48). Cox regression was performed to evaluate independent risk factors associated with revision surgery and mortality.

Results

The cohort consisted of 890 patients with a mean age of 82 years (SD 10.2). Mean LWT was 27.0 mm (SD 8.6), and there were 213 patients (23.9%) with LWT < 20.5 mm. Overall, 20 patients (2.2%) underwent a revision surgery following SHS fixation. Adjusting for covariates, LWT < 20.5 mm was not independently associated with an increased revision or mortality risk. However, factors that were significantly more prevalent in LWT < 20.5 mm group, which included residence in care home (hazard ratio (HR) 1.84; p < 0.001) or hospital (HR 1.65; p = 0.005), and delirium (HR 1.32; p = 0.026), were independently associated with an increased mortality risk. The only independent factor associated with increased risk of revision was older age (HR 1.07; p = 0.030).

Conclusion

LWT was not associated with risk of revision surgery in patients with an ITF fixed with a SHS when the calcar was intact, after adjusting for the independent effect of age. Although LWT < 20.5 mm was not an independent risk factor for mortality, patients with LWT < 20.5 mm were more likely to be from care home or hospital and have delirium on admission, which were associated with a higher mortality rate.

To Be Frail or Not to Be Frail: This Is the Question-A Critical Narrative Review of Frailty

Many factors have contributed to rendering frailty an emerging, relevant, and very popular concept. First, many pandemics that have affected humanity in history, including COVID-19, most recently, have had more severe effects on frail people compared to non-frail ones. Second, the increase in human life expectancy observed in many developed countries, including Italy has led to a rise in the percentage of the older population that is more likely to be frail, which is why frailty is much a more common concern among geriatricians compared to other the various health-care professionals. Third, the stratification of people according to the occurrence and the degree of frailty allows healthcare decision makers to adequately plan for the allocation of available human professional and economic resources. Since frailty is considered to be fully preventable, there are relevant consequences in terms of potential benefits both in terms of the clinical outcome and healthcare costs. Frailty is becoming a popular, pervasive, and almost omnipresent concept in many different contexts, including clinical medicine, physical health, lifestyle behavior, mental health, health policy, and socio-economic planning sciences. The emergence of the new "science of frailty" has been recently acknowledged. However, there is still debate on the exact definition of frailty, the pathogenic mechanisms involved, the most appropriate method to assess frailty, and consequently, who should be considered frail. This narrative review aims to analyze frailty from many different aspects and points of view, with a special focus on the proposed pathogenic mechanisms, the various factors that have been considered in the assessment of frailty, and the emerging role of biomarkers in the early recognition of frailty, particularly on the role of mitochondria. According to the extensive literature on this topic, it is clear that frailty is a very complex syndrome, involving many different domains and affecting multiple physiological systems. Therefore, its management should be directed towards a comprehensive and multifaceted holistic approach and a personalized intervention strategy to slow down its progression or even to completely reverse the course of this condition.

Inflammatory biomarkers and delirium: a Mendelian randomization study

Background

The association between inflammatory biomarkers and individual delirium symptoms remains controversial in observational studies. We investigated the relationship between inflammatory biomarkers and the risk of developing delirium.

Methods

A bidirectional two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) was performed. Genetic instruments associated with peripheral tumor necrosis factor-a (TNF-a) C-reactive protein (CRP), interleukin (IL)-1α, IL-1β, IL-2, IL-8, IL-6, soluble IL-6 receptor alpha (sIL-6Rα), and soluble gp130 were identified in three different large summary genome-wide association studies (GWAS) conducted in the European population. Summary-level statistics for delirium not induced by alcohol and other psychoactive substances were obtained from the FinnGen consortium (2,612 cases and 325,306 controls). The estimated causal effects were performed using instruments' variants at the genome-wide significant level (P < 5e-8 and P < 5e-6), applying a linkage disequilibrium clumping approach with a threshold of r2 < 0.001 for each of the exposures. Reverse causation was also performed. The inverse-variance weighted method (IVW), MR-Egger method, weighted median method, MR-Egger regression, and MR Pleiotropy RESidual Sum were used for MR analyses.

Results

At the genome-wide significant level (P < 5e-8, r2 < 0.001), genetically predicted sIL-6Rα was significantly associated with a decreased risk of delirium with less than three single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in all three GWAS data sources (ORWaldratio = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.79-0.96, PWaldratio = 0.0016; ORIVW = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.79-0.97, PIVW = 0.008; ORIVW = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.80-0.96, PIVW = 0.004). The causal relationship between sIL-6Rα and delirium became non-significant when a more liberal threshold of P of < 5e-6 was applied (all PIVW > 0.05). At the two genome-wide significance levels (P < 5e-8 and P < 5e-6), we found no evidence for the causal effects of peripheral TNF-α, CRP, IL-1α, IL-1β, IL-2, IL-6, IL-8, and soluble gp130 on delirium (all P > 0.05). The MR-Egger intercept and MR-PRESSO results indicated that no SNP had possible pleiotropy (all P > 0.05). Regarding the reverse, no evidence for an effect of delirium on these inflammatory biomarkers could be found (all P > 0.05).

Conclusion

The results of this MR analysis did not support that peripheral TNF-α, CRP, IL-1α, IL-1β, IL-2, IL-6, sIL-6Rα, soluble gp130, and IL-8 were causally associated with delirium. More research is needed to explore the role of inflammatory factors in the pathogenesis of delirium.

Frailty and delirium in hospitalized older adults: A systematic review with meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

to estimate the prevalence and synthesize diverse evidence about the relationship between frailty and delirium in hospitalized older adults.

METHOD

a systematic review with meta-analysis in which observational studies conducted with older adults about frailty, delirium and hospitalization, were selected without time of language restrictions. The search was conducted in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science and CENTRAL databases during August 2021. The precepts set forth by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) - Evidence Synthesis Groups were followed. The meta-analysis model estimated the relative risk corresponding to the prevalence of frailty and delirium. The inverse variance method for proportions was used to estimate the prevalence values and relative risks for binary outcomes.

RESULTS

initially, 1,244 articles were identified, of which 26 were included in the meta-analysis (n=13,502 participants), with 34% prevalence of frailty (95% CI:0.26-0.42; I 2=99%; t 2=0.7618, p=0) and 21% for delirium (95% CI:0.17-0,25; I 2=95%; t 2=0.3454, p<0.01). The risk for hospitalized older adults to develop delirium was 66% (RR: 1.66; 95% CI:1.23-2.22; I2=92%; t2=0.4154; p<0.01).

CONCLUSION

34% prevalence of frailty and 21% of delirium in hospitalized older adults, with frailty being an independent risk factor for developing delirium, with an increased chance of 66% when compared to non-frail individuals.

Fragilidad y delirium en adultos mayores hospitalizados: revisión sistemática con metanálisis

Resumen Objetivo: estimar la prevalencia y sintetizar evidencias sobre la relación entre fragilidad y delirium en adultos mayores hospitalizados. Método: revisión sistemática con metanálisis en el que se seleccionaron estudios observacionales realizados con adultos mayores sobre fragilidad, delirium y hospitalización, sin recorte temporal ni de idioma. La búsqueda se realizó en las bases de datos MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science y CENTRAL en agosto de 2021. Se siguieron los preceptos del Instituto Joanna Briggs (Joanna Briggs Institute, JBI) - Evidence Synthesis Groups. El modelo de metanálisis estimó el riesgo relativo de la prevalencia de fragilidad y delirium. Se utilizó el método de la varianza inversa para proporciones para estimar la prevalencia y el riesgo relativo de los desenlaces binarios. Resultados: inicialmente se identificaron 1.244 artículos, se incluyen en el metanálisis 26 (n=13.502 participantes), la prevalencia de fragilidad fue del 34% (IC 95% 0,26 a 0,42; I 2=99%; t 2= 0,7618, p=0) y de delirium del 21% (IC 95% 0,17 a 0,25; I 2=95%; t 2= 0,3454, p<0,01). El riesgo de que el adulto mayor frágil hospitalizado desarrolle delirium fue del 66% (RR 1,66; IC 95% 1,23 a 2,22; I2=92%; t2=0,4154; p<0,01). Conclusión: los adultos mayores hospitalizados tienen una prevalencia de fragilidad del 34% y de delirium del 21%, la fragilidad es un factor de riesgo independiente para el desarrollo de delirium, cuando se compara a los frágiles con los no frágiles, la probabilidad de delirium de los primeros es de un 66% más.

Fragilidade e delirium em idosos hospitalizados: revisão sistemática com metanálise

Resumo Objetivo: estimar a prevalência e sintetizar evidências sobre a relação entre fragilidade e delirium em idosos hospitalizados. Método: revisão sistemática com metanálise na qual foram selecionados estudos observacionais realizados com idosos sobre fragilidade, delirium e hospitalização, sem recortes temporais e de idioma. A busca foi realizada nas bases de dados MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science e CENTRAL durante o mês de agosto de 2021. Foram seguidos os preceitos estabelecidos pelo Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) - Grupos de Síntese de Evidências.. O modelo de metanálise estimou risco relativo da prevalência de fragilidade e delirium. Utilizou-se método da variância inversa para proporções para estimar as prevalências e risco relativo para desfechos binários. Resultados: identificaram-se, inicialmente, 1.244 artigos, 26 incluídos na metanálise (n=13.502 participantes), sendo a prevalência de fragilidade 34% (IC 95% 0,26 a 0,42; I 2=99%; t 2= 0,7618, p=0) e delirium 21% (IC 95% 0,17 a 0,25; I 2=95%; t 2= 0,3454, p<0,01). O risco do idoso frágil hospitalizado desenvolver delirium foi de 66% (RR 1,66; IC 95% 1,23 a 2,22; I2=92%; t2=0,4154; p<0,01). Conclusão: prevalência de 34% de fragilidade e 21% de delirium em idosos hospitalizados, sendo a fragilidade um fator de risco independente para desenvolvimento de delirium, com um aumento de chance de 66% comparado aos não frágeis.

Study protocol: understanding the pathophysiologic mechanisms underlying delirium in older people undergoing hip fracture surgery

BACKGROUND

Postoperative delirium (POD) is a common complication of older people undergoing hip fracture surgery, which negatively affects clinical- and healthcare-related outcomes. Unfortunately, POD pathophysiology is still largely unknown, despite previous studies showing that neuroinflammation, neuroendocrine dysfunction, increased reactive oxidative stress (ROS), and endothelial dysfunctions may be involved. There is also evidence that many of the pathophysiological mechanisms which are involved in delirium are involved in sarcopenia too. This article describes the protocol of a pilot study to evaluate the feasibility of a larger one that will explore the pathophysiological mechanisms correlating POD with sarcopenia. We will analyse whether various biomarkers reflecting neuroinflammation, ROS, neuroendocrine disorders, and microvasculature lesions will be simultaneously expressed in in the blood, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), and muscles of patients developing POD.

METHODS

Two centres will be involved in this study, each recruiting a convenient sample of ten older patients with hip fracture. All of them will undergo a baseline Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment, which will be used to construct a Rockwood-based Frailty Index (FI). Blood samples will be collected for each patient on the day of surgery and 1 day before. Additionally, CSF and muscle fragments will be taken and given to a biologist for subsequent analyses. The presence of POD will be assessed in each patient every morning until hospital discharge using the 4AT. Delirium subtypes and severity will be assessed using the Delirium Motor Subtype Scale-4 and the Delirium-O-Meter, respectively. We will also evaluate the patient's functional status at discharge, using the Cumulated Ambulation Score.

DISCUSSION

This study will be the first to correlate biomarkers of blood, CSF, and muscle in older patients with hip fracture.

The relationship between frailty and delirium: insights from the 2017 Delirium Day study

BACKGROUND

although frailty and delirium are among the most frequent and burdensome geriatric syndromes, little is known about their association and impact on short-term mortality.

OBJECTIVE

to examine, in hospitalized older persons, whether frailty is associated with delirium, and whether these two conditions, alone or in combination, affect these patients' 30-day survival.

DESIGN

observational study nested in the Delirium Day project, with 30-day follow-up.

SETTING

acute medical wards (n = 118) and rehabilitation wards (n = 46) in Italy.

SUBJECTS

a total of 2,065 individuals aged 65+ years hospitalized in acute medical (1,484 patients, 71.9%) or rehabilitation (581 patients, 28.1%) wards.

METHODS

a 25-item Frailty Index (FI) was created. Delirium was assessed using the 4AT test. Vital status was ascertained at 30 days.

RESULTS

overall, 469 (22.7%) patients experienced delirium on the index day and 82 (4.0%) died during follow-up. After adjustment for potential confounders, each FI score increase of 0.1 significantly increased the odds of delirium (odds ratio, OR: 1.66 [95% CI: 1.45-1.90]), with no difference between the acute (OR: 1.65 [95% CI: 1.41-1.93]) and rehabilitation ward patients (OR: 1.71 [95% CI: 1.27-2.30]). The risk of dying during follow-up also increased significantly for every FI increase of 0.1 in the overall population (OR: 1.65 [95% CI: 1.33-2.05]) and in the acute medical ward patients (OR: 1.61 [95% CI: 1.28-2.04]), but not in the rehabilitation patients. Delirium was not significantly associated with 30-day mortality in either hospital setting.

CONCLUSIONS

in hospitalized older patients, frailty is associated with delirium and with an increased risk of short-term mortality.

Delirium in Frail Older Adults

Delirium and frailty are prevalent geriatric syndromes and important public health issues among older adults. The prevalence of delirium among hospitalized older adults ranges from 15% to 75%, while that of frailty ranges from 12% to 24%. The exact pathophysiology of these two conditions has not been clearly identified, although several hypotheses have been proposed. However, these conditions are considered to be multifactorial in etiology and are associated with inflammation related to aging, alterations in vascular systems, genetics, and nutritional deficiency. Furthermore, clinically, they are significantly associated with frailty, which increases the risk of delirium by almost two- to three-fold among hospitalized older adults. With their multifactorial etiology and unknown pathophysiology, current evidence supports more practical multicomponent patient-centered approaches to prevent and manage delirium with frailty among hospitalized older adults. These comprehensive and organized bundled approaches can identify high-risk patients with frailty and more effectively manage their delirium.

Delirium: A Marker of Vulnerability in Older People

Delirium is an acute neuropsychiatric syndrome and one of the most common presenting symptoms of acute medical illnesses in older people. Delirium can be triggered by a single cause, but in most cases, it is multifactorial as it depends on the interaction between predisposing and precipitating factors. Delirium is highly prevalent in older patients across various settings of care and correlates with an increased risk of adverse clinical outcomes. Several pathophysiological mechanisms may contribute to its onset, including neurotransmitter imbalance, neuroinflammation, altered brain metabolism, and impaired neuronal network connectivity. Several screening and diagnostic tools for delirium exist, but they are unfortunately underutilized. Additionally, the diagnosis of delirium superimposed on dementia poses a formidable challenge – especially if dementia is severe. Non-pharmacological approaches for the prevention and multidomain interventions for the treatment of delirium are recommended, given that there is currently no robust evidence of drugs that can prevent or resolve delirium. This article aims to review the current understanding about delirium in older people. To achieve this goal, we will describe the epidemiology and outcomes of the syndrome, the pathophysiological mechanisms that are supposed to be involved, the most commonly used tools for screening and diagnosis, and prevention strategies and treatments recommended. This review is intended as a brief guide for clinicians in hospital wards to improve their knowledge and practice. At the end of the article, we propose an approach to improve the quality of care provided to older patients throughout a systematic detection of delirium.

The Association Between Frailty and Delirium Among Hospitalized Patients: An Updated Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

The aim of our meta-analysis was to update evidence for the association between frailty and delirium in different types of hospitalized patients, given the large volume of new studies with inconsistent results.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

In this updated meta-analysis, we searched 3 databases (Embase, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library) for observational studies, exploring the association between frailty and delirium from database inception to September 21, 2020, among hospitalized patients. Relevant data were extracted from the studies that were included. A random effects model was conducted to synthesize and pool the effect size of frailty on delirium due to different frailty score instruments, different countries, and various delirium assessments that were used. The participants enrolled in this meta-analysis were hospitalized patients.

MEASURES

Delirium risk due to frailty.

RESULTS

A total of 30 independent studies from 9 countries, consisting of 217,623 patients, was identified, and the prevalence of frailty ranged from 16.20% to 78.00%. Frail patients exhibited an increased risk for delirium compared to those without frailty [odds ratio (OR) 2.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.36-3.71]. In addition, different types of hospitalized patients had various OR values, which were 2.43 for selective surgical patients (95% CI 1.88-3.14), 3.61 for medical patients (95% CI 3.61-7.89), 3.76 for urgent surgical patients (95% CI 2.88-4.92), and 6.66 for emergency or critical illness patients (95% CI 1.41-31.47). Subgroup analysis based on the frailty score instrument showed the association still existed when using the Clinical Frailty Scale (OR 4.07, 95% CI 2.71-6.11), FRAIL Scale (OR 2.83, 95% CI 1.56-5.13), Frailty Index (OR 6.15, 95% CI 3.75-10.07), frailty phenotype (OR 2.30, 95%CI 1.35-5.66), or Erasmus Frailty Score (OR 2.79, 95% CI 1.63-4.77). However, an association between frailty and delirium was not observed when the Edmonton Frail Scale was used (OR 1.45, 95% CI 0.91-2.30).

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

A 2.96-fold incremental risk of delirium in frail patients underscores the need for early screening of frailty and comprehensive delirium prevention. Appropriate interventions by clinicians should be performed to manage delirium, potentially reducing adverse clinical outcomes for hospitalized patients.