Delirium in the intensive care setting and the Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale (RASS): Drowsiness increases the risk and is subthreshold for delirium

Pain management of nalbuphine and sufentanil in patients admitted intensive care unit of different ages

Background

Pain relief for patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) can improve treatment outcomes and reduce the burden on doctors and nurses. This study aims to report the clinical analgesic and sedative effects of nalbuphine and sufentanil on ICU patients.

Methods

This study retrospectively analyzed the medical records of 87 critically ill patients who received nalbuphine or sufentanil infusion in the ICU, including demographic data, diagnosis, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II, Critical Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT), Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS), systolic and diastolic blood pressure, heart rate and blood oxygen saturation (SpO2). The primary outcomes of this study were CPOT and RASS scores. The secondary outcomes were hemodynamic changes, including systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, heart rate, and SpO2. The adverse events recorded during pain management, such as hypoxemia, respiration depression and bradycardia, were also collected and analyzed.

Results

None of the patients in both groups experienced episode of hypoxemia, respiration depression and bradycardia. However, age-stratified analyses showed that nalbuphine has a better analgesic effect than sufentanil for patients aged ≤ 60 (P < 0.05). In contrast, sufentanil showed a better analgesic effect than nalbuphine for patients aged > 60 ( P < 0.05). Furthermore, nalbuphine has a significantly better sedative effect than sufentanil for patients aged ≤ 60 (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

ICU patients of different age groups may be suitable for different analgesics. For patients under the age of 60, nalbuphine has better analgesia and sedation than sufentanil, and does not cause respiratory depression and drastic hemodynamic changes.

Patient Factors That Influence Reliable Delirium Assessments in a Medical Intensive Care Unit During the Routine Clinical Practice

This study aimed to determine patient and therapeutic characteristics of patients in the medical intensive care unit (MICU) that contribute to inconsistent results of delirium assessments performed during routine clinical practice. Therefore, electronic health records were reviewed and compared with secondary data collected from the same medical ICU patients who were assessed using the Confusion Assessment Method in the ICU (CAM-ICU). Of 5,241 cases involving 762 patients, 827 (15.78%) cases showed disagreement between assessments. Continuous renal replacement therapy, physical restraint use, and altered mental status were factors that increased the likelihood of inconsistencies between assessments. A significant positive correlation was found between the CAM-ICU disagreement rate and the total number of assessments per month. To maximize the reliability of delirium assessments, individual-targeted approaches considering the patient's level of consciousness and type of treatment implemented are required, along with ensuring a stable, and regulated working environment and customized educational programs.

Outcome, demography and resource utilization in ICU Patients with delirium and malignancy

Delirium in the general intensive care unit (ICU) population is common, associated with adverse outcomes and well studied. However, knowledge on delirium in the increasing number of ICU patients with malignancy is scarce. The aim was to assess the frequency of delirium and its impact on resource utilizations and outcomes in ICU patients with malignancy. This retrospective, single-center longitudinal cohort study included all patients with malignancy admitted to ICUs of a University Hospital during one year. Delirium was diagnosed by an Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC) score ≥ 4. Of 488 ICU patients with malignancy, 176/488 (36%) developed delirium. Delirious patients were older (66 [55-72] vs. 61 [51-69] years, p = 0.001), had higher SAPS II (41 [27-68] vs. 24 [17-32], p < 0.001) and more frequently sepsis (26/176 [15%] vs. 6/312 [1.9%], p < 0.001) and/or shock (30/176 [6.1%] vs. 6/312 [1.9%], p < 0.001). In multivariate analysis, delirium was independently associated with lower discharge home (OR [95% CI] 0.37 [0.24-0.57], p < 0.001), longer ICU (HR [95% CI] 0.30 [0.23-0.37], p < 0.001) and hospital length of stay (HR [95% CI] 0.62 [0.50-0.77], p < 0.001), longer mechanical ventilation (HR [95% CI] 0.40 [0.28-0.57], p < 0.001), higher ICU nursing workload (B [95% CI] 1.92 [1.67-2.21], p < 0.001) and ICU (B [95% CI] 2.08 [1.81-2.38], p < 0.001) and total costs (B [95% CI] 1.44 [1.30-1.60], p < 0.001). However, delirium was not independently associated with in-hospital mortality (OR [95% CI] 2.26 [0.93-5.54], p = 0.074). In conclusion, delirium was a frequent complication in ICU patients with malignancy independently associated with high resource utilizations, however, it was not independently associated with in-hospital mortality.

Assessing delirium with nursing care instruments: Evaluation of the cognitive and associated domains

OBJECTIVE

Nursing instruments have the potential for daily screening of delirium; however, they have not yet been evaluated. Therefore, after assessing the functional domains of the electronic Patient Assessment - Acute Care (ePA-AC), this study evaluates the cognitive and associated domains.

METHODS

In this prospective cohort study in the intensive care unit, 277 patients were assessed and 118 patients were delirious. The impacts of delirium on the cognitive domains, consciousness and cognition, communication and interaction, in addition to respiration, pain, and wounds were determined with simple logistic regressions and their respective odds ratios (ORs).

RESULTS

Delirium was associated with substantial impairment throughout the evaluated domains. Delirious patients were somnolent (OR 6), their orientation (OR 8.2-10.6) and ability to acquire knowledge (OR 5.5-11.6) were substantially impaired, they lost the competence to manage daily routines (OR 8.2-22.4), and their attention was compromised (OR 12.8). In addition, these patients received psychotropics (OR 3.8), were visually impaired (OR 1.8), unable to communicate their needs (OR 5.6-7.6), displayed reduced self-initiated activities (OR 6.5-6.9) and challenging behaviors (OR 6.2), as well as sleep-wake disturbances (OR 2.2-5), Furthermore, delirium was associated with mechanical ventilation, abdominal/thoracic injuries or operations (OR 4.2-4.4), and sensory perception impairment (OR 3.9-5.8).

SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS

Delirium caused substantial impairment in cognitive and associated domains. In addition to the previously described functional impairments, these findings will aid the implementation of nursing instruments in delirium screening.

The Incidence and Predictors of Postoperative Delirium After Brain Tumor Resection in Adults: A Cross-Sectional Survey

BACKGROUND

Postoperative delirium (POD) describes a multifactorial disease process occurring after surgery. However, few studies have focused on patients undergoing brain tumor resection, and its influencing factors are unclear.

METHODS

We performed a 1-year, single-center, cross-sectional, retrospective survey at Huashan Hospital. Patients were screened using the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU), Confusion Assessment Method, and Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale by trained bedside nurses. Perioperative data were collected using demographic and disease-related questionnaires. The primary outcome measures were the incidence of POD and subtype of POD. Independent predictors of POD were estimated from multivariate logistic regression models, and receiver operating characteristic analysis was used to compare the predictive performance of the models.

RESULTS

Of the 916 patients included in the study, 893 were analyzed. The overall incidence was 14.78%, 67 had hyperactive delirium (50.76%), 55 had hypoactive delirium (41.67%), and 10 had mixed delirium (7.57%). Age, sex, working status, tobacco use history, comorbidities, physical restraint, axillary temperature (>38.5°C), electrolyte disturbances, duration of anesthesia, pathologic diagnosis, tumor site, length of disease, and duration of operation were risk factors for POD. Conversely, saddle area mass was a protective factor. Age, tobacco use history, electrolyte disturbances, physical restraint, and duration of operation were included in the model.

CONCLUSIONS

POD is harmful to patients undergoing brain tumor resection, increasing length of stay in the intensive care unit and hospitalization costs. Intraoperative factors and postoperative factors, in addition to older age and tobacco use history, are associated with POD.

Delirium Screening in Neurocritical Care and Stroke Unit Patients: A Pilot Study on the Influence of Neurological Deficits on CAM-ICU and ICDSC Outcome

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

Delirium is a common complication in critically ill patients with a negative impact on hospital length of stay, morbidity, and mortality. Little is known on how neurological deficits affect the outcome of commonly used delirium screening tools such as the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) and the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC) in neurocritical care patients.

METHODS

Over a period of 1 month, all patients admitted to a neurocritical care and stroke unit at a single academic center were prospectively screened for delirium using both CAM-ICU and ICDSC. Tool-based delirium screening was compared with delirium evaluation by the treating clinical team. Additionally, ICD-10 delirium criteria were assessed.

RESULTS

One hundred twenty-three patients with a total of 644 daily screenings were included. Twenty-three patients (18.7%) were diagnosed with delirium according to the clinical evaluation. Delirium incidence amounted to 23.6% (CAM-ICU) and 26.8% (ICDSC). Sensitivity and specificity of both screening tools were 66.9% and 93.3% for CAM-ICU and 69.9% and 93.9% for ICDSC, respectively. Patients identified with delirium by either CAM-ICU or ICDSC presented a higher proportion of neurological deficits such as impaired consciousness, expressive aphasia, impaired language comprehension, and hemineglect. Subsequently, generalized estimating equations identified a significant association between impaired consciousness (as indexed by Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale) and a positive delirium assessment with both CAM-ICU and ICDSC, while impaired language comprehension and hemineglect were only associated with a positive CAM-ICU result.

CONCLUSIONS

A positive delirium screening with both CAM-ICU and ICDSC in neurocritical care and stroke unit patients was found to be significantly associated with the presence of neurological deficits. These findings underline the need for a more specific delirium screening tool in neurocritical care patients.

Delirium in the intensive care setting dependent on the Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale (RASS): Inattention and visuo-spatial impairment as potential screening domains

OBJECTIVE

In the intensive care setting, delirium is a common occurrence; however, the impact of the level of alertness has never been evaluated. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the delirium characteristics in the drowsy, as well as the alert and calm patient.

METHOD

In this prospective cohort study, 225 intensive care patients with Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale (RASS) scores of -1 - drowsy and 0 - alert and calm were evaluated with the Delirium Rating Scale-Revised-1998 (DRS-R-98) and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual 4th edition text revision (DSM-IV-TR)-determined diagnosis of delirium.

RESULTS

In total, 85 drowsy and 140 alert and calm patients were included. Crucial items for the correct identification of delirium were sleep-wake cycle disturbances, language abnormalities, thought process alterations, psychomotor retardation, disorientation, inattention, short- and long-term memory, as well as visuo-spatial impairment, and the temporal onset. Conversely, perceptual disturbances, delusions, affective lability, psychomotor agitation, or fluctuations were items, which identified delirium less correctly. Further, the severities of inattentiveness and visuo-spatial impairment were indicative of delirium in both alert- or calmness and drowsiness.

SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS

The impairment in the cognitive domain, psychomotor retardation, and sleep-wake cycle disturbances correctly identified delirium irrespective of the level alertness. Further, inattentiveness and - to a lesser degree - visuo-spatial impairment could represent a specific marker for delirium in the intensive care setting meriting further evaluation.

A hospital-wide evaluation of delirium prevalence and outcomes in acute care patients - a cohort study

Background

Delirium is a well-known complication in cardiac surgery and intensive care unit (ICU) patients. However, in many other settings its prevalence and clinical consequences are understudied. The aims of this study were: (1) To assess delirium prevalence in a large, diverse cohort of acute care patients classified as either at risk or not at risk for delirium; (2) To compare these two groups according to defined indicators; and (3) To compare delirious with non-delirious patients regarding hospital mortality, ICU and hospital length of stay, nursing hours and cost per case.

Methods

This cohort study was performed in a Swiss university hospital following implementation of a delirium management guideline. After excluding patients aged < 18 years or with a length of stay (LOS) < 1 day, 29′278 patients hospitalized in the study hospital in 2014 were included.

Delirium period prevalence was calculated based on a Delirium Observation Scale (DOS) score ≥ 3 and / or Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC) scores ≥4.

Results

Of 10′906 patients admitted, DOS / ICDSC scores indicated delirium in 28.4%. Delirium was most prevalent (36.2–40.5%) in cardiac surgery, neurosurgery, trauma, radiotherapy and neurology patients. It was also common in geriatrics, internal medicine, visceral surgery, reconstructive plastic surgery and cranio-maxillo-facial surgery patients (prevalence 21.6–28.6%). In the unadjusted and adjusted models, delirious patients had a significantly higher risk of inpatient mortality, stayed significantly longer in the ICU and hospital, needed significantly more nursing hours and generated significantly higher costs per case. For the seven most common ICD-10 diagnoses, each diagnostic group’s delirious patients had worse outcomes compared to those with no delirium.

Conclusions

The results indicate a high number of patients at risk for delirium, with high delirium prevalence across all patient groups. Delirious patients showed significantly worse clinical outcomes and generated higher costs. Subgroup analyses highlighted striking variations in delirium period-prevalence across patient groups. Due to the high prevalence of delirium in patients treated in care centers for radiotherapy, visceral surgery, reconstructive plastic surgery, cranio-maxillofacial surgery and oral surgery, it is recommended to expand the current focus of delirium management to these patient groups.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-018-3345-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Screening for delirium with the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC): Symptom profile and utility of individual items in the identification of delirium dependent on the level of sedation

OBJECTIVE

The importance of the proper identification of delirium, with its high incidence and adversities in the intensive care setting, has been widely recognized. One common screening instrument is the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC); however, the symptom profile and key features of delirium dependent on the level of sedation have not yet been evaluated.

METHOD

In this prospective cohort study, the ICDSC was evaluated versus the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, 4th edition, text revision, diagnosis of delirium set as standard with respect to the symptom profile, and correct identification of delirium. The aim of this study was to identify key features of delirium in the intensive care setting dependent on the Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale levels of sedation: drowsiness versus alert and calmness.ResultThe 88 delirious patients of 225 were older, had more severe disease, and prolonged hospitalization. Irrespective of the level of sedation, delirium was correctly classified by items related to inattention, disorientation, psychomotor alterations, inappropriate speech or mood, and symptom fluctuation. In the drowsy patients, inattention reached substantial sensitivity and specificity, whereas psychomotor alterations and sleep-wake cycle disturbances were sensitive lacked specificity. The positive prediction was substantial across items, whereas the negative prediction was only moderate. In the alert and calm patient, the sensitivities were substantial for psychomotor alterations, sleep-wake cycle disturbances, and symptom fluctuations; however, these fluctuations were not specific. The positive prediction was moderate and the negative prediction substantial. Between the nondelirious drowsy and alert, the symptom profile was similar; however, drowsiness was associated with alterations in consciousness.Significance of resultsIn the clinical routine, irrespective of the level of sedation, delirium was characterized by the ICDSC items for inattention, disorientation, psychomotor alterations, inappropriate speech or mood and symptom fluctuation. Further, drowsiness caused altered levels of consciousness.