A Core Outcome Set for Research Evaluating Interventions to Prevent and/or Treat Delirium in Critically Ill Adults: An International Consensus Study (Del-COrS)

Pharmacologic Treatment Strategies for Delirium in Hospitalized Adults: Past, Present, and Future

Despite the use of multidomain prevention strategies, delirium still frequently occurs in hospitalized adults. With delirium often associated with undesirable symptoms and deleterious outcomes, including cognitive decline, treatment is important. Risk-factor reduction and the protocolized use of multidomain, nonpharmacologic bundles remain the mainstay of delirium treatment. There is a current lack of strong evidence to suggest any pharmacologic intervention to treat delirium will help resolve it faster, reduce its symptoms (other than agitation), facilitate hospital throughput, or improve post-hospital outcomes including long-term cognitive function. With the exception of dexmedetomidine as a treatment of severe delirium-associated agitation in the ICU, current practice guidelines do not recommend the routine use of any pharmacologic intervention to treat delirium in any hospital population. Future research should focus on identifying and evaluating new pharmacologic delirium treatment interventions and addressing key challenges and gaps surrounding delirium treatment research.

A Core Outcome Set for Research Evaluating Interventions to Enable Communication in Patients With an Artificial Airway: An International Delphi Consensus Study (Comm-COS)

OBJECTIVES

Critically ill adults requiring artificial airways experience profound communication deficits. Studies of interventions supporting communication report disparate outcomes, creating subsequent challenges in the interpretation of their effectiveness. Therefore, we aimed to develop international consensus for a communication core outcome set (Comm-COS) for future trials of communication interventions in this population.

DESIGN

1) Systematic review, 2) patient/family interviews, 3) two-round modified Delphi, and 4) virtual consensus meetings with a final voting round. A multidisciplinary expert steering committee oversaw all stages.

SETTING

Interviews and consensus meetings were conducted via videoconferencing. Digital methods were used for Delphi and final Comm-COS voting.

SUBJECTS

Three stakeholder groups: 1) patient and family members with lived experience within 3 years, 2) clinicians with experience working in critical care, and 3) researchers publishing in the field.

INTERVENTION

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

We identified 59 outcomes via our systematic review, 3 unique outcomes from qualitative interviews, and 2 outcomes from our steering committee. Following item reduction, 32 outcomes were presented in Delphi round 1; 134 participants voted; 15 patient/family (11%), 91 clinicians (68%), and 28 researchers (21%). Nine additional outcomes were generated and added to round 2; 106 (81%) participants voted. Following completion of the consensus processes, the Comm-COS includes seven outcomes: 1) changes in emotions and wellbeing associated with ability to communicate, 2) physical impact of communication aid use, 3) time to functional communication, 4) ability to communicate healthcare needs (comfort/care/safety/decisions), 5) conversation agency, 6) ability to establish a communication connection to develop and maintain relationships, and 7) acceptability of the communication intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first COS to specifically focus on communication for critically ill adults. Limitations for operationalization include selection of measures to use with these outcomes. Identification of suitable measures and adoption of the Comm-COS in future trials will help establish effective interventions to ameliorate the highly prevalent and negative experience of communicative incapacity.

Changes in quality of life 1 year after intensive care: a multicenter prospective cohort of ICU survivors

BACKGROUND

With survival rates of critical illness increasing, quality of life measures are becoming an important outcome of ICU treatment. Therefore, to study the impact of critical illness on quality of life, we explored quality of life before and 1 year after ICU admission in different subgroups of ICU survivors.

METHODS

Data from an ongoing prospective multicenter cohort study, the MONITOR-IC, were used. Patients admitted to the ICU in one of eleven participating hospitals between July 2016 and June 2021 were included. Outcome was defined as change in quality of life, measured using the EuroQol five-dimensional (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire, and calculated by subtracting the EQ-5D-5L score 1 day before hospital admission from the EQ-5D-5L score 1 year post-ICU. Based on the minimal clinically important difference, a change in quality of life was defined as a change in EQ-5D-5L score of ≥ 0.08. Subgroups of patients were based on admission diagnosis.

RESULTS

A total of 3913 (50.6%) included patients completed both baseline and follow-up questionnaires. 1 year post-ICU, patients admitted after a cerebrovascular accident, intracerebral hemorrhage, or (neuro)trauma, on average experienced a significant decrease in quality of life. Conversely, 11 other subgroups of ICU survivors reported improvements in quality of life. The largest average increase in quality of life was seen in patients admitted due to respiratory disease (mean 0.17, SD 0.38), whereas the largest average decrease was observed in trauma patients (mean -0.13, SD 0.28). However, in each of the studied 22 subgroups there were survivors who reported a significant increase in QoL and survivors who reported a significant decrease in QoL.

CONCLUSIONS

 This large prospective multicenter cohort study demonstrated the diversity in long-term quality of life between, and even within, subgroups of ICU survivors. These findings emphasize the need for personalized information and post-ICU care.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The MONITOR-IC study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03246334 on August 2nd 2017.

Core socioDemographic data variables in ICU Trials (CoDe-IT): a protocol for generating core data variables using a Delphi consensus process

INTRODUCTION

Sociodemographic variables influence health outcomes, either directly (ie, gender identity) or indirectly (eg, structural/systemic racism based on ethnoracial group). Identification of how sociodemographic variables can impact the health of critically ill adults is important to guide care and research design for this population. However, despite the growing recognition of the importance of collecting sociodemographic measures that influence health outcomes, insufficient and inconsistent data collection of sociodemographic variables persists in critical care studies. We aim to develop a set of core data variables (CoDaV) for social determinants of health specific to studies involving critically ill adults.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will conduct a scoping review to generate a list of possible sociodemographic measures to be used for round 1 of the modified Delphi processes. We will engage relevant knowledge users (previous intensive care unit patients and family members, critical care researchers, critical care clinicians and research co-ordinators) to participate in the modified Delphi consensus survey to identify the CoDaV. A final consensus meeting will be held with knowledge user representatives to discuss the final CoDaV, how each sociodemographic variable will be collected (eg, level of granularity) and how to disseminate the CoDaV for use in critical care studies.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The University of Calgary conjoint health research ethics board has approved this study protocol (REB22-1648).

Assessing the safety of physical rehabilitation in critically ill patients: a Delphi study

BACKGROUND

Physical rehabilitation of critically ill patients is implemented to improve physical outcomes from an intensive care stay. However, before rehabilitation is implemented, a risk assessment is essential, based on robust safety data. To develop this information, a uniform definition of relevant adverse events is required. The assessment of cardiovascular stability is particularly relevant before physical activity as there is uncertainty over when it is safe to start rehabilitation with patients receiving vasoactive drugs.

METHODS

A three-stage Delphi study was carried out to (a) define adverse events for a general ICU cohort, and (b) to define which risks should be assessed before physical rehabilitation of patients receiving vasoactive drugs. An international group of intensive care clinicians and clinician researchers took part. Former ICU patients and their family members/carers were involved in generating consensus for the definition of adverse events. Round one was an open round where participants gave their suggestions of what to include. In round two, participants rated their agreements with these suggestions using a five-point Likert scale; a 70% consensus agreement threshold was used. Round three was used to re-rate suggestions that had not reached consensus, whilst viewing anonymous feedback of participant ratings from round two.

RESULTS

Twenty-four multi-professional ICU clinicians and clinician researchers from 10 countries across five continents were recruited. Average duration of ICU experience was 18 years (standard deviation 8) and 61% had publications related to ICU rehabilitation. For the adverse event definition, five former ICU patients and one patient relative were recruited. The Delphi process had a 97% response rate. Firstly, 54 adverse events reached consensus; an adverse event tool was created and informed by these events. Secondly, 50 risk factors requiring assessment before physical rehabilitation of patients receiving vasoactive drugs reached consensus. A second tool was created, informed by these suggestions.

CONCLUSIONS

The adverse event tool can be used in studies of physical rehabilitation to ensure uniform measurement of safety. The risk assessment tool can be used to inform clinical practise when risk assessing when to start rehabilitation with patients receiving vasoactive drugs. Trial registration This study protocol was retrospectively registered on https://www.researchregistry.com/ (researchregistry2991).

Advancing specificity in delirium: The delirium subtyping initiative

BACKGROUND

Delirium, a common syndrome with heterogeneous etiologies and clinical presentations, is associated with poor long-term outcomes. Recording and analyzing all delirium equally could be hindering the field's understanding of pathophysiology and identification of targeted treatments. Current delirium subtyping methods reflect clinically evident features but likely do not account for underlying biology.

METHODS

The Delirium Subtyping Initiative (DSI) held three sessions with an international panel of 25 experts.

RESULTS

Meeting participants suggest further characterization of delirium features to complement the existing Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Fifth Edition Text Revision diagnostic criteria. These should span the range of delirium-spectrum syndromes and be measured consistently across studies. Clinical features should be recorded in conjunction with biospecimen collection, where feasible, in a standardized way, to determine temporal associations of biology coincident with clinical fluctuations.

DISCUSSION

The DSI made recommendations spanning the breadth of delirium research including clinical features, study planning, data collection, and data analysis for characterization of candidate delirium subtypes.

HIGHLIGHTS

Delirium features must be clearly defined, standardized, and operationalized. Large datasets incorporating both clinical and biomarker variables should be analyzed together. Delirium screening should incorporate communication and reasoning.

Association of Blood Pressure Variability with Delirium in Patients with Critical Illness

BACKGROUND

The objective was to examine the association of blood pressure variability (BPV) during the first 24 h after intensive care unit admission with the likelihood of delirium and depressed alertness without delirium ("depressed alertness").

METHODS

This retrospective, observational, cohort study included all consecutive adult patients admitted to an intensive care unit at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, from July 1, 2004, through October 31, 2015. The primary outcomes were delirium and delirium-free days, and the secondary outcomes included depressed alertness and depressed alertness-free days. Logistic regression was performed to determine the association of BPV with delirium and depressed alertness. Proportional odds regression was used to assess the association of BPV with delirium-free days and depressed alertness-free days.

RESULTS

Among 66,549 intensive care unit admissions, delirium was documented in 20.2% and depressed alertness was documented in 24.4%. Preserved cognition was documented in 55.4% of intensive care unit admissions. Increased systolic and diastolic BPV was associated with an increased odds of delirium and depressed alertness. The magnitude of the association per 5-mm Hg increase in systolic average real variability (the average of absolute value of changes between consecutive systolic blood pressure readings) was greater for delirium (odds ratio 1.34; 95% confidence interval 1.29-1.40; P < 0.001) than for depressed alertness (odds ratio 1.06; 95% confidence interval 1.02-1.10; P = 0.004). Increased systolic and diastolic BPV was associated with fewer delirium-free days but not with depressed alertness-free days.

CONCLUSIONS

BPV in the first 24 h after intensive care unit admission is associated with an increased likelihood of delirium and fewer delirium-free days.

Efficacy of haloperidol to decrease the burden of delirium in adult critically ill patients: the EuRIDICE randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

The role of haloperidol as treatment for ICU delirium and related symptoms remains controversial despite two recent large controlled trials evaluating its efficacy and safety. We sought to determine whether haloperidol when compared to placebo in critically ill adults with delirium reduces days with delirium and coma and improves delirium-related sequelae.

METHODS

This multi-center double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial at eight mixed medical-surgical Dutch ICUs included critically ill adults with delirium (Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist ≥ 4 or a positive Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU) admitted between February 2018 and January 2020. Patients were randomized to intravenous haloperidol 2.5 mg or placebo every 8 h, titrated up to 5 mg every 8 h if delirium persisted until ICU discharge or up to 14 days. The primary outcome was ICU delirium- and coma-free days (DCFDs) within 14 days after randomization. Predefined secondary outcomes included the protocolized use of sedatives for agitation and related behaviors, patient-initiated extubation and invasive device removal, adverse drug associated events, mechanical ventilation, ICU length of stay, 28-day mortality, and long-term outcomes up to 1-year after randomization.

RESULTS

The trial was terminated prematurely for primary endpoint futility on DSMB advice after enrolment of 132 (65 haloperidol; 67 placebo) patients [mean age 64 (15) years, APACHE IV score 73.1 (33.9), male 68%]. Haloperidol did not increase DCFDs (adjusted RR 0.98 [95% CI 0.73-1.31], p = 0.87). Patients treated with haloperidol (vs. placebo) were less likely to receive benzodiazepines (adjusted OR 0.41 [95% CI 0.18-0.89], p = 0.02). Effect measures of other secondary outcomes related to agitation (use of open label haloperidol [OR 0.43 (95% CI 0.12-1.56)] and other antipsychotics [OR 0.63 (95% CI 0.29-1.32)], self-extubation or invasive device removal [OR 0.70 (95% CI 0.22-2.18)]) appeared consistently more favorable with haloperidol, but the confidence interval also included harm. Adverse drug events were not different. Long-term secondary outcomes (e.g., ICU recall and quality of life) warrant further study.

CONCLUSIONS

Haloperidol does not reduce delirium in critically ill delirious adults. However, it may reduce rescue medication requirements and agitation-related events in delirious ICU patients warranting further evaluation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov (#NCT03628391), October 9, 2017.

A Core Outcome Set for Interventions to Prevent and/or Treat Delirium in Palliative Care

CONTEXT

Delirium is a serious neurocognitive syndrome which is highly prevalent in people approaching the end of life. Existing trials of interventions to prevent or treat delirium in adults receiving palliative care report heterogeneous outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To undertake an international consensus process to develop a core outcome set for trials of interventions, designed to prevent and/or treat delirium, for adults receiving palliative care.

METHODS

The core outcome set development process included a systematic review, qualitative interviews, modified Delphi method and virtual consensus meetings using nominal group technique (Registration http://www.comet-initiative.org/studies/details/796). Participants included family members, clinicians, and researchers with experience of delirium in palliative care.

RESULTS

Forty outcomes were generated from the systematic review and interviews informing the Delphi Round one survey. The international Delphi panel comprised 92 participants including clinicians (n = 71, 77%), researchers (n = 13, 14%), and family members (n = 8, 9%). Delphi Round two was completed by 77 (84%) participants from Round one. Following the consensus meetings, four outcomes were selected for the core outcome set: 1) delirium occurrence (incidence and prevalence); 2) duration of delirium until resolution defined as either no further delirium in this episode of care or death; 3) overall delirium symptom profile (agitation, delusions or hallucinations, delirium symptoms and delirium severity); 4) distress due to delirium (person with delirium, and/or family and/or carers [including healthcare professionals]).

CONCLUSION

Using a rigorous consensus process, we developed a core outcome set comprising four delirium-specific outcomes for inclusion in future trials of interventions to prevent and/or treat delirium in palliative care.

Haloperidol for the treatment of delirium in critically ill patients: an updated systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

BACKGROUND

Haloperidol is frequently used in critically ill patients with delirium, but evidence for its effects has been sparse and inconclusive. By including recent trials, we updated a systematic review assessing effects of haloperidol on mortality and serious adverse events in critically ill patients with delirium.

METHODS

This is an updated systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomised clinical trials investigating haloperidol versus placebo or any comparator in critically ill patients with delirium. We adhered to the Cochrane handbook, the PRISMA guidelines and the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation statements. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and proportion of patients with one or more serious adverse events or reactions (SAEs/SARs). Secondary outcomes were days alive without delirium or coma, delirium severity, cognitive function and health-related quality of life.

RESULTS

We included 11 RCTs with 15 comparisons (n = 2200); five were placebo-controlled. The relative risk for mortality with haloperidol versus placebo was 0.89; 96.7% CI 0.77 to 1.03; I2 = 0% (moderate-certainty evidence) and for proportion of patients experiencing SAEs/SARs 0.94; 96.7% CI 0.81 to 1.10; I2 = 18% (low-certainty evidence). We found no difference in days alive without delirium or coma (moderate-certainty evidence). We found sparse data for other secondary outcomes and other comparators than placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

Haloperidol may reduce mortality and likely result in little to no change in the occurrence of SAEs/SARs compared with placebo in critically ill patients with delirium. However, the results were not statistically significant and more trial data are needed to provide higher certainty for the effects of haloperidol in these patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

CRD42017081133, date of registration 28 November 2017.

Measures for the Core Outcome Set for Research Evaluating Interventions to Prevent and/or Treat Delirium in Critically Ill Adults: An International Consensus Study (Del-COrS)

To gain consensus on measurement methods for outcomes (delirium occurrence, severity, time to resolution, mortality, health-related quality of life [HrQoL], emotional distress including anxiety, depression, acute stress, and post-traumatic stress disorder, and cognition) of our Core Outcome Set (COS) for trials of interventions to prevent and/or treat delirium in critically ill adults.

Pharmacologic Interventions to Prevent Delirium in Trauma Patients: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

To compare the relative efficacy of pharmacologic interventions in the prevention of delirium in ICU trauma patients.

DATA SOURCES

We searched Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, Embase, and Cochrane Registry of Clinical Trials from database inception until June 7, 2022. We included randomized controlled trials comparing pharmacologic interventions in critically ill trauma patients.

STUDY SELECTION

Two reviewers independently screened studies for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias.

DATA EXTRACTION

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines for network analysis were followed. Random-effects models were fit using a Bayesian approach to network meta-analysis. Between-group comparisons were estimated using hazard ratios (HRs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences for continuous outcomes, each with 95% credible intervals. Treatment rankings were estimated for each outcome in the form of surface under the cumulative ranking curve values.

DATA SYNTHESIS

A total 3,541 citations were screened; six randomized clinical trials (n = 382 patients) were included. Compared with combined propofol-dexmedetomidine, there may be no difference in delirium prevalence with dexmedetomidine (HR 1.44, 95% CI 0.39-6.94), propofol (HR 2.38, 95% CI 0.68-11.36), nor haloperidol (HR 3.38, 95% CI 0.65-21.79); compared with dexmedetomidine alone, there may be no effect with propofol (HR 1.66, 95% CI 0.79-3.69) nor haloperidol (HR 2.30, 95% CI 0.88-6.61).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this network meta-analysis suggest that there is no difference found between pharmacologic interventions on delirium occurrence, length of ICU stay, length of hospital stay, or mortality, in trauma ICU patients.

Nomogram for Prediction of Postoperative Delirium after Deep Brain Stimulation of Subthalamic Nucleus in Parkinson’s Disease under General Anesthesia

Introduction. Postoperative delirium can increase cognitive impairment and mortality in patients with Parkinson’s disease. The purpose of this study was to develop and internally validate a clinical prediction model of delirium after deep brain stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus in Parkinson’s disease under general anesthesia. Methods. We conducted a retrospective observational cohort study on the data of 240 patients with Parkinson’s disease who underwent deep brain stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus under general anesthesia. Demographic characteristics, clinical evaluation, imaging data, laboratory data, and surgical anesthesia information were collected. Multivariate logistic regression was used to develop the prediction model for postoperative delirium. Results. A total of 159 patients were included in the cohort, of which 38 (23.90%) had postoperative delirium. Smoking (OR 4.51, 95% CI 1.56–13.02, $p<0.01$ ) was the most important risk factor; other independent predictors were orthostatic hypotension (OR 3.42, 95% CI 0.90–13.06, $p=0.07$ ), inhibitors of type-B monoamine oxidase (OR 3.07, 95% CI 1.17–8.04, $p=0.02$ ), preoperative MRI with silent brain ischemia or infarction (OR 2.36, 95% CI 0.90–6.14, $p=0.08$ ), Hamilton anxiety scale score (OR 2.12, 95% CI 1.28–3.50, $p<0.01$ ), and apolipoprotein E level in plasma (OR 1.48, 95% CI 0.95–2.29, $p=0.08$ ). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was 0.76 (95% CI 0.66–0.86). A nomogram was established and showed good calibration and clinical predictive capacity. After bootstrap for internal verification, the AUC was 0.74 (95% CI 0.66–0.83). Conclusion. This study provides evidence for the independent inducing factors of delirium after deep brain stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus in Parkinson’s disease under general anesthesia. By predicting the development of delirium, our model may identify high-risk groups that can benefit from early or preventive intervention.

Three key areas in progressing delirium practice and knowledge: recognition and relief of distress, new directions in delirium epidemiology and developing better research assessments

Delirium presents formidable challenges: it affects one in four of older hospitalised adults, greatly elevates the risk of multiple short- and long-term complications including dementia and causes significant distress. Delirium care remains generally poor. Yet, there are clear grounds for optimism; the last decade has seen impactful policy advances and a tripling of research output. Here, we highlight three linked areas which have strong potential to transform delirium practice and knowledge in the near term. Delirium-related distress is strikingly underrepresented in practice guidance and research. Proactive recognition combined with effective clinical responses based on good communication provides a critical and largely untapped opportunity to improve care. Delirium epidemiology research is well positioned to produce novel insights through advanced prospective designs in populations such as emergency medical patients with detailed pre-, intra- and post-delirium assessments allied with fluid, imaging and other biomarkers. Research-grade assessment of delirium currently involves a chaotic array of tools, methods and diagnostic algorithms. Areas for development: expand and analytically distinguish the range of features assessed (including distress), optimise feature assessment including use of validated neuropsychological tests where possible, produce standardised algorithms which articulate explicit pathways from features to diagnosis, and create new fine-grained approaches to the measurement of severity. Delirium practice and knowledge show accelerating growth. This is encouraging but much of the necessary progress is still to come. Innovation in these three highlighted areas, as well as many others, will open up exciting possibilities in enhancing the care of patients with this common and often devastating condition.

Reporting of outcomes and measures in studies of interventions to prevent and/or treat delirium in older adults resident in long-term care: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

to inform development of a core outcome set, we evaluated outcomes, definitions, measures and measurement time points in clinical trials of interventions to prevent and/or treat delirium in older adults resident in long-term care (LTC).

DATA SOURCES

we searched electronic databases, systematic review repositories and trial registries (1980 to 10 December 2021).

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

we included randomised, quasi-randomised and non-randomised intervention studies. We extracted data on study characteristics, outcomes and measurement features. We assessed outcome reporting quality using the MOMENT study scoring system. We categorised outcomes using the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials taxonomy.

DATA SYNTHESIS

we identified 18 studies recruiting 5,639 participants. All evaluated non-pharmacological interventions; most (16 studies, 89%) addressed delirium prevention. We identified 12 delirium-specific outcomes (mean [SD] 2.4 [1.5] per study), of which delirium incidence (14 studies, 78%) and severity (6 studies, 33%) were most common. We found heterogeneity in description of outcomes and measurement time points. The Confusion Assessment Method (three versions) was the most common measure used to ascertain delirium incidence (7 of 14 studies, 50%). We identified 25 non-delirium specific outcomes (mean [SD] 4.0 [2.3] per study), with hospital admission the most commonly reported (9 studies, 50%).

CONCLUSIONS

we identified few studies of interventions for the prevention or treatment of delirium in older adults resident in LTC. These studies were heterogeneous in the outcomes reported and measures used. These data inform the consensus-building stage of a core outcome set.

A core outcome set for damage control laparotomy via modified Delphi method

OBJECTIVES

Damage control laparotomy (DCL) remains an important tool in the trauma surgeon's armamentarium. Inconsistency in reporting standards have hindered careful scrutiny of DCL outcomes. We sought to develop a core outcome set (COS) for DCL clinical studies to facilitate future pooling of data via meta-analysis and Bayesian statistics while minimizing reporting bias.

METHODS

A modified Delphi study was performed using DCL content experts identified through Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma (EAST) 'landmark' DCL papers and EAST ad hoc COS task force consensus.

RESULTS

Of 28 content experts identified, 20 (71%) participated in round 1, 20/20 (100%) in round 2, and 19/20 (95%) in round 3. Round 1 identified 36 potential COS. Round 2 achieved consensus on 10 core outcomes: mortality, 30-day mortality, fascial closure, days to fascial closure, abdominal complications, major complications requiring reoperation or unplanned re-exploration following closure, gastrointestinal anastomotic leak, secondary intra-abdominal sepsis (including anastomotic leak), enterocutaneous fistula, and 12-month functional outcome. Despite feedback provided between rounds, round 3 achieved no further consensus.

CONCLUSIONS

Through an electronic survey-based consensus method, content experts agreed on a core outcome set for damage control laparotomy, which is recommended for future trials in DCL clinical research. Further work is necessary to delineate specific tools and methods for measuring specific outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

V, criteria.

Delirium in Intensive Care

Purpose of Review

Delirium in the intensive care unit (ICU) has become increasingly acknowledged as a significant problem for critically ill patients affecting both the actual course of illness as well as outcomes. In this review, we focus on the current evidence and the gaps in knowledge.

Recent Findings

This review highlights several areas in which the evidence is weak and further research is needed in both pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment. A better understanding of subtypes and their different response to therapy is needed and further studies in aetiology are warranted. Larger studies are needed to explore risk factors for developing delirium and for examining long-term consequences. Finally, a stronger focus on experienced delirium and considering the perspectives of both patients and their families is encouraged.

Summary

With the growing number of studies and a better framework for research leading to stronger evidence, the outcomes for patients suffering from delirium will most definitely improve in the years to come.

Pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions to prevent delirium in critically ill patients: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To compare the effects of prevention interventions on delirium occurrence in critically ill adults.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, PsychINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Prospero, and WHO international clinical trial registry were searched from inception to April 8, 2021. Randomized controlled trials of pharmacological, sedation, non-pharmacological, and multi-component interventions enrolling adult critically ill patients were included. We performed conventional pairwise meta-analyses, NMA within Bayesian random effects modeling, and determined surface under the cumulative ranking curve values and mean rank. Reviewer pairs independently extracted data, assessed bias using Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and evidence certainty with GRADE. The primary outcome was delirium occurrence; secondary outcomes were durations of delirium and mechanical ventilation, length of stay, mortality, and adverse effects.

RESULTS

Eighty trials met eligibility criteria: 67.5% pharmacological, 31.3% non-pharmacological and 1.2% mixed pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions. For delirium occurrence, 11 pharmacological interventions (38 trials, N = 11,993) connected to the evidence network. Compared to placebo, only dexmedetomidine (21/22 alpha2 agonist trials were dexmedetomidine) probably reduces delirium occurrence (odds ratio (OR) 0.43, 95% Credible Interval (CrI) 0.21-0.85; moderate certainty). Compared to benzodiazepines, dexmedetomidine (OR 0.21, 95% CrI 0.08-0.51; low certainty), sedation interruption (OR 0.21, 95% CrI 0.06-0.69; very low certainty), opioid plus benzodiazepine (OR 0.27, 95% CrI 0.10-0.76; very low certainty), and protocolized sedation (OR 0.27, 95% CrI 0.09-0.80; very low certainty) may reduce delirium occurrence but the evidence is very uncertain. Dexmedetomidine probably reduces ICU length of stay compared to placebo (Ratio of Means (RoM) 0.78, CrI 0.64-0.95; moderate certainty) and compared to antipsychotics (RoM 0.76, CrI 0.61-0.98; low certainty). Sedative interruption, protocolized sedation and opioids may reduce hospital length of stay compared to placebo, but the evidence is very uncertain. No intervention influenced mechanical ventilation duration, mortality, or arrhythmia. Single and multi-component non-pharmacological interventions did not connect to any evidence networks to allow for ranking and comparisons as planned; pairwise comparisons did not detect differences compared to standard care.

CONCLUSION

Compared to placebo and benzodiazepines, we found dexmedetomidine likely reduced the occurrence of delirium in critically ill adults. Compared to benzodiazepines, sedation-minimization strategies may also reduce delirium occurrence, but the evidence is uncertain.

Delirium-related distress in the ICU: A qualitative meta-synthesis of patient and family perspectives and experiences

BACKGROUND

Better understanding of patient and family member experiences of delirium and related distress during critical care is required to inform the development of targeted nonpharmacologic interventions.

OBJECTIVE

To examine and synthesize qualitative data on patient and family member delirium experiences and relieving factors in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU).

DESIGN

We conducted a systematic review and qualitative meta-synthesis. Eligible studies contained adult patient or family quotes about delirium during critical care, published in English in a peer-reviewed journal since 1980. Data sources included PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Cochrane and Clinicaltrials.gov.

METHODS

Systematic searches yielded 3238 identified articles, of which 14 reporting 13 studies were included. Two reviewers independently extracted data into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. Qualitative meta-synthesis was performed through line-by-line coding of relevant quotes, organization of codes into descriptive themes, and development of analytical themes. Five patients/family members with experience of ICU delirium contributed to the thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Qualitative meta-synthesis resulted in four major themes and two sub-themes. Key new patient and family-centric insights regarding delirium-related distress in the ICU included articulation of the distinct emotions experienced during and after delirium (for patients, predominantly fear, anger and shame); its 'whole-person' nature; and the value that patients and family members placed on clinicians' compassion, communication, and connectedness.

CONCLUSIONS

Distinct difficult emotions and other forms of distress are experienced by patients and families during ICU delirium, during which patients and families highly value human kindness and empathy. Future studies should further explore and address the many facets of delirium-related distress during critical care using these insights and include patient-reported measures of the predominant difficult emotions.