A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial of the Feasibility of a Multicomponent Delirium Prevention Intervention Versus Usual Care in Acute Stroke

Effectiveness of rapid access chest pain clinics: a systematic review of patient outcomes and resource utilisation

BACKGROUND

Rapid Access Chest Pain Clinics (RACPC) are widely used for the outpatient assessment of chest pain, but there appears to be limited high-quality evidence justifying this model of care. This study aimed to review the literature to determine the effectiveness of RACPCs.

METHODS

A systematic review of studies evaluating the effectiveness of RACPCs was conducted to assess the quality of the evidence supporting this model. Outcomes related to effectiveness included major adverse cardiovascular events, emergency department reattendance, cost-effectiveness and patient satisfaction. Study quality was assessed using the RoB 2 tool, Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment tool or the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Studies checklist, as appropriate.

RESULTS

Thirty-two studies were eligible for inclusion, including one randomised trial. Five analytical cohort studies were included, with three comparing outcomes against non-RACPC controls. Three qualitative studies were included. Most reports were descriptive. Findings were consistent with RACPCs being associated with favourable clinical outcomes, reduced emergency department reattendance, cost-effectiveness and high patient satisfaction. However, there was significant heterogeneity in care models, and overall literature quality was low, with a high risk of publication bias.

CONCLUSION

While the literature suggests RACPCs are safe and efficient, the quality of the available evidence is limited. Further high-quality data from adequately controlled clinical trials or large scare registries are needed to inform healthcare resource allocation decisions.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42023417110.

Management of delirium in acute stroke patients: a position paper by the Austrian Stroke Society on prevention, diagnosis, and treatment

Delirium is a common complication in acute stroke patients, occurring in 15-35% of all stroke unit admissions and is associated with prolonged hospital stay and a poor post-stroke prognosis. Managing delirium in acute stroke patients necessitates an intensive and multiprofessional therapeutic approach, placing a significant burden on healthcare staff. However, dedicated practical recommendations for delirium management developed for the population of acute stroke patients are lacking. For this purpose, the Austrian Stroke Society, in cooperation with the Austrian Society of Neurology, the Austrian Society of Neurorehabilitation, and the Austrian Society of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy, and Psychosomatics has formulated an evidence-based position paper addressing the management of delirium in acute stroke patients. The paper outlines practical recommendations on the three pillars of care in stroke patients with delirium: (a) Key aspects of delirium prevention including stroke-specific delirium risk factors and delirium prediction scores are described. Moreover, a non-pharmacological delirium prevention bundle is presented. (b) The paper provides recommendations on timing and frequency of delirium screening to ensure early diagnosis of delirium in acute stroke patients. Moreover, it reports on the use of different delirium screening tools in stroke populations. (c) An overview of non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatment strategies in patients with delirium and acute stroke is presented and summarized as key recommendation statements.

Effects of non-pharmacologic prevention on delirium in critically ill patients: A network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Delirium is a common complication among patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). It is important to prevent the occurrence of delirium in critically ill patients.

AIM

This review aimed to evaluate the efficacy of non-pharmacological interventions and determine what combination of these is effective in preventing delirium among Intensive Care Unit patients.

STUDY DESIGN

A systematic review and meta-analysis. This review follows the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta Analysis statements for Network Meta-Analysis (PRISMA-NMA). Data sources included the Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature., MEDLINE, and Cochrane library databases. The integrated data were investigated with odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI), using the random-effects Mantel-Haenszel model. Data were considered significant when p < 0.05. Furthermore, to reveal what combination of care is effective, we performed a network meta-analysis estimated OR, 95% CI.

RESULTS

We identified three randomized controlled trials and eight controlled before-after trials (11 in total, with 2549 participants). The pooled data from 11 trials of multicomponent intervention had a significant effect on delirium prevention (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.44-0.76, p < 0.001). As a result of network meta-analysis, two bundles were effective compared to the control group in reducing the incidence of delirium: a) the combination of sleep promotion (SP), cognitive stimulation (CS), early mobilization (EM), pain control (PC), and assessment (AS) (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.35-0.64, p < 0.002), and b) the combination of SP and CS (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.28-0.75, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

This study revealed that non-pharmacological interventions, particularly multicomponent interventions, helped to prevent delirium in critically ill patients. In the network meta-analysis, the most effective care combination for reducing incidence of delirium was found to be multicomponent intervention, which comprises SP-CS-EM-PC-AS, and SP-CS.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

These findings reveal an efficient combination of multicomponent interventions for preventing delirium, which may be a very important prerequisite in planning care programs in the future.

Associations between early in-hospital medications and the development of delirium in patients with stroke

OBJECTIVES

Patients hospitalized with stroke develop delirium at higher rates than general hospitalized patients. While several medications are associated with existing delirium, it is unknown whether early medication exposures are associated with subsequent delirium in patients with stroke. Additionally, it is unknown whether delirium identification is associated with changes in the prescription of these medications.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients admitted to a comprehensive stroke center, who were assessed for delirium by trained nursing staff during clinical care. We analyzed exposures to multiple medication classes in the first 48 h of admission, and compared them between patients who developed delirium >48 hours after admission and those who never developed delirium. Statistical analysis was performed using univariate testing. Multivariable logistic regression was used further to evaluate the significance of univariately significant medications, while controlling for clinical confounders.

RESULTS

1671 unique patients were included in the cohort, of whom 464 (27.8%) developed delirium >48 hours after admission. Delirium was associated with prior exposure to antipsychotics, sedatives, opiates, and antimicrobials. Antipsychotics, sedatives, and antimicrobials remained significantly associated with delirium even after accounting for several clinical covariates. Usage of these medications decreased in the 48 hours following delirium identification, except for atypical antipsychotics, whose use increased. Other medication classes such as steroids, benzodiazepines, and sleep aids were not initially associated with subsequent delirium, but prescription patterns still changed after delirium identification.

CONCLUSIONS

Early exposure to multiple medication classes is associated with the subsequent development of delirium in patients with stroke. Additionally, prescription patterns changed following delirium identification, suggesting that some of the associated medication classes may represent modifiable targets for future delirium prevention strategies, although future study is needed.

Post-stroke delirium and challenges for the rehabilitation setting: A narrative review

INTRODUCTION

Post-stroke delirium (PSD) is a common yet underrecognized complication following stroke, with its effect on stroke rehabilitation being the subject of limited attention. The objective of this narrative review is to provide an overview of core issues in PSD including epidemiology, diagnostic challenges, and management considerations, with an emphasis on the rehabilitation phase.

METHODS

Ovid Medline and Google Scholar were searched through February 2023 using keywords related to delirium, rehabilitation, and the post-stroke period. Only studies conducted on adults (≥18 years) and written in the English language were included.

RESULTS

PSD affects approximately 25% of stroke patients, and often persists well into the post-acute phase, with a negative impact on rehabilitation outcomes including lengths of stay, function, and cognition. Certain stroke and patient characteristics can help predict risk for PSD. The diagnosis of delirium becomes more challenging when superimposed on stroke deficits (such as attentional impairment or other cognitive, psychiatric, or behavioural disorders), leading to underdiagnosis, overdiagnosis, or misdiagnosis. Particularly in patients with post-stroke language or cognitive disorders, common screening tools are less accurate. The multidisciplinary rehabilitation team should be involved in management of PSD as rehabilitative activities can be beneficial for patients who can participate safely. Addressing barriers to effective delirium care at various levels of the health care system can improve rehabilitation trajectories for these patients.

CONCLUSIONS

PSD is a disease entity commonly encountered in the rehabilitation setting, but it is challenging to diagnose and manage. New delirium screening tools and management approaches specific for the post-stroke and rehabilitation settings are needed.

Cortical reactivity to transcranial magnetic stimulation predicts risk of post-stroke delirium

OBJECTIVE

Post-stroke delirium (PSD) is a frequent and with regard to outcome unfavorable complication in acute stroke. The neurobiological mechanisms predisposing to PSD remain poorly understood, and biomarkers predicting its risk have not been established. We tested the hypothesis that hypoexcitable or disconnected brain networks predispose to PSD by measuring brain reactivity to transcranial magnetic stimulation with electroencephalography (TMS-EEG).

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional study in 33 acute stroke patients within 48 hours of stroke onset. Brain reactivity to single-pulse TMS of dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, primary motor cortex and superior parietal lobule of the right hemisphere was quantified by response intensity, effective connectivity, perturbational complexity index (PCI^ST), and natural frequency of the TMS-EEG response. PSD development was clinically tracked every 8 hours before and for 7 days following TMS-EEG.

RESULTS

Fourteen patients developed PSD while 19 patients did not. The PSD group showed lower excitability, effective connectivity, PCI^ST and natural frequency compared to the non-PSD group. The maximum PCI^ST over all three TMS sites demonstrated largest classification accuracy with a ROC-AUC of 0.943. This effect was independent of lesion size, affected hemisphere and stroke severity. Maximum PCI^ST and maximum natural frequency correlated inversely with delirium duration.

CONCLUSIONS

Brain reactivity to TMS-EEG can unravel brain network states of reduced excitability, effective connectivity, perturbational complexity and natural frequency that identify acute stroke patients at high risk for development of delirium.

SIGNIFICANCE

Findings provide novel insight into the pathophysiology of pre-delirium brain states and may promote effective delirium prevention strategies in those patients at high risk.

Predictors of post-stroke delirium incidence and duration: Results of a prospective observational study using high-frequency delirium screening

BACKGROUND

Post-stroke delirium (PSD) is a modifiable predictor for worse outcome in stroke. Knowledge of its risk factors would facilitate clinical management of affected patients, but recently updated national guidelines consider available evidence insufficient.

AIMS

The study aimed to establish risk factors for PSD incidence and duration using high-frequency screening.

METHODS

We prospectively investigated patients with ischemic stroke admitted within 24 h. Patients were screened twice daily for the presence of PSD throughout the treatment period. Sociodemographic, treatment-related, and neuroimaging characteristics were evaluated as predictors of either PSD incidence (odds ratios (OR)) or duration (PSD days/unit of the predictor, b), using logistic and linear regression models, respectively.

RESULTS

PSD occurred in 55/141 patients (age = 73.8 ± 10.4 years, 61 female, National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) = 6.4 ± 6.5). Age (odds ratio (OR) = 1.06 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.02-1.10), b = 0.08 (95% CI = 0.04-0.13)), and male gender (b = 0.99 (95% CI = 0.05-1.93)) were significant non-modifiable risk factors. In a multivariable model adjusted for age and gender, presence of pain (OR < sub > mvar </sub >= 1.75 (95% CI = 1.12-2.74)), urinary catheter (OR < sub > mvar </sub > = 3.16 (95% CI = 1.10-9.14)) and post-stroke infection (PSI; OR < sub > mvar </sub > = 4.43 (95% CI = 1.09-18.01)) were predictors of PSD incidence. PSD duration was impacted by presence of pain (b < sub > mvar </sub >= 0.49 (95% CI = 0.19-0.81)), urinary catheter (b < sub > mvar </sub > = 1.03 (95% CI = 0.01-2.07)), intravenous line (b < sub > mvar </sub >= 0.36 (95% CI = 0.16-0.57)), and PSI (b < sub > mvar </sub >= 1.60 (95% CI = 0.42-2.78)). PSD (OR = 3.53 (95% CI = 1.48-5.57)) and PSI (OR = 5.29 (95% CI = 2.92-7.66)) independently predicted inferior NIHSS at discharge. Insular and basal ganglia lesions increased the PSD risk about four- to eight-fold.

DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION

This study identified modifiable risk factors, the management of which might reduce the negative impact PSD has on outcome.

Developing a Clinical Prediction Rule for Gait Independence at Discharge in Patients with Stroke: A Decision-Tree Algorithm Analysis

OBJECTIVES

To develop a clinical prediction rule (CPR) for gait independence at discharge in patients with stroke, using the decision-tree algorithm and to investigate the usefulness of CPR at admission to the rehabilitation ward.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We included 181 subjects with stroke during the postacute phase. The Chi-squared automatic interaction detection analysis method with 10-fold cross-validation was used to develop two CPRs; CPR 1 using easily obtainable data available at admission; CPR 2 using easily obtainable data available 1 month after admission, for prediction of gait independence at discharge.

RESULTS

The degree of independence of toileting was extracted as a first node in the development of two CPRs to predict gait independence at discharge. CPR 1 included the presence of delirium. CPR 2 included problem-solving abilities. The accuracy and area under the curve of CPR 1 were 84.5% and 0.911, respectively; those of CPR 2 were 89.0% and 0.958, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Toileting independence is a key factor in predicting the gait independence for the discharge of patients with stroke during the postacute phase. Early intervention, during the acute phase, for delirium and cognitive decline, as well as for toileting, increases the possibility of gait independence at discharge.

Associations Between Stroke Localization and Delirium: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVES

Delirium is common among patients with acute stroke and associated with worse outcomes. However, it is unclear which stroke locations or types are most associated with delirium.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We systematically reviewed studies of patients with acute stroke that reported stroke locations and types by delirium status. We included papers in any language, through a combined search from January 2010 to June 2021. Case studies with less than 20 patients, case-control studies, and randomized controlled trials were excluded. MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Alois databases were searched. Pooled relative risks were calculated using bivariate random effects models or network meta-analysis. Methodological quality was assessed across 8 factors.

RESULTS

31 patient samples representing 8329 patients were included. Delirium was more common in patients with supratentorial lesions than infratentorial (RR [Relative Risk] 2.01, CI [Confidence Interval] 1.49-2.72); anterior circulation lesions than posterior (RR 1.41, CI 1.13-1.78); and cortical lesions than subcortical (RR 1.54, CI 1.25-1.89). Stroke side was not associated with delirium (right vs. left: RR 0.99, CI 0.77-1.28). Delirium was more common in patients with hemorrhagic strokes than ischemic (RR 1.74, CI 1.42-2.11) and patients with preexisting qualitative atrophy (RR 1.66, CI 1.21-2.27).

CONCLUSION

Several brain localizations and types of strokes were associated with delirium. Conclusions were in part limited by the heterogeneity of studies and broad or qualitative lesion descriptions. These results may assist in anticipating the risk of delirium in acute stroke and highlight brain networks and pathologies that may be involved in the pathophysiology of delirium.

Delirium on stroke units: a prospective, multicentric quality-improvement project

Background

Post-stroke delirium (POD) in patients on stroke units (SU) is associated with an increased risk for complications and poorer clinical outcome. The objective was to reduce the severity of POD by implementing an interprofessional delirium-management.

Methods

Multicentric quality-improvement project on five SU implementing a delirium-management with pre/post-comparison. Primary outcome was severity of POD, assessed with the Nursing Delirium Screening Scale (Nu-DESC). Secondary outcome parameters were POD incidence, duration, modified Rankin Scale (mRS), length of stay in SU and hospital, mortality, and others.

Results

Out of a total of 799 patients, 59.4% (n = 475) could be included with 9.5% (n = 45) being delirious. Implementation of a delirium-management led to reduced POD severity; Nu-DESC median: pre: 3.5 (interquartile range 2.6–4.7) vs. post 3.0 (2.2–4.0), albeit not significant (p = 0.154). Other outcome parameters were not meaningful different. In the post-period, delirium-management could be delivered to 75% (n = 18) of delirious patients, and only 24 (53.3%) of delirious patients required pharmacological treatments. Patients with a more severe stroke and POD remained on their disability levels, compared to similar affected, non-delirious patients who improved.

Conclusions

Implementation of delirium-management on SU is feasible and can be delivered to most patients, but with limited effects. Nursing interventions as first choice could be delivered to the majority of patients, and only the half required pharmacological treatments. Delirium-management may lead to reduced severity of POD but had only partial effects on duration of POD or length of stay. POD hampers rehabilitation, especially in patients with more severe stroke.

Registry

DRKS, DRKS00021436. Registered 04/17/2020, www.drks.de/DRKS00021436.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00415-022-11000-6.

Non-pharmacological interventions for preventing delirium in hospitalised non-ICU patients

BACKGROUND

Delirium is an acute neuropsychological disorder that is common in hospitalised patients. It can be distressing to patients and carers and it is associated with serious adverse outcomes. Treatment options for established delirium are limited and so prevention of delirium is desirable. Non-pharmacological interventions are thought to be important in delirium prevention.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions designed to prevent delirium in hospitalised patients outside intensive care units (ICU).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched ALOIS, the specialised register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group, with additional searches conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS, Web of Science Core Collection, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization Portal/ICTRP to 16 September 2020. There were no language or date restrictions applied to the electronic searches, and no methodological filters were used to restrict the search.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of single and multicomponent non-pharmacological interventions for preventing delirium in hospitalised adults cared for outside intensive care or high dependency settings. We only included non-pharmacological interventions which were designed and implemented to prevent delirium.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently examined titles and abstracts identified by the search for eligibility and extracted data from full-text articles. Any disagreements on eligibility and inclusion were resolved by consensus. We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. The primary outcomes were: incidence of delirium; inpatient and later mortality; and new diagnosis of dementia. We included secondary and adverse outcomes as pre-specified in the review protocol. We used risk ratios (RRs) as measures of treatment effect for dichotomous outcomes and between-group mean differences for continuous outcomes. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using GRADE. A complementary exploratory analysis was undertaker using a Bayesian component network meta-analysis fixed-effect model to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of the individual components of multicomponent interventions and describe which components were most strongly associated with reducing the incidence of delirium.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 22 RCTs that recruited a total of 5718 adult participants. Fourteen trials compared a multicomponent delirium prevention intervention with usual care. Two trials compared liberal and restrictive blood transfusion thresholds. The remaining six trials each investigated a different non-pharmacological intervention. Incidence of delirium was reported in all studies.  Using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, we identified risks of bias in all included trials. All were at high risk of performance bias as participants and personnel were not blinded to the interventions. Nine trials were at high risk of detection bias due to lack of blinding of outcome assessors and three more were at unclear risk in this domain.  Pooled data showed that multi-component non-pharmacological interventions probably reduce the incidence of delirium compared to usual care (10.5% incidence in the intervention group, compared to 18.4% in the control group, risk ratio (RR) 0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46 to 0.71, I2 = 39%; 14 studies; 3693 participants; moderate-certainty evidence, downgraded due to risk of bias).  There may be little or no effect of multicomponent interventions on inpatient mortality compared to usual care (5.2% in the intervention group, compared to 4.5% in the control group, RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.74, I2 = 15%; 10 studies; 2640 participants; low-certainty evidence downgraded due to inconsistency and imprecision).  No studies of multicomponent interventions reported data on new diagnoses of dementia.  Multicomponent interventions may result in a small reduction of around a day in the duration of a delirium episode (mean difference (MD) -0.93, 95% CI -2.01 to 0.14 days, I2 = 65%; 351 participants; low-certainty evidence downgraded due to risk of bias and imprecision). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of multicomponent interventions on delirium severity (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.49, 95% CI -1.13 to 0.14, I2=64%; 147 participants; very low-certainty evidence downgraded due to risk of bias and serious imprecision). Multicomponent interventions may result in a reduction in hospital length of stay compared to usual care (MD -1.30 days, 95% CI -2.56 to -0.04 days, I2=91%; 3351 participants; low-certainty evidence downgraded due to risk of bias and inconsistency), but little to no difference in new care home admission at the time of hospital discharge (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.07; 536 participants; low-certainty evidence downgraded due to risk of bias and imprecision). Reporting of other adverse outcomes was limited.  Our exploratory component network meta-analysis found that re-orientation (including use of familiar objects), cognitive stimulation and sleep hygiene were associated with reduced risk of incident delirium. Attention to nutrition and hydration, oxygenation, medication review, assessment of mood and bowel and bladder care were probably associated with a reduction in incident delirium but estimates included the possibility of no benefit or harm.  Reducing sensory deprivation, identification of infection, mobilisation and pain control all had summary estimates that suggested potential increases in delirium incidence, but the uncertainty in the estimates was substantial.  Evidence from two trials suggests that use of a liberal transfusion threshold over a restrictive transfusion threshold probably results in little to no difference in incident delirium (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.36; I2 = 9%; 294 participants; moderate-certainty evidence downgraded due to risk of bias).  Six other interventions were examined, but evidence for each was limited to single studies and we identified no evidence of delirium prevention.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate-certainty evidence regarding the benefit of multicomponent non-pharmacological interventions for the prevention of delirium in hospitalised adults, estimated to reduce incidence by 43% compared to usual care. We found no evidence of an effect on mortality. There is emerging evidence that these interventions may reduce hospital length of stay, with a trend towards reduced delirium duration, although the effect on delirium severity remains uncertain. Further research should focus on implementation and detailed analysis of the components of the interventions to support more effective, tailored practice recommendations.

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.

Non-pharmacological interventions for preventing delirium in hospitalised non-ICU patients

BACKGROUND

Delirium is an acute neuropsychological disorder that is common in hospitalised patients. It can be distressing to patients and carers and it is associated with serious adverse outcomes. Treatment options for established delirium are limited and so prevention of delirium is desirable. Non-pharmacological interventions are thought to be important in delirium prevention.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions designed to prevent delirium in hospitalised patients outside intensive care units (ICU).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched ALOIS, the specialised register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group, with additional searches conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS, Web of Science Core Collection, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization Portal/ICTRP to 16 September 2020. There were no language or date restrictions applied to the electronic searches, and no methodological filters were used to restrict the search.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of single and multicomponent non-pharmacological interventions for preventing delirium in hospitalised adults cared for outside intensive care or high dependency settings. We only included non-pharmacological interventions which were designed and implemented to prevent delirium.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently examined titles and abstracts identified by the search for eligibility and extracted data from full-text articles. Any disagreements on eligibility and inclusion were resolved by consensus. We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. The primary outcomes were: incidence of delirium; inpatient and later mortality; and new diagnosis of dementia. We included secondary and adverse outcomes as pre-specified in the review protocol. We used risk ratios (RRs) as measures of treatment effect for dichotomous outcomes and between-group mean differences for continuous outcomes. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using GRADE. A complementary exploratory analysis was undertaker using a Bayesian component network meta-analysis fixed-effect model to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of the individual components of multicomponent interventions and describe which components were most strongly associated with reducing the incidence of delirium.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 22 RCTs that recruited a total of 5718 adult participants. Fourteen trials compared a multicomponent delirium prevention intervention with usual care. Two trials compared liberal and restrictive blood transfusion thresholds. The remaining six trials each investigated a different non-pharmacological intervention. Incidence of delirium was reported in all studies.  Using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, we identified risks of bias in all included trials. All were at high risk of performance bias as participants and personnel were not blinded to the interventions. Nine trials were at high risk of detection bias due to lack of blinding of outcome assessors and three more were at unclear risk in this domain.  Pooled data showed that multi-component non-pharmacological interventions probably reduce the incidence of delirium compared to usual care (10.5% incidence in the intervention group, compared to 18.4% in the control group, risk ratio (RR) 0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46 to 0.71, I2 = 39%; 14 studies; 3693 participants; moderate-certainty evidence, downgraded due to risk of bias).  There may be little or no effect of multicomponent interventions on inpatient mortality compared to usual care (5.2% in the intervention group, compared to 4.5% in the control group, RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.74, I2 = 15%; 10 studies; 2640 participants; low-certainty evidence downgraded due to inconsistency and imprecision).  No studies of multicomponent interventions reported data on new diagnoses of dementia.  Multicomponent interventions may result in a small reduction of around a day in the duration of a delirium episode (mean difference (MD) -0.93, 95% CI -2.01 to 0.14 days, I2 = 65%; 351 participants; low-certainty evidence downgraded due to risk of bias and imprecision). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of multicomponent interventions on delirium severity (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.49, 95% CI -1.13 to 0.14, I2=64%; 147 participants; very low-certainty evidence downgraded due to risk of bias and serious imprecision). Multicomponent interventions may result in a reduction in hospital length of stay compared to usual care (MD -1.30 days, 95% CI -2.56 to -0.04 days, I2=91%; 3351 participants; low-certainty evidence downgraded due to risk of bias and inconsistency), but little to no difference in new care home admission at the time of hospital discharge (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.07; 536 participants; low-certainty evidence downgraded due to risk of bias and imprecision). Reporting of other adverse outcomes was limited.  Our exploratory component network meta-analysis found that re-orientation (including use of familiar objects), cognitive stimulation and sleep hygiene were associated with reduced risk of incident delirium. Attention to nutrition and hydration, oxygenation, medication review, assessment of mood and bowel and bladder care were probably associated with a reduction in incident delirium but estimates included the possibility of no benefit or harm.  Reducing sensory deprivation, identification of infection, mobilisation and pain control all had summary estimates that suggested potential increases in delirium incidence, but the uncertainty in the estimates was substantial.  Evidence from two trials suggests that use of a liberal transfusion threshold over a restrictive transfusion threshold probably results in little to no difference in incident delirium (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.36; I2 = 9%; 294 participants; moderate-certainty evidence downgraded due to risk of bias).  Six other interventions were examined, but evidence for each was limited to single studies and we identified no evidence of delirium prevention.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate-certainty evidence regarding the benefit of multicomponent non-pharmacological interventions for the prevention of delirium in hospitalised adults, estimated to reduce incidence by 43% compared to usual care. We found no evidence of an effect on mortality. There is emerging evidence that these interventions may reduce hospital length of stay, with a trend towards reduced delirium duration, although the effect on delirium severity remains uncertain. Further research should focus on implementation and detailed analysis of the components of the interventions to support more effective, tailored practice recommendations.

Where should patients with or at risk of delirium be treated in an acute care system? Comparing the rates of delirium in patients receiving usual care vs alternative care: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Delirium is an acute condition that occurs in hospitalised patients and leads to poor patient outcomes that can last long term. Therefore, the importance of prevention is undeniable and adopting new models of care for at-risk patients should be prioritised.

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review and meta-analysis will assess the effectiveness of different interventions designed to prevent or manage delirium in acutely unwell hospitalised patients.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, OpenGrey, Web of Science and reference lists of journals were searched. Eligible studies reported on incidence or duration of delirium, used a validated delirium diagnostic tool and compared an intervention to either a control or another intervention group. Meta-analyses were conducted, and GRADEpro software was used to assess the certainty of evidence. This review is registered on PROSPERO.

RESULTS

A total of 59 studies were included and 33 were eligible for meta-analysis. Delirium incidence was most significantly reduced by non-pharmacological multicomponent interventions compared with usual care, with pooled risk ratios of 0.57 (95% CI: 0.44 to 0.73, 10 randomised controlled trials) and 0.47 (95% CI: 0.35 to 0.64, six observational studies). Single-component interventions did not significantly reduce delirium incidence compared with usual care in seven randomised trials (risk ratio = 0.92, 95% CI: 0.81 to 1.04). The most effective single-component intervention in reducing delirium incidence was a hospital-at-home intervention (risk ratio = 0.29, 95% CI: 0.09 to 0.87).

CONCLUSIONS

Non-pharmacological multicomponent interventions are effective in preventing delirium; however, the same cannot be said for other interventions because of uncertain results. There is some evidence that providing multicomponent interventions in patients' homes is more effective than in a hospital setting. Therefore, researching the benefits of hospital-at-home interventions in delirium prevention is recommended.

The association of post-operative delirium with patient-reported outcomes and mortality after lung transplantation

Post-operative delirium after lung transplantation is common. Its associations with health-related quality of life (HRQL), depression, and mortality remains unknown. In 236 lung transplant recipients, HRQL and depressive symptoms were assessed as part of a structured survey battery before and after transplantation. Surveys included the Geriatric Depressive Scale (GDS) and Short Form 12 (SF12). Delirium was assessed throughout the post-operative intensive care unit (ICU) stay with Confusion Assessment Method for ICU. Delirium and mortality data were extracted from electronic medical records. We examined associations between delirium and changes in depressive symptoms and HRQL using linear mixed effects models and association between delirium and mortality with Cox-proportional hazard models. Post-operative delirium occurred in 34 participants (14%). Delirium was associated with attenuated improvements in SF12-PCS (difference ₋4.0; 95%CI: -7.4, -0.7) but not SF12-MCS (difference 2.2; 95%CI: -0.7,5.7) or GDS (difference ₋0.4; 95%CI: -1.5,0.7). Thirty-two participants died during the study period. Delirium was associated with increased adjusted hazard risk of mortality (HR 17.9, 95%CI: 4.4,72.5). Delirium after lung transplantation identifies a group at increased risk for poorer HRQL and death within the first post-operative year. Further studies should investigate potential causal links between delirium, and poorer HRQL and mortality risk after lung transplantation.

Effects of uncomfortable care and histamine H2-antagonists on delirium in acute stroke: A propensity score analysis

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Uncomfortable care and histamine H2 antagonist (H2A) are implicated in precipitating delirium. In acute stroke, however, the need for them depends on stroke severity, an established risk factor for delirium. So, it is unclear whether care or H2A itself is responsible for delirium. We aimed to evaluate their causal effects on delirium in acute stroke patients.

METHODS

This is a prospective cohort study on acute stroke patients admitted to a stroke care unit. Patients without stupor, coma, sedation, or delirium upon admission were enrolled. The treatment was H2A and five care modalities given during the first 24 h: restraint use, prohibited self-transfer, no oral feeding, indwelling catheters, and frequent nighttime care. The outcome was delirium within 5 days defined as Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist ≥4 points. We estimated the relative risk (RR) for delirium with regression models weighted by overlap weights using propensity scores estimated through logistic models incorporating known and potential confounders, including stroke severity.

RESULTS

Of the 387 participants, 188 were given at least one care modality and 130 were given H2A. A total of 42 developed delirium. Delirium was significantly associated with prohibited self-transfer (RR 1.7, 95% CI 1.0-3.0), frequent nighttime care (RR 2.1, 95% CI 1.2-3.7), and multiple care modalities (RR 2.4, 95% CI 1.3-4.4), while other care modalities and H2A were not.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed possible causal effects of uncomfortable care on delirium and suggests that minimizing it could prevent delirium in acute stroke.

Non-Pharmacologic Multicomponent Interventions Preventing Delirium in Hospitalized People

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

Delirium is a common neurobehavioral complication in hospitalized patients with a high prevalence in various clinical settings. Prevention of delirium is critical due to its common occurrence and associated poor outcomes. Our objective was to evaluate the efficacy of multicomponent interventions in preventing incident delirium in hospitalized patients at risk.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

SETTING

Hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

We included a study if it was a randomized controlled trial and was evaluating effects of coordinated non-pharmacologic multicomponent interventions in the prevention of delirium.

MEASUREMENTS

We performed a systematic literature search in PubMed and CENTRAL (PROSPERO: CRD42019138981; last update May 24, 2019). We assessed the quality of included studies by using the criteria established by the Cochrane Collaboration. We extracted the measured outcomes for delirium incidence, duration of delirium, length of hospital stay, falls during hospital stay, discharge to institutional care, and inpatient mortality.

RESULTS

In total, we screened 1,027 eligible records and included eight studies with 2,105 patients in the review. We found evidence of an effect (ie, reduction) of multicomponent interventions on the incidence of delirium (risk ratio = .53; 95% confidence interval = .41-.69; I² = 0). We detected no clear evidence of an effect for delirium duration, length of hospital stay, accidental falls, and mortality. Subgroup analyses did not result in findings of substantial effect modifiers, which can be explained by the high homogeneity within studies.

CONCLUSION

Our findings confirm the current guidelines that multicomponent interventions are effective in preventing delirium. Data are still lacking to reach evidence-based conclusions concerning potential benefits for hard outcomes such as length of hospital stay, return to independent living, and mortality. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:1864-1871, 2020.

Preventing Delirium Takes a Village: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Delirium Preventive Models of Care

BACKGROUND

Each hospital day of delirium incurs greater healthcare costs, higher levels of care, greater staff burden, and higher complication rates. Accordingly, administrators are incentivized to identify models of care that reduce delirium rates and associated costs.

PURPOSE

We present a systematic review and meta-analysis of delirium prevention models of care.

DATA SOURCES

Ovid MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, EMBASE, and PsycINFO.

STUDY SELECTION

Eligible models of care were defined as provider-oriented interventions involving revision of professional roles, multidisciplinary teams, and service integration. Included studies implemented multidomain, multicomponent interventions, used a validated delirium instrument, and enrolled a control group to evaluate efficacy or effectiveness.

DATA EXTRACTION

We extracted data on study design; Population, model of care, outcomes, and results.

DATA SYNTHESIS

A total of 15 studies were included. All but two studies reported reduction in delirium or its duration, and 11 studies reported statistically significant improvements. Using random effects models, the pooled odds ratios of delirium incidence were 0.56 (95% CI: 0.37-0.85) from three randomized controlled trials, 0.63 (95% CI 0.37-1.07) from four pre-post intervention studies, and 0.79 (95% CI: 0.46-1.37) from three additional nonrandomized studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Several models of care can prevent delirium. In general, higher quality studies were more likely to demonstrate statistical significance of an effect. The diverse models of care included here explored interventions adapted to specific care settings, especially by addressing setting-specific delirium risk factors. These care models illustrate a range of promising strategies that deserve growing recognition, refinement, and implementation.