Practice Patterns and Opinions on Current Clinical Practice Guidelines Regarding the Management of Delirium in the Intensive Care Unit

A world-wide study on delirium assessments and presence of protocols

BACKGROUND

Delirium is a common complication of older people in hospitals, rehabilitation and long-term facilities.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the worldwide use of validated delirium assessment tools and the presence of delirium management protocols.

DESIGN

Secondary analysis of a worldwide one-day point prevalence study on World Delirium Awareness Day, 15 March 2023.

SETTING

Cross-sectional online survey including hospitals, rehabilitation and long-term facilities.

METHODS

Participating clinicians reported data on delirium, the presence of protocols, delirium assessments, delirium-awareness interventions, non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions, and ward/unit-specific barriers.

RESULTS

Data from 44 countries, 1664 wards/units and 36 048 patients were analysed. Validated delirium assessments were used in 66.7% (n = 1110) of wards/units, 18.6% (n = 310) used personal judgement or no assessment, and 10% (n = 166) used other assessment methods. A delirium management protocol was reported in 66.8% (n = 1094) of wards/units. The presence of protocols for delirium management varied across continents, ranging from 21.6% (on 21/97 wards/units) in Africa to 90.4% (235/260) in Australia, similar to the use of validated delirium assessments with 29.6% (29/98) in Africa to 93.5% (116/124) in North America. Wards/units with a delirium management protocol [n = 1094/1664, 66.8%] were more likely to use a validated delirium test than those without a protocol [odds ratio 6.97 (95% confidence interval 5.289-9.185)]. The presence of a delirium protocol increased the chances for valid delirium assessment and, likely, evidence-based interventions.

CONCLUSION

Wards/units that reported the presence of delirium management protocols had a higher probability of using validated delirium assessments tools to assess for delirium.

Clinical Impact of the Implementation Strategies Used to Apply the 2013 Pain, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium or 2018 Pain, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium, Immobility, Sleep Disruption Guideline Recommendations: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVES

To summarize the effectiveness of implementation strategies for ICU execution of recommendations from the 2013 Pain, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium (PAD) or 2018 PAD, Immobility, Sleep Disruption (PADIS) guidelines.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched from January 2012 to August 2023. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020175268).

STUDY SELECTION

Articles were included if: 1) design was randomized or cohort, 2) adult population evaluated, 3) employed recommendations from greater than or equal to two PAD/PADIS domains, and 4) evaluated greater than or equal to 1 of the following outcome(s): short-term mortality, delirium occurrence, mechanical ventilation (MV) duration, or ICU length of stay (LOS).

DATA EXTRACTION

Two authors independently reviewed articles for eligibility, number of PAD/PADIS domains, quality according to National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute assessment tools, implementation strategy use (including Assess, prevent, and manage pain; Both SAT and SBT; Choice of analgesia and sedation; Delirium: assess, prevent, and manage; Early mobility and exercise; Family engagement and empowerment [ABCDEF] bundle) by Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care (EPOC) category, and clinical outcomes. Certainty of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Among the 25 of 243 (10.3%) full-text articles included ( n = 23,215 patients), risk of bias was high in 13 (52%). Most studies were cohort ( n = 22, 88%). A median of 5 (interquartile range [IQR] 4-7) EPOC strategies were used to implement recommendations from two (IQR 2-3) PAD/PADIS domains. Cohort and randomized studies were pooled separately. In the cohort studies, use of EPOC strategies was not associated with a change in mortality (risk ratio [RR] 1.01; 95% CI, 0.9-1.12), or delirium (RR 0.92; 95% CI, 0.82-1.03), but was associated with a reduction in MV duration (weighted mean difference [WMD] -0.84 d; 95% CI, -1.25 to -0.43) and ICU LOS (WMD -0.77 d; 95% CI, -1.51 to 0.04). For randomized studies, EPOC strategy use was associated with reduced mortality and MV duration but not delirium or ICU LOS.

CONCLUSIONS

Using multiple implementation strategies to adopt PAD/PADIS guideline recommendations may reduce mortality, duration of MV, and ICU LOS. Further prospective, controlled studies are needed to identify the most effective strategies to implement PAD/PADIS recommendations.

Caring for patients displaying agitated behaviours in the intensive care unit - A mixed-methods systematic review

BACKGROUND

Patient agitation is common in the intensive care unit (ICU), with consequences for both patients and health professionals if not managed effectively. Research indicates that current practices may not be optimal. A comprehensive review of the evidence exploring nurses' experiences of caring for these patients is required to fully understand how nurses can be supported to take on this important role.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to identify and synthesise qualitative and quantitative evidence of nurses' experiences of caring for patients displaying agitated behaviours in the adult ICU.

METHODS

A mixed-methods systematic review was conducted. MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Emcare, Scopus, ProQuest, and Cochrane Library were searched from database inception to July 2020 for qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods studies. Peer-reviewed, primary research articles and theses were considered for inclusion. A convergent integrated design, described by Joanna Briggs Institute, was utilised transforming all data into qualitative findings before categorising and synthesising to form the final integrated findings. The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO CRD42020191715.

RESULTS

Eleven studies were included in the review. Integrated findings include (i) the strain of caring for patients displaying agitated behaviours; (ii) attitudes of nurses; (iii) uncertainty around assessment and management of agitated behaviour; and (iv) lack of effective collaboration and communication with medical colleagues.

CONCLUSIONS

This review describes the challenges and complexities nurses experience when caring for patients displaying agitated behaviours in the ICU. Findings indicate that nurses lack guidelines together with practical and emotional support to fulfil their role. Such initiatives are likely to improve both patient and nurse outcomes.

[Study protocol to improve the quality of delirium management in intensive care]

BACKGROUND

Delirium in cardiac surgery patients is common and is associated with prolonged mechanical ventilation and hospital stay as well as higher mortality. Protocols may improve outcome. In our cardiac surgery intensive care unit (ICU), patients with delirium have not received standardized treatment so far.

HYPOTHESIS

In cardiac surgery ICU patients, standardized delirium management will lead after a 4‑week introduction, compared to nonstandardized treatment, to a reduction of delirium duration.

METHODS

Prospective before/after study to evaluate a quality improvement project for delirium management over 12 weeks including 140 patients.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

(a) ≥18 years, (b) consent for research with their data.

EXCLUSION CRITERIA

(a) palliative status, (b) present during both the before/after phase, (c) pregnancy, (d) included in a competitive study, or (e) delirium not assessable. The implementation includes the introduction of a protocol with interprofessional training, bedside-teaching, pocket cards, posters, and reminders. The primary outcome is the duration of delirium, assessed four times a day with validated instruments. Secondary outcome measures include delirium incidence, duration of mechanical ventilation, length of stay in ICU and hospital, mortality, nursing/therapeutic interventions, cumulative doses of delirium-related drugs, and complications of delirium for a follow-up of 28 days. Empirical data will be analyzed with descriptive and inferential statistics.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of the study is a reduction of the duration and frequency of delirium in cardiac ICU patients and will provide evidence of the effect size of the introduction of a delirium management.

Routine management of postoperative delirium outside the ICU: Results of an international survey among anaesthesiologists

BACKGROUND

Postoperative delirium (POD) is a severe brain dysfunction. Although data indicate a high relevance, no survey has investigated the routine practice to monitor delirium outside the ICU setting after surgery. Prior to publishing of the new European Society of Anaesthesiology (ESA) guidelines on POD, an international survey was conducted to assess current practice.

METHODS

European Society of Anaesthesiology-endorsed online survey; Trial Registration: NCT-identifier: 02513537.

RESULTS

In total, 566 respondents from 62 countries accessed, and 564 (99.6%) completed the survey (completion rate). Overall, 385 (68%) of the respondents reported that delirium is either "very relevant" or "relevant" for their daily clinical practice. In all, 38 (7%) of the respondents routinely monitor for delirium in >50% of all patients. Asked on the monitoring time point, more than half (n = 308, 55%) indicated to screen before or at recovery room discharge, 235 (42%) up to the first postoperative day, 143 (25%) up to 3 days, and 77 (14%) up to 5 postoperative days. Although there is a lack of long-term monitoring, nearly all respondents (n = 530, 94%) reported to treat delirium. Availability of EEG/EMG-based monitoring to assess the depth of anaesthesia was high in the study group (n = 547, 97%) and was used by more than one-third of the respondents to reduce risk of burst suppression (n = 189, 34%).

CONCLUSION

Although delirium is perceived as a relevant condition among anaesthesiologists, there is a high demand for implementing monitoring strategies after publishing of the POD Guideline. The survey shows that tools necessary for POD Guideline implementation are available in the centres represented by the respondents.

Haloperidol for the treatment of delirium in critically ill patients: A systematic review with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis

BACKGROUND

Haloperidol is the most frequently used drug to treat delirium in the critically ill patients. Yet, no systematic review has focussed on the effects of haloperidol in critically ill patients with delirium.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of haloperidol vs any intervention on all-cause mortality, serious adverse reactions/events, days alive without delirium, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), cognitive function and delirium severity in critically ill patients with delirium. We also report on QTc prolongation, delirium resolution and extrapyramidal symptoms.

RESULTS

We included 8 RCTs with 11 comparisons (n = 951). We adjudicated one trial as having overall low risk of bias. Three trials used rescue haloperidol; excluding these, we did not find an effect of haloperidol vs control on all-cause mortality (RR 1.01; 95% CI 0.33-3.06; I²  = 0%; 112 participants; 3 trials; 4 comparisons; very low certainty) or delirium severity (SMD -0.15; 95% CI -0.61-0.30; I²  = 27%; 134 participants; 3 trials; 4 comparisons; very low certainty). No trials reported adequately on serious adverse reactions/events. Only one trial reported on days alive without delirium, cognitive function and QTc prolongation, and no trials reported on HRQoL. Sensitivity analyses, including trials using rescue haloperidol, did not change the results.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence for the use of haloperidol to treat critically ill patients with delirium is sparse, of low quality and inconclusive. We therefore have no certainty regarding any beneficial, harmful or neutral effects of haloperidol in these patients.

Effects of dexmedetomidine on delirium duration of non-intubated ICU patients (4D trial): study protocol for a randomized trial

Background

Delirium during intensive care unit (ICU) stay is frequent and associated with significant morbidity, mortality and healthcare-related costs. International guidelines suggest its prevention. However, curative treatment remains unclearly established. Despite contradictory and ambiguous academic literature, international guidelines suggest the use of second-generation (atypical) antipsychotics over haloperidol. However, haloperidol remains the most widely used neuroleptic worldwide as a first-line treatment of agitation and/or delirium. Dexmedetomidine, an alpha2-adrenergic receptors agonist, has shown its efficiency in the treatment of delirium in intubated patients but also in its prevention. Dexmedetomidine represents a widely used alternative to haloperidol. Only few studies have compared the efficacy of dexmedetomidine in non-intubated ICU patients as a first-line curative treatment of delirium. The main objective of the 4D trial is to demonstrate that dexmedetomidine decreases delirium duration compared to placebo.

Methods/design

The 4D trial is an investigator-initiated, prospective, multicenter, randomized, double-blinded, two-arm trial, randomizing 300 non-intubated ICU patients with a diagnosis of agitated delirium to receive dexmedetomidine or placebo as a cure. In case of agitation (RASS≥ + 2), immediate haloperidol administration will be allowed, to protect patient and staff in charge, while waiting for study treatment action. The primary outcome measure is a composite of duration of agitation or delirium or the use of intubation with deep sedation and mechanical ventilation. Secondary outcomes include mortalities at 7 and 30 days, ICU length of stay and occurrence of adverse effects related to dexmedetomidine use (bradycardia or hypotension requesting any treatment; or haloperidol use (neuroleptic malignant syndrome, extrapyramidal syndrome, prolonged QTc). The sample size will allow the detection of a 50% decrease of agitation duration (120 min), of an absolute reduction of delirium duration (1 day) and of a 50% relative decrease of intubation and mechanical ventilation, with a type 1 error rate of 1.8% (error risk inflation due to components of composite) and power of 90%, assuming a 15% incidence of intubation and mechanical ventilation requirements, an agitation duration of 240 min and a delirium duration of 3 days. One hundred and ten patients by group will be needed. An intermediate analysis is scheduled and requires the inclusion of 150 patients.

Discussion

The 4D trial may provide important data on the safety of commonly used sedative dexmedetomidine and could have a significant impact on future treatment of non-intubated ICU patients presenting with agitated delirium.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT 03317067. Registered on 23 October 2017.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-018-2656-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Effect of Haloperidol on Survival Among Critically Ill Adults With a High Risk of Delirium: The REDUCE Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Results of studies on use of prophylactic haloperidol in critically ill adults are inconclusive, especially in patients at high risk of delirium.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether prophylactic use of haloperidol improves survival among critically ill adults at high risk of delirium, which was defined as an anticipated intensive care unit (ICU) stay of at least 2 days.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled investigator-driven study involving 1789 critically ill adults treated at 21 ICUs, at which nonpharmacological interventions for delirium prevention are routinely used in the Netherlands. Patients without delirium whose expected ICU stay was at least a day were included. Recruitment was from July 2013 to December 2016 and follow-up was conducted at 90 days with the final follow-up on March 1, 2017.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients received prophylactic treatment 3 times daily intravenously either 1 mg (n = 350) or 2 mg (n = 732) of haloperidol or placebo (n = 707), consisting of 0.9% sodium chloride.

MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was the number of days that patients survived in 28 days. There were 15 secondary outcomes, including delirium incidence, 28-day delirium-free and coma-free days, duration of mechanical ventilation, and ICU and hospital length of stay.

RESULTS

All 1789 randomized patients (mean, age 66.6 years [SD, 12.6]; 1099 men [61.4%]) completed the study. The 1-mg haloperidol group was prematurely stopped because of futility. There was no difference in the median days patients survived in 28 days, 28 days in the 2-mg haloperidol group vs 28 days in the placebo group, for a difference of 0 days (95% CI, 0-0; P = .93) and a hazard ratio of 1.003 (95% CI, 0.78-1.30, P=.82). All of the 15 secondary outcomes were not statistically different. These included delirium incidence (mean difference, 1.5%, 95% CI, -3.6% to 6.7%), delirium-free and coma-free days (mean difference, 0 days, 95% CI, 0-0 days), and duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU, and hospital length of stay (mean difference, 0 days, 95% CI, 0-0 days for all 3 measures). The number of reported adverse effects did not differ between groups (2 [0.3%] for the 2-mg haloperidol group vs 1 [0.1%] for the placebo group).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among critically ill adults at high risk of delirium, the use of prophylactic haloperidol compared with placebo did not improve survival at 28 days. These findings do not support the use of prophylactic haloperidol for reducing mortality in critically ill adults.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01785290.