Article
To read the full-text of this research, you can request a copy directly from the authors.

Abstract

Résumé La confusion est un événement sévère, annonciateur d’une urgence médicale. Chez la personne âgée, elle est associée à une morbidité et à une mortalité significatives. Elle se définit comme une perturbation cérébrale de début soudain et fluctuante. S’y associent des troubles de l’attention et de la fonction cognitive. Cette revue narrative explore les éléments d’épidémiologie, de physiopathologie, de diagnostic et de surveillance. Elle alerte sur les liens identifiés entre la Covid-19 et la confusion. Elle appelle à une prise en charge majoritairement non pharmacologique et multidimensionnelle, ainsi qu’à un renforcement des formations ciblées et des équipes mobiles de gériatrie qualifiées en psychogériatrie. De façon générale, l’approche thérapeutique de la confusion est holistique et humaniste plus qu’orientée sur l’organe.

No full-text available

Request Full-text Paper PDF

To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.

... L'état confusionnel aigu (ECA), encore appelé confusion mentale, syndrome confusionnel ou delirium en anglais, correspond à une affection cérébrale aigue se traduisant par des troubles cognitifs notamment attentionnels, des possibles troubles comportementaux et une modification de la vigilance, d'apparition brutale et d'évolution fluctuante [1][2][3][4]. L'ECA est fréquent, concernant jusqu'à 25 % à 30 % des patients âgés hospitalisés (variable selon la population étudiée) [1], grave, associée à une surmortalité [5] et un impact fonctionnel [6] et médico-économique [7]. ...
... Par exemple, l'outil SQiD, qui consiste en une seule question, peut être traduit par « Avez-vous l'impression que [nom du patient] est plus confus ces derniers temps ? ».4 Estimation des performances à partir d'études précédentes, notamment celle de validation de la 3D-CAM[22,27].CAM : Confusion Assessment Method ; DSM : Diagnostic and Statistical Manual 1 A version is available in French and accessible online. This does not imply that the psychometric performance of this French version has been achieved, northat the cross-cultural validation method of tool translation has been respected.2 ...
... For example, the SQiD tool, which consists of a single question, can be translated as « Avez-vous l'impression que [nom du patient] est plus confus ces derniers temps ? ».4 Performance estimates from previous studies, including the 3D-CAM validation study[22,27]. Non-exhaustive list. ...
Delirium is very common in hospitalized older patients and associated with serious clinical outcomes, notably increased risk of functional decline and death. Despite its high prevalence in the hospital setting, delirium is still underdiagnosed. A better identification would allow an early management and a reduction of its complications. To achieve this, the validation of formalized, easy-to-use and quick tools for the identification of delirium and their implementation in our clinical practice are necessary. The objective of this narrative review is to describe the available tools for delirium identification most commonly used in clinical practice and in research, followed by those that are quick to very quick to complete (i.e., less than 3 minutes). This review identified 4 tools frequently used internationally (CAM, DRS-R-98, DOSS, MDAS). Their completion time varies from 5 to 30 minutes. Rapid or very rapid tools exist, with very good diagnostic performance. Among them, the 4AT, the 3D-CAM and the UB-CAM seem particularly promising. These last tools seem interesting for a large-scale implementation at the national level, but a validation in French remains to be done.
Article
La COVID-19 frappe l’ensemble du monde depuis fin 2019 et commence à être médicalement mieux connue. Sa présentation clinique est atypique chez la personne âgée. La confusion aiguë en est un signe d’appel parfois méconnu. Elle est aussi un élément de gravité de la COVID-19. Cette infection virale devrait être recherchée de façon systématique devant tout syndrome confusionnel en population âgée.
Article
Full-text available
Purpose of Review Postoperative delirium (POD) is a common phenomenon among general surgery patients, but it is not well described in urologic surgical patients. We sought to define the incidence and predictive risk factors for POD in patients undergoing urologic surgery. Recent Findings Eighteen articles were included for review. The pooled incidence rate of postoperative delirium after urologic surgery was 1.69% (0.69–46.97%). Longer intraoperative time, male sex, unmarried status, and age were shown to be risk factors for POD. Summary POD is common after many urologic surgeries and leads to worse postoperative outcomes and higher healthcare utilization. Future studies are needed to better assess for and prevent POD.
Article
Full-text available
Objective: Vitamin D is involved in brain health and function. Our objective was to determine whether the serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25OHD) concentration was associated with delirium in a case-control study of geriatric inpatients. Methods: Sixty cases with delirium (mean ± SD, 84.8 ± 5.7years; 58.3% female) and 180 age- and gender-matched controls were enrolled in a geriatric acute care unit between 2012 and 2014. The diagnosis of delirium was made using the Confusion Assessment Method. Hypovitaminosis D was defined using consecutively the consensual threshold value of 50 nmol/L and a threshold value calculated from a sensitivity-specificity analysis. Age, gender, number of acute diseases, use of psychoactive drugs, season of testing, and serum concentrations of calcium, parathyroid hormone, creatinine, albumin, TSH, vitamin B9 and vitamin B12 were used as potential confounders. Results: The 60 cases with delirium exhibited lower 25OHD concentration than 180 matched controls (35.4 ± 30.0 nmol/L vs. 45.9 ± 34.5 nmol/L, p = 0.035). Increased 25OHD concentration was associated with a decrease in delirium prevalence (OR = 0.99 [95CI: 0.98-0.99] per nmol/L of 25OHD, p = 0.038). The concentration distinguishing between cases and controls with the best sensitivity-specificity was found between 29.5 and 30.5 nmol/L. The regression models showed that delirium was associated with hypovitaminosis D defined either as 25OHD ≤ 50 nmol/L (OR = 2.37 [95CI: 1.07-5.25], p = 0.034) or as 25OHD ≤ 30 nmol/L (OR = 2.66 [95 CI: 1.30-5.45], p = 0.008). Conclusions: Decreased serum 25OHD concentrations were associated with delirium among acute geriatric inpatients. The threshold concentration to differentiate between cases and controls was around 30 nmol/L.
Article
Full-text available
Purpose Older people are at risk of anticholinergic side effects due to changes affecting drug elimination and higher sensitivity to drug’s side effects. Anticholinergic burden scales (ABS) were developed to quantify the anticholinergic drug burden (ADB). We aim to identify all published ABS, to compare them systematically and to evaluate their associations with clinical outcomes. Methods We conducted a literature search in MEDLINE and EMBASE to identify all published ABS and a Web of Science citation (WoS) analysis to track validation studies implying clinical outcomes. Quality of the ABS was assessed using an adapted AGREE II tool. For the validation studies, we used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Cochrane tool Rob2.0. The validation studies were categorized into six evidence levels based on the propositions of the Oxford Center for Evidence-Based Medicine with respect to their quality. At least two researchers independently performed screening and quality assessments. Results Out of 1297 records, we identified 19 ABS and 104 validations studies. Despite differences in quality, all ABS were recommended for use. The anticholinergic cognitive burden (ACB) scale and the German anticholinergic burden scale (GABS) achieved the highest percentage in quality. Most ABS are validated, yet validation studies for newer scales are lacking. Only two studies compared eight ABS simultaneously. The four most investigated clinical outcomes delirium, cognition, mortality and falls showed contradicting results. Conclusion There is need for good quality validation studies comparing multiple scales to define the best scale and to conduct a meta-analysis for the assessment of their clinical impact.
Article
Full-text available
This review assesses the effectiveness of interventions to reduce physical restraint (PR) use in older people living in nursing homes or residential care facilities. A systematic search of studies published in four electronic databases (MEDLINE, CINHAL, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials). The review included individual and cluster randomized controlled trials that compared educational training and multicomponent programs to avoid PR use. Risk bias of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was assessed according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. This review includes 16 studies in a qualitative synthesis that met the inclusion criteria, nine of them offered a multicomponent program and seven offered only educational training. The results of the 12 studies included in the meta-analysis showed a significant trend in favor of intervention over time and intensity of PR use tends to decrease. The review indicates that educational programs and other supplementary interventions should be effective, but the heterogeneous operative definition of physical restraints can make difficult data generalization.
Article
Full-text available
Objectives: To comprehensively assess the effects of multicomponent interventions for prevention of delirium in hospitalized older people. Design: Systematic review with meta-analysis following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses methods. Participants: All randomized controlled trials were included. Included studies were conducted in hospitalized older people (aged ≥65 years). Measurements: The electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were consulted (search date: 2015 to March 2019). Predefined criteria were used to determine inclusion of studies and to assess their methodologic quality. Results: From 1,250 records identified, 10 randomized controlled trials were included (n = 2,850: 1355 medical patients, 1,243 surgical, and 160 intensive care unit). The multicomponent interventions, compared with usual care, reduced the incidence of delirium (risk ratio (RR) = 0.62; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.54-0.72; I2 = 0%; k = 10; n = 2,758), duration of delirium (RR = -1.18; 95% CI = -1.95 to -0.40; I2 = 45%; k = 6; n = 276), severity of delirium (standard mean difference = -0.98; 95% CI = -1.46 to -0.49; I2 = 0%; k = 3; n = 82), and pressure ulcers (RR = 0.48; 95% CI = 0.26-0.88; I2 = 0%; k = 2; n = 457). Conclusions: This meta-analysis suggests that multicomponent interventions to prevent delirium are effective in decreasing its incidence, duration, and severity; as well as the incidence of pressure ulcers in hospitalized older people. Therefore, multicomponent interventions hold great promise to impact in the most important and prevalent conditions affecting fragile older people during hospitalization.
Article
Full-text available
Objectives: Delirium is an acute neuropsychiatric syndrome associated with poor outcomes. Older adults undergoing surgery have a higher risk of manifesting perioperative delirium, particularly those having associated comorbidities. It remains unclear whether delirium frequency varies across surgical settings and if it has remained stable across the years. We conducted a systematic review to (1) determine the overall frequency of delirium in older people undergoing noncardiac surgery; (2) explore factors explaining the variability of the estimates; and (3) determine the changing of the estimates over the past 2 decades. Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Literature search was performed in MEDLINE, PubMed, ISI Web of Science, EBSCO, ISRCTN registry, ScienceDirect, and Embase in January 2020 for studies published from 1995 to 2020. Setting: Noncardiac surgical settings. Participants: Forty-nine studies were included with a total of 26,865 patients screened for delirium. Methods: We included observational and controlled trials reporting incidence, prevalence, or proportion of delirium in adults aged ≥60 years undergoing any noncardiac surgery requiring hospitalization. Data extracted included sample size, reported delirium frequencies, surgery type, anesthesia type, delirium diagnosis method, length of hospitalization, and year of assessment. (PROSPERO registration no.: CRD42020160045). Results: We found an overall pooled frequency of preoperative delirium of 17.9% and postoperative delirium (POD) of 23.8%. The POD estimates increased between 1995 and 2020 at an average rate of 3% per year. Pooled estimates of POD were significantly higher in studies not excluding patients with lower cognitive performance before surgery (28% vs 16%) and when general anesthesia was used in comparison to local, spinal, or epidural anesthesia (28% vs 20%). Conclusions and implications: Type of anesthesia and preoperative cognitive status were significant moderators of delirium frequency. POD in noncardiac surgery has been increasing across the years, suggesting that more resources should be allocated to delirium prevention and management.
Article
Full-text available
Background: Delirium is a frequently encountered complication, which is associated with increased mortality. Suvorexant, an approved agent for the treatment of insomnia, is recently suggested to be also effective for prevention of delirium by some authors. However, a consensus has yet to be reached. The goal of this study was to perform a meta-analysis to overall estimate the effectiveness of suvorexant in preventing delirium and its related consequences. Methods: Eligible studies were identified by searching online databases of PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library. The pooled OR was calculated for binary outcomes (e.g., the incidence of delirium, mortality, or adverse events), while standardized mean difference (SMD) were expressed for continuous outcomes (e.g., time to delirium onset, length of stay in hospital and ICU, time on ventilation). Results: Seven studies which comprised 402 suvorexant treatment patients and 487 patients with control treatment were included in this meta-analysis. Overall, pooled analysis indicated the incidence of delirium could be significantly reduced (OR, 0.30; P < .001) and time to delirium onset was significantly lengthened (SMD, 0.44; P = .006) in patients undergoing suvorexant treatment compared with controls. Suvorexant had no beneficial effects on the secondary outcomes [length of stay in hospital (SMD, -0.65; P = .161) and ICU (SMD, 0.34; P = .297), time on ventilation (SMD, 1.09; P = .318), drug-related adverse events (OR, drug-related adverse events (OR, 1.66; P = .319) and mortality (OR, 2.21; P = .261)]. Subgroup analysis also confirmed the benefit of suvorexant on the development of delirium, which was significant in any subgroup. Conclusion: Suvorexant should be recommended for the prevention of delirium in clinic.
Article
Full-text available
Objectives To investigate the association between anticholinergic drug burden (ADB), measured with anticholinergic drug scales, and delirium and delirium severity. Design Systematic review. Setting and Participants All available studies. Methods A systematic literature search was performed in Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science, CINAHL, Cochrane library, and Google Scholar. Studies evaluating the association between ADB (measured as a total score) and delirium or delirium severity, published in English, were eligible for inclusion. Results Sixteen studies, including 148,756 persons, were included. Fifteen studies investigated delirium. ADB was measured with the Anticholinergic Risk Scale (ARS, n = 5), the Anticholinergic Cognitive Burden Scale (ACB, n = 6), the list of Chew (n = 1), the Anticholinergic Drug Scale (ADS, n = 5), a modified version of the ARS (n = 1), and a modified version of the ACB (n = 1). A high ADB, measured with the ARS, was associated with delirium (5/5). Also with the modified version of the ARS and ACB, an association was found between a high ADB and delirium during 3-month (1/1) and 1-year follow-up (1/1), respectively. When ADB was assessed with other scales, the results were inconclusive, with only 1 positive association for the ACB (1/6) and ADS (1/5) each. The possible association between ADB and delirium severity has also been investigated (ADS n = 2, Summers Drug Risk Number n = 1). One study found an association between a high ADB, measured with the ADS, and an increase in severity of delirium. Conclusions and Implications ADB assessed with the ARS is consistently associated with delirium. The association found between the modified versions of the ARS and ACB and delirium needs confirmation. When ADB was assessed with other scales, the findings were inconclusive. The current findings suggest that the ARS might be a useful tool to identify patients at increased risk for delirium.
Article
Full-text available
Agitated patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) can escalate to aggressive and violent behaviors with the potential for injury to themselves, ED staff, and others. Agitation is a nonspecific symptom that may be caused by or result in a life‐threatening condition. Project BETA (Best Practices in the Evaluation and Treatment of Agitation) is a compilation of the best evidence and consensus recommendations developed by emergency medicine and psychiatry experts in behavioral emergencies to improve our approach to the acutely agitated patient. These recommendations focus on verbal de‐escalation as a first‐line treatment for agitation; pharmacotherapy that treats the most likely etiology of the agitation; appropriate psychiatric evaluation and treatment of associated medical conditions; and minimization of physical restraint/seclusion. Implementation of Project BETA in the ED can improve our ability to manage a patient's agitation and reduce the number of physical assaults on ED staff. This article summarizes the BETA guidelines and recent supporting literature for managing the acutely agitated patient in the ED followed by a discussion of how a large county hospital integrated these recommendations into daily practice.
Article
Full-text available
The objective of this national French survey was to determine the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) semiology in seniors (n = 353; mean, 84.7 ± 7.0 years). A total of 57.8% of patients exhibited ≤3 symptoms, including thermal dysregulation (83.6%), cough (58.9%), asthenia (52.7%), polypnea (39.9%), and gastrointestinal signs (24.4%). Patients ≥80 years exhibited falls (P = .002) and asthenia (P = .002). Patients with neurocognitive disorders exhibited delirium (P < .001) and altered consciousness (P = .001). Clinical peculiarities of COVID-19 were reported in seniors. Clinical Trials Registration NCT04343781.
Article
Full-text available
COVID-19 is predominantly a respiratory disease. However, some cases exhibit other features including Central Nervous System symptoms. In the older adult, COVID-19 may present with atypical symptoms, including delirium and its complications. The objective of this study is to describe the relationship between the new type of coronavirus infection and delirium. Systematic research (Cochrane Library and PubMed) was carried out (only upper time limit: April 2020). Publications found through this indexed search were reviewed and manually screened to identify relevant studies. Search terms used included “COVID-19, Delirium, Dementia, Intensive Care Unit”. We manually added articles identified through other sources (i.e., key journals). Older people are at the greatest risk from COVID-19. If infected, they may present delirium. Moreover, it is not exclusive to older people. Delirium is not inevitable; rather, it is preventable. Delirium prevention programs are even more crucial in the era of COVID-19 and cannot be allowed to wither despite the challenges of integrating delirium prevention with COVID-19 care. An acute change in condition, behaviour, or mental status should prompt a delirium screen. As regards the treatment, it is advisable to use non-pharmacological interventions first where possible. Medication may be needed for patients with agitation where there is intractable distress or high risk to self/others.
Article
Full-text available
Background Before the COVID-19 pandemic, coronaviruses caused two noteworthy outbreaks: severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), starting in 2002, and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), starting in 2012. We aimed to assess the psychiatric and neuropsychiatric presentations of SARS, MERS, and COVID-19. Methods In this systematic review and meta-analysis, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature databases (from their inception until March 18, 2020), and medRxiv, bioRxiv, and PsyArXiv (between Jan 1, 2020, and April 10, 2020) were searched by two independent researchers for all English-language studies or preprints reporting data on the psychiatric and neuropsychiatric presentations of individuals with suspected or laboratory-confirmed coronavirus infection (SARS coronavirus, MERS coronavirus, or SARS coronavirus 2). We excluded studies limited to neurological complications without specified neuropsychiatric presentations and those investigating the indirect effects of coronavirus infections on the mental health of people who are not infected, such as those mediated through physical distancing measures such as self-isolation or quarantine. Outcomes were psychiatric signs or symptoms; symptom severity; diagnoses based on ICD-10, DSM-IV, or the Chinese Classification of Mental Disorders (third edition) or psychometric scales; quality of life; and employment. Both the systematic review and the meta-analysis stratified outcomes across illness stages (acute vs post-illness) for SARS and MERS. We used a random-effects model for the meta-analysis, and the meta-analytical effect size was prevalence for relevant outcomes, I² statistics, and assessment of study quality. Findings 1963 studies and 87 preprints were identified by the systematic search, of which 65 peer-reviewed studies and seven preprints met inclusion criteria. The number of coronavirus cases of the included studies was 3559, ranging from 1 to 997, and the mean age of participants in studies ranged from 12·2 years (SD 4·1) to 68·0 years (single case report). Studies were from China, Hong Kong, South Korea, Canada, Saudi Arabia, France, Japan, Singapore, the UK, and the USA. Follow-up time for the post-illness studies varied between 60 days and 12 years. The systematic review revealed that during the acute illness, common symptoms among patients admitted to hospital for SARS or MERS included confusion (36 [27·9%; 95% CI 20·5–36·0] of 129 patients), depressed mood (42 [32·6%; 24·7–40·9] of 129), anxiety (46 [35·7%; 27·6–44·2] of 129), impaired memory (44 [34·1%; 26·2–42·5] of 129), and insomnia (54 [41·9%; 22·5–50·5] of 129). Steroid-induced mania and psychosis were reported in 13 (0·7%) of 1744 patients with SARS in the acute stage in one study. In the post-illness stage, depressed mood (35 [10·5%; 95% CI 7·5–14·1] of 332 patients), insomnia (34 [12·1%; 8·6–16·3] of 280), anxiety (21 [12·3%; 7·7–17·7] of 171), irritability (28 [12·8%; 8·7–17·6] of 218), memory impairment (44 [18·9%; 14·1–24·2] of 233), fatigue (61 [19·3%; 15·1–23·9] of 316), and in one study traumatic memories (55 [30·4%; 23·9–37·3] of 181) and sleep disorder (14 [100·0%; 88·0–100·0] of 14) were frequently reported. The meta-analysis indicated that in the post-illness stage the point prevalence of post-traumatic stress disorder was 32·2% (95% CI 23·7–42·0; 121 of 402 cases from four studies), that of depression was 14·9% (12·1–18·2; 77 of 517 cases from five studies), and that of anxiety disorders was 14·8% (11·1–19·4; 42 of 284 cases from three studies). 446 (76·9%; 95% CI 68·1–84·6) of 580 patients from six studies had returned to work at a mean follow-up time of 35·3 months (SD 40·1). When data for patients with COVID-19 were examined (including preprint data), there was evidence for delirium (confusion in 26 [65%] of 40 intensive care unit patients and agitation in 40 [69%] of 58 intensive care unit patients in one study, and altered consciousness in 17 [21%] of 82 patients who subsequently died in another study). At discharge, 15 (33%) of 45 patients with COVID-19 who were assessed had a dysexecutive syndrome in one study. At the time of writing, there were two reports of hypoxic encephalopathy and one report of encephalitis. 68 (94%) of the 72 studies were of either low or medium quality. Interpretation If infection with SARS-CoV-2 follows a similar course to that with SARS-CoV or MERS-CoV, most patients should recover without experiencing mental illness. SARS-CoV-2 might cause delirium in a significant proportion of patients in the acute stage. Clinicians should be aware of the possibility of depression, anxiety, fatigue, post-traumatic stress disorder, and rarer neuropsychiatric syndromes in the longer term. Funding Wellcome Trust, UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), UK Medical Research Council, NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and University College London.
Article
Full-text available
Delirium is a challenging neuropsychiatric ailment that has a negative impact on morbidity and mortality and is difficult to treat once it has developed. The purpose of this review was to analyze the efficacy of melatonin in the prevention of delirium in hospitalized geriatric patients in the acute medically ill and perioperative wards. The databases searched included PubMed (1946 to February 12, 2020), CINAHL (1982 to February 12, 2020), EMBASE (1974 to February 12, 2020), and Web of Science (1900 to February 12, 2020) using search terms related to melatonin, delirium, and prevention. Meta‐analyses, randomized controlled trials, and observational studies were included. We excluded publications pertaining to the intensive care unit or oncology, case reports/series, and those not in English. Seven full‐text publications were included for qualitative analysis. Patient comorbidities, patient medications, melatonin dosing, dosing regimens, and duration of treatment varied between the studies, which yielded heterogeneous results. Overall, this literature review yielded four studies that showed positive results and three that showed negative results for delirium prevention. The current data for the use of melatonin in delirium is conflicting. This area requires further research of more homogeneous studies with larger sample sizes.
Article
Full-text available
Background: delirium is an acute state of confusion that affects >20% of hospitalised patients. Recent literature indicates that more severe delirium may lead to worse patient outcomes and health system outcomes, such as increased mortality, cognitive impairment and length of stay (LOS). Methods: using systematic review methodology, we summarised associations between delirium severity and patient or health system outcomes in hospitalised adults. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and Scopus databases with no restrictions, from inception to 25 October 2018. We included original observational research conducted in hospitalised adults that reported on associations between delirium severity and patient or health system outcomes. Quality of included articles was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The level of evidence was quantified based on the consistency of findings and quality of studies reporting on each outcome. Results: we included 20 articles evaluating associations that reported: mortality (n = 11), cognitive ability (n = 3), functional ability (n = 3), patient distress (n = 1), quality of life (n = 1), hospital LOS (n = 4), intensive care unit (ICU) LOS (n = 2) and discharge home (n = 2). There was strong-level evidence that delirium severity was associated with increased ICU LOS and a lower proportion of patients discharged home. There was inconclusive evidence for associations between delirium severity and mortality, hospital LOS, functional ability, cognitive ability, patient distress and quality of life. Conclusion: delirium severity is associated with increased ICU LOS and a lower proportion of patients discharged home. Delirium severity may be a useful adjunct to existing delirium screening to determine the burden to health care system resources.
Article
Full-text available
The novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2-causing Coronavirus Disease 19 (COVID-19), emerged as a public health threat in December 2019 and was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization in March 2020. Delirium, a dangerous untoward prognostic development, serves as a barometer of systemic injury in critical illness. The early reports of 25% encephalopathy from China are likely a gross underestimation, which we know occurs whenever delirium is not monitored with a valid tool. Indeed, patients with COVID-19 are at accelerated risk for delirium due to at least seven factors including (1) direct central nervous system (CNS) invasion, (2) induction of CNS inflammatory mediators, (3) secondary effect of other organ system failure, (4) effect of sedative strategies, (5) prolonged mechanical ventilation time, (6) immobilization, and (7) other needed but unfortunate environmental factors including social isolation and quarantine without family. Given early insights into the pathobiology of the virus, as well as the emerging interventions utilized to treat the critically ill patients, delirium prevention and management will prove exceedingly challenging, especially in the intensive care unit (ICU). The main focus during the COVID-19 pandemic lies within organizational issues, i.e., lack of ventilators, shortage of personal protection equipment, resource allocation, prioritization of limited mechanical ventilation options, and end-of-life care. However, the standard of care for ICU patients, including delirium management, must remain the highest quality possible with an eye towards long-term survival and minimization of issues related to post-intensive care syndrome (PICS). This article discusses how ICU professionals (e.g., physicians, nurses, physiotherapists, pharmacologists) can use our knowledge and resources to limit the burden of delirium on patients by reducing modifiable risk factors despite the imposed heavy workload and difficult clinical challenges posed by the pandemic.
Article
Full-text available
Background: Delirium is a serious and distressing neurocognitive disorder of physiological aetiology that is common in advanced cancer. Understanding of delirium pathophysiology is largely hypothetical, with some evidence for involvement of inflammatory systems, neurotransmitter alterations and glucose metabolism. To date, there has been limited empirical consideration of the distinction between delirium pathophysiology and that of the underlying disease, for example, cancer where these mechanisms are also common in advanced cancer syndromes such as pain and fatigue. This systematic review explores biomarker overlap in delirium, specific advanced cancer-related syndromes and prediction of cancer prognosis. Methods: A systematic review (PROSPERO CRD42017068662) was conducted, using MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL and Web of Science, to identify body fluid biomarkers in delirium, cancer prognosis and advanced cancer-related syndromes of interest. Studies were excluded if they reported delirium tremens only; did not measure delirium using a validated tool; the sample had less than 75% of participants with advanced cancer; measured tissue, genetic or animal biomarkers, or were conducted post-mortem. Articles were screened for inclusion independently by two authors, and data extraction and an in-depth quality assessment conducted by one author, and checked by two others. Results: The 151 included studies were conducted in diverse settings in 32 countries between 1985 and 2017, involving 28130 participants with a mean age of 69.3 years. Seventy-one studies investigated delirium biomarkers, and 80 studies investigated biomarkers of an advanced cancer-related syndrome or cancer prognosis. Overall, 41 biomarkers were studied in relation to both delirium and either an advanced cancer-related syndrome or prognosis; and of these, 24 biomarkers were positively associated with either delirium or advanced cancer syndromes/prognosis in at least one study. The quality assessment showed large inconsistency in reporting. Conclusion: There is considerable overlap in the biomarkers in delirium and advanced cancer-related syndromes. Improving the design of delirium biomarker studies and considering appropriate comparator/controls will help to better understanding the discrete pathophysiology of delirium in the context of co-existing illness.
Article
Full-text available
Résumé Les effets psychologiques de l’isolement ont déjà été décrits dans la littérature (expéditions polaires, sous-marins, prison). Néanmoins l’échelle du confinement mis en œuvre à l’occasion de la pandémie à COVID-19 est inédite. Il nous faut non seulement relire les études publiées, mais aussi anticiper les problèmes psychologiques qui pourraient survenir pendant ou à distance du confinement. Nous avons fait le choix d’aller au-delà de la littérature COVID-19 pour examiner les implications des conséquences connues du confinement : l’ennui, l’isolement social, le stress, le manque de sommeil. L’anxiété, le trouble de stress post-traumatique, la dépression et les conduites suicidaires, les conduites addictives, les violences domestiques sont des effets décrits du confinement, mais les mécanismes d’émergence de ces troubles et leurs interrelations restent à étudier. Par exemple, quels sont les mécanismes d’émergence du trouble de post-traumatique dans le cadre du confinement ? Nous rappelons aussi les points de vigilance à garder sur des conséquences telles que les troubles des conduites alimentaires, les hallucinations, curieusement ignorées dans la littérature sur le confinement, alors qu’une vaste littérature fait le lien entre isolement social et hallucinations. Du fait de conséquences psychopathologiques larges, il nous faut partir à la recherche des différents symptômes pour permettre leur prise en charge. Nous résumons rapidement les approches diagnostiques et thérapeutiques déjà mises en place, comme la télémédecine, qui connaît un développement rapide à l’occasion de la crise du COVID-19.
Article
Full-text available
Importance The outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Wuhan, China, is serious and has the potential to become an epidemic worldwide. Several studies have described typical clinical manifestations including fever, cough, diarrhea, and fatigue. However, to our knowledge, it has not been reported that patients with COVID-19 had any neurologic manifestations. Objective To study the neurologic manifestations of patients with COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants This is a retrospective, observational case series. Data were collected from January 16, 2020, to February 19, 2020, at 3 designated special care centers for COVID-19 (Main District, West Branch, and Tumor Center) of the Union Hospital of Huazhong University of Science and Technology in Wuhan, China. The study included 214 consecutive hospitalized patients with laboratory-confirmed diagnosis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection. Main Outcomes and Measures Clinical data were extracted from electronic medical records, and data of all neurologic symptoms were checked by 2 trained neurologists. Neurologic manifestations fell into 3 categories: central nervous system manifestations (dizziness, headache, impaired consciousness, acute cerebrovascular disease, ataxia, and seizure), peripheral nervous system manifestations (taste impairment, smell impairment, vision impairment, and nerve pain), and skeletal muscular injury manifestations. Results Of 214 patients (mean [SD] age, 52.7 [15.5] years; 87 men [40.7%]) with COVID-19, 126 patients (58.9%) had nonsevere infection and 88 patients (41.1%) had severe infection according to their respiratory status. Overall, 78 patients (36.4%) had neurologic manifestations. Compared with patients with nonsevere infection, patients with severe infection were older, had more underlying disorders, especially hypertension, and showed fewer typical symptoms of COVID-19, such as fever and cough. Patients with more severe infection had neurologic manifestations, such as acute cerebrovascular diseases (5 [5.7%] vs 1 [0.8%]), impaired consciousness (13 [14.8%] vs 3 [2.4%]), and skeletal muscle injury (17 [19.3%] vs 6 [4.8%]). Conclusions and Relevance Patients with COVID-19 commonly have neurologic manifestations. During the epidemic period of COVID-19, when seeing patients with neurologic manifestations, clinicians should suspect severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection as a differential diagnosis to avoid delayed diagnosis or misdiagnosis and lose the chance to treat and prevent further transmission.
Article
Full-text available
On 31 December 2019, a severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) emerged in Wuhan, Hubei province, China, and caused the outbreak of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). To date, computed tomography (CT) findings have been recommended as major evidence for the clinical diagnosis of COVID-19 in Hubei, China. This review focuses on the imaging characteristics and changes throughout the disease course in patients with COVID-19 in order to provide some help for clinicians. Typical CT findings included bilateral ground-glass opacity, pulmonary consolidation, and prominent distribution in the posterior and peripheral parts of the lungs. This review also provides a comparison between COVID-19 and other diseases that have similar CT findings. Since most patients with COVID-19 infection share typical imaging features, radiological examinations have an irreplaceable role in screening, diagnosis and monitoring treatment effects in clinical practice.
Article
Full-text available
We performed a network meta-analysis to build clear hierarchies of efficacy and tolerability of pharmacological interventions for the treatment and prevention of delirium. Electronic databases including PubMed, Google Scholar, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PsycINFO, and MEDLINE were searched published up to February 22, 2019. A total of 108 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating pharmacotherapy on delirium were included for analysis, and the strength of evidence (SoE) was evaluated for critical outcomes. In terms of treatment, quetiapine (low SoE), morphine (low SoE), and dexmedetomidine (moderate SoE) were effective in the intensive care unit (ICU) patients. In terms of prevention, dexmedetomidine (high SoE) and risperidone (high SoE) significantly reduced the incidence of delirium in ICU surgical patients, while ramelteon (high SoE) reduced the incidence of delirium in ICU medical patients. Despite the efficacy, dexmedetomidine and risperidone demonstrated higher drop-out rate (moderate to high SoE). Haloperidol and other antipsychotics, except for quetiapine and risperidone, showed no benefit. None of the agents showed benefit in non-ICU patients. In conclusion, dexmedetomidine may be a drug of choice for both treating and preventing delirium of the ICU and postsurgical patients. However, it may be less tolerable, and side-effects should be adequately managed. Current evidence does not support the routine use of antipsychotics. For medical patients, oral ramelteon might be useful for prevention.
Article
Full-text available
Background Long-term care facilities are high-risk settings for severe outcomes from outbreaks of Covid-19, owing to both the advanced age and frequent chronic underlying health conditions of the residents and the movement of health care personnel among facilities in a region. Methods After identification on February 28, 2020, of a confirmed case of Covid-19 in a skilled nursing facility in King County, Washington, Public Health–Seattle and King County, aided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, launched a case investigation, contact tracing, quarantine of exposed persons, isolation of confirmed and suspected cases, and on-site enhancement of infection prevention and control. Results As of March 18, a total of 167 confirmed cases of Covid-19 affecting 101 residents, 50 health care personnel, and 16 visitors were found to be epidemiologically linked to the facility. Most cases among residents included respiratory illness consistent with Covid-19; however, in 7 residents no symptoms were documented. Hospitalization rates for facility residents, visitors, and staff were 54.5%, 50.0%, and 6.0%, respectively. The case fatality rate for residents was 33.7% (34 of 101). As of March 18, a total of 30 long-term care facilities with at least one confirmed case of Covid-19 had been identified in King County. Conclusions In the context of rapidly escalating Covid-19 outbreaks, proactive steps by long-term care facilities to identify and exclude potentially infected staff and visitors, actively monitor for potentially infected patients, and implement appropriate infection prevention and control measures are needed to prevent the introduction of Covid-19.
Article
Full-text available
On February 28, 2020, a case of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) was identified in a woman resident of a long-term care skilled nursing facility (facility A) in King County, Washington.* Epidemiologic investigation of facility A identified 129 cases of COVID-19 associated with facility A, including 81 of the residents, 34 staff members, and 14 visitors; 23 persons died. Limitations in effective infection control and prevention and staff members working in multiple facilities contributed to intra- and interfacility spread. COVID-19 can spread rapidly in long-term residential care facilities, and persons with chronic underlying medical conditions are at greater risk for COVID-19-associated severe disease and death. Long-term care facilities should take proactive steps to protect the health of residents and preserve the health care workforce by identifying and excluding potentially infected staff members and visitors, ensuring early recognition of potentially infected patients, and implementing appropriate infection control measures.
Article
Full-text available
Background: Since December 2019, when coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) emerged in Wuhan city and rapidly spread throughout China, data have been needed on the clinical characteristics of the affected patients. Methods: We extracted data regarding 1099 patients with laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 from 552 hospitals in 30 provinces, autonomous regions, and municipalities in China through January 29, 2020. The primary composite end point was admission to an intensive care unit (ICU), the use of mechanical ventilation, or death. Results: The median age of the patients was 47 years; 41.9% of the patients were female. The primary composite end point occurred in 67 patients (6.1%), including 5.0% who were admitted to the ICU, 2.3% who underwent invasive mechanical ventilation, and 1.4% who died. Only 1.9% of the patients had a history of direct contact with wildlife. Among nonresidents of Wuhan, 72.3% had contact with residents of Wuhan, including 31.3% who had visited the city. The most common symptoms were fever (43.8% on admission and 88.7% during hospitalization) and cough (67.8%). Diarrhea was uncommon (3.8%). The median incubation period was 4 days (interquartile range, 2 to 7). On admission, ground-glass opacity was the most common radiologic finding on chest computed tomography (CT) (56.4%). No radiographic or CT abnormality was found in 157 of 877 patients (17.9%) with nonsevere disease and in 5 of 173 patients (2.9%) with severe disease. Lymphocytopenia was present in 83.2% of the patients on admission. Conclusions: During the first 2 months of the current outbreak, Covid-19 spread rapidly throughout China and caused varying degrees of illness. Patients often presented without fever, and many did not have abnormal radiologic findings. (Funded by the National Health Commission of China and others.).
Article
Delirium, a syndrome characterized by an acute change in attention, awareness and cognition, is caused by a medical condition that cannot be better explained by a pre-existing neurocognitive disorder. Multiple predisposing factors (for example, pre-existing cognitive impairment) and precipitating factors (for example, urinary tract infection) for delirium have been described, with most patients having both types. Because multiple factors are implicated in the aetiology of delirium, there are likely several neurobiological processes that contribute to delirium pathogenesis, including neuroinflammation, brain vascular dysfunction, altered brain metabolism, neurotransmitter imbalance and impaired neuronal network connectivity. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition (DSM-5) is the most commonly used diagnostic system upon which a reference standard diagnosis is made, although many other delirium screening tools have been developed given the impracticality of using the DSM-5 in many settings. Pharmacological treatments for delirium (such as antipsychotic drugs) are not effective, reflecting substantial gaps in our understanding of its pathophysiology. Currently, the best management strategies are multidomain interventions that focus on treating precipitating conditions, medication review, managing distress, mitigating complications and maintaining engagement to environmental issues. The effective implementation of delirium detection, treatment and prevention strategies remains a major challenge for health-care organizations globally. Delirium is a severe neuropsychiatric syndrome characterized by an acute change in attention, awareness and cognition and is caused by various medical conditions. This Primer reviews the epidemiology, pathophysiology, diagnosis and classification of delirium as well as its management approaches and discusses future directions in delirium research and treatment.
Article
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES Delirium manifests clinically in varying ways across settings. More than 40 instruments currently exist for characterizing the different manifestations of delirium. We evaluated all delirium identification instruments according to their psychometric properties and frequency of citation in published research. DESIGN We conducted the systematic review by searching Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Cochrane Library, Excerpta Medica Database (Embase), PsycINFO, PubMed, and Web of Science from January 1, 1974, to January 31, 2020, with the keywords “delirium” and “instruments,” along with their known synonyms. We selected only systematic reviews, meta‐analyses, or narrative literature reviews including multiple delirium identification instruments. MEASUREMENTS Two reviewers assessed the eligibility of articles and extracted data on all potential delirium identification instruments. Using the original publication on each instrument, the psychometric properties were examined using the Consensus‐based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) framework. RESULTS Of 2,542 articles identified, 75 met eligibility criteria, yielding 30 different delirium identification instruments. A count of citations was determined using Scopus for the original publication for each instrument. Each instrument underwent methodological quality review of psychometric properties using COSMIN definitions. An expert panel categorized key domains for delirium identification based on criteria from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)‐III through DSM‐5. Four instruments were notable for having at least two of three of the following: citation count of 200 or more, strong validation methodology in their original publication, and fulfillment of DSM‐5 criteria. These were, alphabetically, Confusion Assessment Method, Delirium Observation Screening Scale, Delirium Rating Scale‐Revised‐98, and Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale. CONCLUSION Four commonly used and well‐validated instruments can be recommended for clinical and research use. An important area for future investigation is to harmonize these measures to compare and combine studies on delirium.
Article
Rationale: Physical restraints are used liberally in some Intensive Care Units (ICUs) to prevent patient harm from device removal or falls. While the intention of restraint use is patient safety, their application may inadvertently cause physical or psychological harm. Physical restraints may contribute to Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) but there is paucity of supportive data. Objectives: To investigate the association between physical restraint use and PTSD symptoms in ICU survivors. Secondary objectives were to examine the cognitive and physical outcomes associated with physical restraint use, and assess interventions that maybe effective in reducing restraint use. Methods: A systematic review of English language studies in PubMed, Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and CENTRAL between 01/01/1990-02/08/2020 was performed. Observational or randomized studies that reported on restraint use and associated outcomes, or interventions to reduce restraint use, in critically ill adult patients were identified. Two independent reviewers completed the review in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Results: We identified 794 articles of which 37 met inclusion criteria and were included. Thirty of these studies related to patient outcomes including PTSD, delirium, mechanical ventilation hours and physical injury. Seven related to interventions to reduce physical restraint use. The quality of studies was not high, only 4 of the included studies were assessed to have a low risk of bias. Three studies found a significant relationship between restraint use and PTSD, but their results could not be pooled for analysis. Pooled data indicated a significant association between physical restraint use and delirium (OR 11.54, 95% CI 6.66-20.01, p<0.001) and duration of mechanical ventilation (mean difference in days 3.35, 95%CI 1.95-4.75, p<0.001). We also found that interventions, such as nursing education, may effectively reduce restraint use by approximately 50% (OR=0.48, 95%CI 0.32-0.73, p<0.001). The impact that a reduction in restraint use may have on associated outcomes was not examined. Conclusion: Physical restraint use may be associated with PTSD in ICU survivors, and is associated with delirium and longer duration of mechanical ventilation. Nurse education is likely effective in reducing rates of physical restraint amongst ICU patients.
Article
Collectif Doloplus: twenty-five years supporting the fight against pain in the elderly. Speech and communication disorders among the elderly can be an obstacle in the detection and evaluation of pain. In these conditions, the Doloplus and Algoplus (heteroassessment) behavioural scales should be used. This article provides an overview of the guidelines for using these two scales and the role each has in daily practice. It also shows the impact a high-quality evaluative approach can have on the care provided.
Article
Background and objective: Early detection of delirium in skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) is a priority. The extent to which delirium screening leads to a potentially inappropriate diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease and related dementia (ADRD) is unknown. Design: Nationwide retrospective cohort study from 2011 to 2013. Setting: An SNF. Participants: A total of 1,175,550 Medicare enrollees who entered the SNF from a hospital and had no prior diagnosis of dementia. Exposure: A positive screen for delirium using the validated Confusion Assessment Method (CAM), performed as part of the federally mandated Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment. Measurements: Incident all-cause dementia, ascertained through International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9), diagnosis in Medicare claims or active diagnoses in MDS. Results: Positive screening for delirium was identified in 7.7% of cases (n = 90,449), and most occurred within the first 7 days of SNF admission (62.5%). The overall incidence of ADRD was 6.3% (n = 73,542). Nearly all new diagnoses of ADRD (93.5%) occurred within the first 30 days of SNF admission. Patients who screened CAM positive for delirium had a nearly threefold increased risk of receiving an incident ADRD diagnosis on the same day (hazard ratio (HR) = 2.63; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.50-4.63). Among patients who screened CAM positive for delirium, those who were cognitively intact or had mild cognitive impairments were, on average, six times more likely to receive an incident ADRD diagnosis (HR = 6.64; 95% CI = 1.76-25.0) relative to those testing CAM negative. Conclusion and relevance: Among older adults not previously diagnosed with dementia, a positive screen for delirium was significantly associated with higher risk of ADRD diagnosis after admission to a SNF. This risk was highest for patients in the first days of their stay and with the least cognitive impairment, suggesting that the ADRD diagnosis was potentially inappropriate.
Article
Background/objectives: Systematic screening can improve detection of delirium, but lack of time is often cited as why such screening is not performed. We investigated the time required to implement four screening protocols that use the Ultra-Brief two-item screener for delirium (UB-2) and the 3-Minute Diagnostic Interview for Confusion Assessment Method (CAM)-defined Delirium (3D-CAM), with and without a skip pattern that can further shorten the assessment. Our objective was to compare the sensitivity, specificity, and time required to complete four protocols: (1) full 3D-CAM on all patients, (2) 3D-CAM with skip on all patients, (3) UB-2, followed by the full 3D-CAM in "positives," and (4) UB-2, followed by the 3D-CAM with skip in "positives." Design: Comparative efficiency simulation study using secondary data. Setting: Two studies (3D-CAM and Researching Efficient Approaches to Delirium Identification (READI)) conducted at a large academic medical center (3D-CAM and READI) and a small community hospital (READI only). Participants: General medicine inpatients, aged 70 years and older (3D-CAM, n = 201; READI, n = 330). Measurements: We used 3D-CAM data to simulate the items administered under each protocol and READI data to calculate median administration time per item. We calculated sensitivity, specificity, and total administration time for each of the four protocols. Results: The 3D-CAM and READI samples had similar characteristics, and all four protocols had similar simulated sensitivity and specificity. Mean administration times were 3 minutes 13 seconds for 3D-CAM, 2 minutes 19 seconds for 3D-CAM with skip, 1 minute 52 seconds for UB-2 + 3D-CAM in positives, and 1 minute 14 seconds for UB-2 + 3D-CAM with skip in positives, which was 1 minute 59 seconds faster than the 3D-CAM (P < .001). Conclusion: The UB-CAM, consisting of the UB-2, followed in positives by the 3D-CAM with skip pattern, is a time-efficient delirium screening protocol that holds promise for increasing systematic screening for delirium in hospitalized older adults.
Article
Introduction: Delirium is a frequent condition in hospitalized older patients and it usually has a negative prognostic value. A direct effect of SARS-COV-2 on the central nervous system (CNS) has been hypothesized. Objective: To evaluate the presence of delirium in older patients admitted for a suspected diagnosis of COVID-19 and its impact on in-hospital mortality. Setting and subjects: 91 patients, aged 70-years and older, admitted to an acute geriatric ward in Northern Italy from March 8th to April 17th, 2020. Methods: COVID-19 cases were confirmed by reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction assay for SARS-Cov-2 RNA from nasal and pharyngeal swabs. Delirium was diagnosed by two geriatricians according to the DSM-V criteria. The number of chronic diseases was calculated among a pre-defined list of 60. The pre-disease Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) was assessed at hospital admission. Results: Of the total sample, 39 patients died, 49 were discharged and 3 were transferred to ICU. Twenty-five patients (27.5%) had delirium. Seventy-two percent of patients with delirium died during hospitalization compared to 31.8% of those without delirium. In a multivariate logistic regression model adjusted for potential confounders, patients with delirium were four times more likely to die during hospital stay compared to those without delirium (OR = 3.98;95%CI = 1.05-17.28; p = 0.047). Conclusions: Delirium is common in older patients with COVID-19 and strongly associated with in-hospital mortality. Regardless of causation, either due to a direct effect of SARS-COV-2 on the CNS or to a multifactorial cause, delirium should be interpreted as an alarming prognostic indicator in older people.
Article
Objective To compare non-pharmacological interventions in their ability to prevent delirium in critically ill patients, and find the optimal regimen for treatment. Methods Literature searches were conducted using PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library databases until the end of June 2019. We estimated the risk ratios (RRs) for the incidence of delirium and in-hospital mortality and found the mean difference (MD) for delirium duration and the length of ICU stay. The probabilities of interventions were ranked based on clinical outcomes. The study was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020160757). Results Twenty-six eligible studies were included in the network meta-analysis. Studies were grouped into seven intervention types: physical environment intervention (PEI), sedation reducing (SR), family participation (FP), exercise program (EP), cerebral hemodynamics improving (CHI), multi-component studies (MLT) and usual care (UC). In term of reducing the incidence of delirium, the two most effective interventions were FP (risk ratio (RR) 0.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.08 to 0.44; surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) = 94%) and MLT (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.57; SUCRA = 68%) compared with observation. Although all interventions demonstrated nonsignificant efficacy in regards to delirium duration and the length of the patient's stay in the ICU, MLT (SUCRA = 78.6% and 71.2%, respectively) was found to be the most effective intervention strategy. In addition, EP (SUCRA = 97.2%) facilitated a significant reduction in hospital mortality, followed in efficacy by MLT (SUCRA = 73.2%), CHI (SUCRA = 35.8%), PEI (SUCRA = 34.8%), and SR (SUCRA = 31.8%). Conclusions Multi-component strategies are overall the optimal intervention techniques for preventing delirium and reducing ICU length of stay in critically ill patients by way of utilizing several interventions simultaneously. Additionally, family participation as a method of patient-centered care resulted in better outcomes for reducing the incidence of delirium.
Article
Objectives Postoperative delirium (POD) is the most common complication in patients after hip fracture surgery, and the incidence of POD is associated with mortality and disability in patients following hip fracture surgery. Therefore, this study aimed to identify the individual as well as anesthetic and operative risk factors associated with the POD in adult patients after hip fracture surgery. Methods We searched relevant articles published to February 2020 in Cochrane Library, PubMed and Embase. Studies involving adult patients who underwent hip fracture surgery were regarded as relevant if the studies contained the individual or anesthetic and surgical characteristic of participants. The pooled relative risk ratios or weight mean difference of the variables were estimated by the Mantel–Haenszel or Inverse‐Variance methods. Results A total of 44 studies were included, which altogether included 104572 participants with hip fracture surgery (17703 patients with POD and 86869 patients without POD) and the incidence of POD was 16.93%. A total of 14 risk factors, classified into two categories which were individual as well as anesthetic and operative factors, were identified originally, which included age(WMD:2.33;95%CI: 1.64~3.03), sex(RR:0.89; 95%CI:0.85~0.93), American society of Anesthesiologists classification(RR:0.56; 95%CI:0.51~0.59), Body Mass Index(WMD:‐0.62; 95%CI:‐0.81~ ‐0.44), function dependency(RR:1.52; 95%CI:1.24~1.87), visual impairment(RR:1.62; 95%CI:1.16~2.27), smoking(RR:0.86; 95%CI:0.79~0.94), preoperative delirium(RR:2.71; 95%CI:2.50~2.72), dementia(RR:2.60; 95%CI:2.50~2.72), hypertension(RR:1.10; 95%CI:1.04~1.15), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease(RR:1.08; 95%CI:1.01~1.16), regional anesthesia(RR:1.20;95%CI:1.01~1.43), transfusion(RR:1.41; 95%CI:1.22~1.63) and elective surgery(RR:0.91; 95%CI:0.84~0.99). Conclusions Patients possessed above risk factors might be high‐risk patients. Clinician should maintain keen vigilance at those patients. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Objective To systematically review the delirium risk prediction models for intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Methods A systematic review was conducted. The Cochrane Library, PubMed, Ovid and Web of Science were searched to collect studies on delirium risk prediction models for ICU patients from database establishment to 31 March 2019. Two reviewers independently screened the literature according to the pre-determined inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracted the data and evaluated the risk of bias of the included studies using the CHARMS (CHecklist for critical Appraisal and data extraction for systematic Reviews of prediction Modelling Studies) checklist. A descriptive analysis was used to describe and summarise the data. Results A total of six models were included. All studies reported the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of the prediction models in the derivation and (or) validation datasets as over 0.7 (from 0.75 to 0.9). Five models reported calibration metrics. Decreased cognitive reserve and the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE-II) score were the most commonly reported predisposing and precipitating factors, respectively, of ICU delirium among all models. The small sample size, lack of external validation and the absence of or unreported blinding method increased the risk of bias. Conclusion According to the discrimination and calibration statistics reported in the original studies, six prediction models may have moderate power in predicting ICU delirium. However, this finding should be interpreted with caution due to the risk of bias in the included studies. More clinical studies should be carried out to validate whether these tools have satisfactory predictive performance in delirium risk prediction for ICU patients.
Article
Importance Delirium is associated with increased hospital costs, health care complications, and increased mortality. Long-term consequences of delirium on cognition have not been synthesized and quantified via meta-analysis. Objective To determine if an episode of delirium was an independent risk factor for long-term cognitive decline, and if it was, whether it was causative or an epiphenomenon in already compromised individuals. Data Sources A systematic search in PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase was conducted from January 1, 1965, to December 31, 2018. A systematic review guided by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses was conducted. Search terms included delirium AND postoperative cognitive dysfunction; delirium and cognitive decline; delirium AND dementia; and delirium AND memory. Study Selection Inclusion criteria for studies included contrast between groups with delirium and without delirium; an objective continuous or binary measure of cognitive outcome; a final time point of 3 or more months after the delirium episode. The electronic search was conducted according to established methodologies and was executed on October 17, 2018. Data Extraction and Synthesis Three authors extracted data on individual characteristics, study design, and outcome, followed by a second independent check on outcome measures. Effect sizes were calculated as Hedges g. If necessary, binary outcomes were also converted to g. Only a single effect size was calculated for each study. Main Outcomes and Measures The planned main outcome was magnitude of cognitive decline in Hedges g effect size in delirium groups when contrasted with groups that did not experience delirium. Results Of 1583 articles, data subjected from the 24 studies (including 3562 patients who experienced delirium and 6987 controls who did not) were included in a random-effects meta-analysis for pooled effect estimates and random-effects meta-regressions to identify sources of study variance. One study was excluded as an outlier. There was a significant association between delirium and long-term cognitive decline, as the estimated effect size (Hedges g) for 23 studies was 0.45 (95% CI, 0.34-0.57; P < .001). In all studies, the group that experienced delirium had worse cognition at the final time point. The I² measure of between-study variability in g was 0.81. A multivariable meta-regression suggested that duration of follow-up (longer with larger gs), number of covariates controlled (greater numbers were associated with smaller gs), and baseline cognitive matching (matching was associated with larger gs) were significant sources of variance. More specialized subgroup and meta-regressions were consistent with predictions that suggested that delirium may be a causative factor in cognitive decline. Conclusions and Relevance In this meta-analysis, delirium was significantly associated with long-term cognitive decline in both surgical and nonsurgical patients.
Article
Background The COVID-19 pandemic, caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), is of a scale not seen since the 1918 influenza pandemic. Although the predominant clinical presentation is with respiratory disease, neurological manifestations are being recognised increasingly. On the basis of knowledge of other coronaviruses, especially those that caused the severe acute respiratory syndrome and Middle East respiratory syndrome epidemics, cases of CNS and peripheral nervous system disease caused by SARS-CoV-2 might be expected to be rare. Recent developments A growing number of case reports and series describe a wide array of neurological manifestations in 901 patients, but many have insufficient detail, reflecting the challenge of studying such patients. Encephalopathy has been reported for 93 patients in total, including 16 (7%) of 214 hospitalised patients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China, and 40 (69%) of 58 patients in intensive care with COVID-19 in France. Encephalitis has been described in eight patients to date, and Guillain-Barré syndrome in 19 patients. SARS-CoV-2 has been detected in the CSF of some patients. Anosmia and ageusia are common, and can occur in the absence of other clinical features. Unexpectedly, acute cerebrovascular disease is also emerging as an important complication, with cohort studies reporting stroke in 2–6% of patients hospitalised with COVID-19. So far, 96 patients with stroke have been described, who frequently had vascular events in the context of a pro-inflammatory hypercoagulable state with elevated C-reactive protein, D-dimer, and ferritin. Where next? Careful clinical, diagnostic, and epidemiological studies are needed to help define the manifestations and burden of neurological disease caused by SARS-CoV-2. Precise case definitions must be used to distinguish non-specific complications of severe disease (eg, hypoxic encephalopathy and critical care neuropathy) from those caused directly or indirectly by the virus, including infectious, para-infectious, and post-infectious encephalitis, hypercoagulable states leading to stroke, and acute neuropathies such as Guillain-Barré syndrome. Recognition of neurological disease associated with SARS-CoV-2 in patients whose respiratory infection is mild or asymptomatic might prove challenging, especially if the primary COVID-19 illness occurred weeks earlier. The proportion of infections leading to neurological disease will probably remain small. However, these patients might be left with severe neurological sequelae. With so many people infected, the overall number of neurological patients, and their associated health burden and social and economic costs might be large. Health-care planners and policy makers must prepare for this eventuality, while the many ongoing studies investigating neurological associations increase our knowledge base.
Preprint
Objective: Detection of delirium in hospitalised older adults is recommended in national and international guidelines. The 4 'A's Test (4AT) is a short (<2 min) instrument for delirium detection that is used internationally as a standard tool in clinical practice. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy of the 4AT for delirium detection. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, clinicaltrials.gov and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, from 2011 (year of 4AT release on the website www.the4AT.com) until 21 December 2019. Inclusion criteria were: older adults (≥65y); diagnostic accuracy study of the 4AT index test when compared to delirium reference standard (standard diagnostic criteria or validated tool). Methodological quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. Pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity were generated from a bivariate random effects model. Results: 17 studies (3721 observations) were included. Settings were acute medicine, surgery, a care home, and the emergency department. Three studies assessed performance of the 4AT in stroke. The overall prevalence of delirium was 24.2% (95% CI 17.8-32%; range 10.5-61.9%). The pooled sensitivity was 0.88 (95% CI 0.80-0.93) and the pooled specificity was 0.88 (95% CI 0.82-0.92). Excluding the stroke studies, the pooled sensitivity was 0.86 (95% CI 0.77-0.92) and the pooled specificity was 0.89 (95% CI 0.83-0.93). The methodological quality of studies varied but was moderate to good. Conclusions: The 4AT shows good diagnostic test accuracy for delirium in the 17 available studies. These findings support its use in routine clinical practice in delirium detection.
Article
Résumé Objectif: L’évaluation de la qualité de la prescription médicamenteuse chez les personnes âgées reste une préoccupation permanente et un levier majeur d’amélioration de la prise en charge des patients. L’objectif de cet article est de proposer, une liste de médicaments potentiellement inappropriés (MPI) adaptée à la pratique française. Méthode: Combinaison d’un outil explicite, la dernière mise à jour de la liste européenne EU(7)PIM publiée en 2015, adaptéeà la pratique française (disponibilité des médicaments et leurs indications), et d’un outil implicite, les recommandations de la Haute autorité de santé (HAS) et plus précisément l’outil « Alerte et maitrise de la iatrogénie » (AMI). Résultats: Parmi les 289 MPI identifiés dans l’EU(7)PIM list, 189 remplissaient les critères établis pour notre méthode. Trois médicaments ont été rajoutés sur la liste des médicaments « discutables » de l’EU(7)PIM list en accord avec les nouvelles recommandations françaises. Au total, 90 médicaments ont été donc retiré de la liste EU(7)PIM selon leurs indications ou leur commercialisation en France. Conclusion: Ce travail a été élaboré pour une adaptation de la liste européenne à la pratique française tout en prenant en compte les recommandations de la HAS. Cette liste facilite l’identification des MPI par les médecins français. Comme toutes les listes, elle nécessitera des mises à jour régulières.
Article
Purpose To assess the efficacy and safety of suvorexant for the prevention of delirium during acute hospitalization. Materials and methods Pubmed (1946 to December 2019) and Embase (1947 to December 2019) were queried using the search term combination: delirium, confusion, cognitive defect, encephalopathy, critically ill patient, critical illness, or hospitalization and suvorexant or orexin receptor antagonist. Studies analyzed for relevance evaluated clinical outcomes of patients treated with suvorexant for prevention of delirium. Studies appropriate to the objective were evaluated, including two randomized controlled trials and four retrospective studies. Results In acutely hospitalized patients, treatment with suvorexant 15 to 20 mg alone or in combination with ramelteon resulted in a reduction in development of delirium, time until delirium onset, and length of hospital stay. When assessed, suvorexant was well tolerated and adverse effects were no worse than placebo. Conclusion Based on the reviewed literature, suvorexant has shown positive outcomes in the prevention of delirium during an acute hospitalization. Larger trials comparing the efficacy of suvorexant to other sleep modulating options are necessary to further delineate its role for the prevention of delirium.
Article
A 73-year-old man with hypertension and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease reports that he has had fever, cough, and shortness of breath for 2 days. His medications include losartan and inhaled glucocorticoids. He lives alone. How should he be evaluated? If he has coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), the disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), then how should he be treated?
Article
Delirium is defined as an acute disturbance in attention and cognition, with significant associated morbidity and mortality. This article discusses the basic epidemiology of delirium and approaches to diagnosing, assessing, and working up patients for delirium. It delineates the pathophysiology and underlying predisposing and precipitating factors for delirium. It also discusses recent advances in prevention and treatment, particularly multicomponent, nonpharmacological interventions.
Article
Un nouvel article sur l’empathie et le soin, quelle utilité vu l’engouement des publications sur le sujet ? Le présent écrit interroge les possibilités d’enseignement de l’empathie auprès des étudiants en médecine et en soins infirmiers. Pour ce faire, une proposition de définition est formulée ainsi qu’une revue de la littérature précisant ses effets dans les soins et ses possibilités d’enseignement auprès des étudiants et des professionnels en poste. A new article about empathy and care, what use given the popularity of publications on the subject? This article questions the possibilities of teaching empathy to medical and nursing students. To do this, a definition proposal is formulated as well as a review of the literature on its effects in care and its educational opportunities for students and working professionals.
Article
There is a higher incidence of status epilepticus in the older adult population that commonly presents as nonconvulsive status epilepticus (NCSE). NCSE most often corresponds to prolonged focal seizures with impaired consciousness with three main clinical presentations: i) an unexplained acute confusional state, ii) subtle eye, motor or behavioral signs or mood changes and iii) typical temporal or frontal seizures with impaired consciousness. Focal seizures without impaired consciousness or de novo absence status of late onset may also be met. The identified risk factors for NCSE onset are: a precession by a generalized tonic-clonic seizure, a known history of epilepsy, female gender, and an acute symptomatic cause or a known brain injury (especially a stroke sequelae). Diagnosis in this population may be difficult, as the clinical presentation is often not very suggestive (stupor, confusion, even coma), and requires an unrestricted use of EEG with an EEG diagnosis based on the EEG with now accepted criteria (so-called Salzburg EEG criteria). The treatment is based first on the injection of benzodiazepines and in the second line on intravenous or oral or gastric tube administration of antiepileptic drugs. It is not recommended to resort to an intubation-ventilation (except necessary to treat respiratory distress, multi-organ failure…). Prognosis is poor with about 30% mortality.
Article
Delirium is a prevalent acute neurocognitive condition in patients with progressive life-limiting illness. Delirium remains underdetected; a systematic approach to screening is essential. Delirium at the end of life requires a comprehensive assessment. Consider the potential for reversibility, illness trajectory, patient preference, and goals of care before proceeding with investigations and interventions. Management should be interdisciplinary, and nonpharmacologic therapy is fundamental. For patients with refractory and severe agitation or perceptual disturbance, judicious use of medication may also be required. Carers and family should be seen as partners in care and be involved in shared decision making about care.
Article
Background: Delirium is a very common condition associated with significant morbidity, mortality, and costs. Current critical care guidelines recommend first and foremost the use of nonpharmacological strategies in both the prevention and treatment of delirium. Pharmacological interventions may augment these approaches and they are currently used widely in clinical practice to manage the symptoms of delirium. Benzodiazepines are currently used in clinical practice to treat behavioural disturbances associated with delirium but current guidelines do not recommend their use for this indication. The use of these medicines is controversial because there is uncertainty about whether they are effective for patients or have the potential to harm them. Objectives: To assess the effectiveness and safety of benzodiazepines in the treatment of delirium (excluding delirium related to withdrawal from alcohol or benzodiazepines) in any healthcare settings other than intensive care units (ICU). Search methods: We searched ALOIS: the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's Specialized Register up to 10 April 2019. ALOIS contains records of clinical trials identified from monthly searches of a number of major healthcare databases (including MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS), numerous trial registries (including national, international and pharmaceutical registries), and grey literature sources. Selection criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in healthcare settings that ranged from nursing homes and long-term care facilities to any hospital setting except for ICUs, involving adult patients with delirium excluding those with delirium related to alcohol or benzodiazepine withdrawal. Included RCTs had to assess the effect of benzodiazepines, at any dose and given by any route, compared with placebo or another drug intended to treat delirium. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. We decided whether or not to pool data on the basis of clinical heterogeneity between studies. We used GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methods to assess the quality of evidence. Main results: We identified only two trials that satisfied the selection criteria. We did not pool the data because of the substantial clinical differences between the trials. In one trial, participants (n = 58) were patients in an acute palliative care unit with advanced cancer who had a mean age of 64 years. All of the participants had delirium, were treated with haloperidol, and were randomised to receive either lorazepam or placebo in combination with it. Due to very serious imprecision, all evidence was of low certainty. We were unable to determine whether there were clinically important differences in the severity of delirium (mean difference (MD) 2.10, 95% CI -0.96 to 5.16; n = 50), length of hospital admission (MD 0.00, 95% CI -3.45 to 3.45; n = 58), mortality from all causes (risk ratio (RR) 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.02; participants = 58) or any of a number of adverse events. Important effects could not be confirmed or excluded. The study authors did not report the length of the delirium episode. In the other trial, participants (n = 30) were patients in general medical wards with acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) who had a mean age of 39.2 years. Investigators compared three drug treatments: all participants had delirium, and were randomised to receive lorazepam, chlorpromazine, or haloperidol. Very low-certainty evidence was identified, and we could not determine whether lorazepam differed from either of the other treatments in the effect on severity of delirium, any adverse event, or mortality from all causes. The study authors did not report the length of the delirium episode or the length of hospital admission. Authors' conclusions: There is no enough evidence to determine whether benzodiazepines are effective when used to treat patients with delirium who are cared for in non-ICU settings. The available evidence does not support their routine use for this indication. Because of the scarcity of data from randomised controlled trials, further research is required to determine whether or not there is a role for benzodiazepines in the treatment of delirium in non-ICU settings.
Article
The December, 2019 coronavirus disease outbreak has seen many countries ask people who have potentially come into contact with the infection to isolate themselves at home or in a dedicated quarantine facility. Decisions on how to apply quarantine should be based on the best available evidence. We did a Review of the psychological impact of quarantine using three electronic databases. Of 3166 papers found, 24 are included in this Review. Most reviewed studies reported negative psychological effects including post-traumatic stress symptoms, confusion, and anger. Stressors included longer quarantine duration, infection fears, frustration, boredom, inadequate supplies, inadequate information, financial loss, and stigma. Some researchers have suggested long-lasting effects. In situations where quarantine is deemed necessary, officials should quarantine individuals for no longer than required, provide clear rationale for quarantine and information about protocols, and ensure sufficient supplies are provided. Appeals to altruism by reminding the public about the benefits of quarantine to wider society can be favourable.
Article
Aims To examine the delirium point prevalence studies conducted in different inpatient settings and to discuss the implication of the findings for delirium screening, assessment, prevention and management. Background Delirium—a common and distressing condition manifesting as an acute decline of attention and cognition—is frequently overlooked, misdiagnosed or treated inappropriately. This neuropsychiatric syndrome manifests as changes in attention, cognition and awareness, with resultant impact on behaviour, function and emotions. Delirium is recognised as a patient management challenge in the inpatient setting, and there is a need to understand the current point prevalence and assessment practices of delirium. Design A systematic review and meta‐analysis. Methods A systematic review of published delirium prevalence studies in inpatient settings was conducted and the implications of findings for delirium screening, assessment, prevention and management identified. The random‐effects meta‐analysis was conducted among studies measuring delirium point prevalence. The PRISMA statement was used to report systematic review and meta‐analysis. Results Nine studies were included in the review, with sample sizes ranging from 47–1867. Delirium point prevalence ranged from 9%–32%. Hypoactive delirium was the most common subtype, ranging from 23%–78%. Fifteen delirium screening tools or assessment or diagnostic methods were used. Comorbid dementia was present in up to 50% of inpatients. Conclusions Gaining a consensus on effective delirium instruments, the time windows for assessment and measurement will be crucial in driving benchmarking and quality improvement studies. Relevance to clinical practice Consistent identification of high‐risk patients and treatment settings with elevated risk, accompanied by the implementation of effective preventive and management strategies, are critical to addressing delirium—a frequent and burdensome condition, that adversely affects patient outcomes.