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.

Subsyndromal Delirium in Critically Ill Patients-Cognitive and Functional Long-Term Outcomes.

Subsyndromal delirium (SSD) in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) is associated with an increased morbidity with unknown post-discharge functional and cognitive outcomes. We performed a prospective multicenter study to analyze the mental status of patients during their first 72 h after ICU admission and its trajectory, with follow-ups at 3 and 6 months after hospital discharge. Amongst the 106 included patients, SSD occurred in 24.5% (n = 26) and was associated with the duration of mechanical ventilation (p = 0.003) and the length of the ICU stay (p = 0.002). After the initial 72 h, most of the SSD patients (30.8%) improved and no longer had SSD; 19.2% continued to experience SSD and one patient (3.8%) progressed to delirium. The post-hospital discharge survival rate for the SSD patients was 100% at 3 months and 87.5% at 6 months. At admission, 96.2% of the SSD patients were fully independent in daily living activities, 66.7% at 3-month follow-up, and 100% at 6-month follow-up. Most SSD patients demonstrated a cognitive decline from admission to 3-month follow-up and improved at 6 months (IQCODE-SF: admission 3.13, p < 0.001; 3 months 3.41, p = 0.019; 6 months 3.19, p = 0.194). We concluded that early SSD is associated with worse outcomes, mainly a transitory cognitive decline after hospital discharge at 3 months, with an improvement at 6 months. This highlights the need to prevent and identify this condition during ICU stays.

Sedation, analgesia, and delirium management in Portugal: a survey and point prevalence study. / Abordagem da sedação, da analgesia e do delirium em Portugal: inquérito nacional e estudo de prevalência.

OBJECTIVE: To establish current Portuguese critical care practices regarding analgesia, sedation, and delirium based on a comparison between the activities reported and daily clinical practice. METHODS: A national survey was conducted among physicians invited to report their practice toward analgesia, sedation, and delirium in intensive care units. A point prevalence study was performed to analyze daily practices. RESULTS: A total of 117 physicians answered the survey, and 192 patients were included in the point prevalence study. Survey and point prevalence studies reflect a high sedation assessment (92%; 88.5%), with the Richmond Agitated Sedation Scale being the most reported and used scale (41.7%; 58.2%) and propofol being the most reported and used medication (91.4%; 58.6%). Midazolam prescribing was reported by 68.4% of responders, but a point prevalence study revealed a use of 27.6%.Although 46.4% of responders reported oversedation, this was actually documented in 32% of the patients. The survey reports the daily assessment of pain (92%) using standardized scales (71%). The same was identified in the point prevalence study, with 91.1% of analgesia assessment mainly with the Behavioral Pain Scale. In the survey, opioids were reported as the first analgesic. In clinical practice, acetaminophen was the first option (34.6%), followed by opioids. Delirium assessment was reported by 70% of physicians but was performed in less than 10% of the patients. CONCLUSION: The results from the survey did not accurately reflect the common practices in Portuguese intensive care units, as reported in the point prevalence study. Efforts should be made specifically to avoid oversedation and to promote delirium assessment.

OBJETIVO: Determinar as práticas atuais de cuidados intensivos em Portugal quanto à analgesia, à sedação e ao delirium, com base em uma comparação entre as atividades relatadas e a prática clínica diária. MÉTODOS: Inquérito nacional em que os médicos foram convidados a relatar sua prática em relação à analgesia, à sedação e ao delirium em unidades de terapia intensiva. Para analisar a prática diária, realizou-se um estudo de prevalência pontual. RESULTADOS: Responderam ao inquérito 117 médicos, e 192 pacientes foram incluídos no estudo de prevalência pontual. O inquérito e o estudo de prevalência mostraram uma avaliação generalizada do nível de sedação (92%; 88,5%). A Escala de Agitação e Sedação de Richmond foi a mais reportada e utilizada (41,7%; 58,2%), e o propofol foi o medicamento mais reportado e utilizado (91,4%; 58,6%). A prescrição de midazolam foi relatada por 68,4% dos respondentes, mas o estudo de prevalência pontual revelou a sua utilização em 27,6%.Embora 46,4% dos respondentes tenham relatado excesso de sedação, na realidade foi documentado em 32% dos pacientes. O inquérito relatou avaliação diária de dor (92%) com uso de escalas padronizadas (71%). Identificou-se resultado semelhante no estudo de prevalência pontual, com 91,1% de avaliação da analgesia feita principalmente com a Escala Comportamental de Dor. No inquérito, os opioides foram relatados como analgésicos de primeira linha. Na prática clínica, o paracetamol foi a primeira opção (34,6%), seguido de opioides. A avaliação do delirium foi relatada por 70% dos médicos, embora tenha sido realizada em menos de 10% dos pacientes. CONCLUSÃO: Os resultados do inquérito não refletiram com precisão as práticas habituais nas unidades de terapia intensiva portuguesas, tal como relatado no estudo de prevalência pontual. Devem ser feitos esforços principalmente para evitar o excesso de sedação e promover a avaliação do delirium.

Abordagem da sedação, da analgesia e do delirium em Portugal: inquérito nacional e estudo de prevalência / Sedation, analgesia, and delirium management in Portugal: a survey and point prevalence study

RESUMO Objetivo: Determinar as práticas atuais de cuidados intensivos em Portugal quanto à analgesia, à sedação e ao delirium, com base em uma comparação entre as atividades relatadas e a prática clínica diária. Métodos: Inquérito nacional em que os médicos foram convidados a relatar sua prática em relação à analgesia, à sedação e ao delirium em unidades de terapia intensiva. Para analisar a prática diária, realizou-se um estudo de prevalência pontual. Resultados: Responderam ao inquérito 117 médicos, e 192 pacientes foram incluídos no estudo de prevalência pontual. O inquérito e o estudo de prevalência mostraram uma avaliação generalizada do nível de sedação (92%; 88,5%). A Escala de Agitação e Sedação de Richmond foi a mais reportada e utilizada (41,7%; 58,2%), e o propofol foi o medicamento mais reportado e utilizado (91,4%; 58,6%). A prescrição de midazolam foi relatada por 68,4% dos respondentes, mas o estudo de prevalência pontual revelou a sua utilização em 27,6%. Embora 46,4% dos respondentes tenham relatado excesso de sedação, na realidade foi documentado em 32% dos pacientes. O inquérito relatou avaliação diária de dor (92%) com uso de escalas padronizadas (71%). Identificou-se resultado semelhante no estudo de prevalência pontual, com 91,1% de avaliação da analgesia feita principalmente com a Escala Comportamental de Dor. No inquérito, os opioides foram relatados como analgésicos de primeira linha. Na prática clínica, o paracetamol foi a primeira opção (34,6%), seguido de opioides. A avaliação do delirium foi relatada por 70% dos médicos, embora tenha sido realizada em menos de 10% dos pacientes. Conclusão: Os resultados do inquérito não refletiram com precisão as práticas habituais nas unidades de terapia intensiva portuguesas, tal como relatado no estudo de prevalência pontual. Devem ser feitos esforços principalmente para evitar o excesso de sedação e promover a avaliação do delirium.

ABSTRACT Objective: To establish current Portuguese critical care practices regarding analgesia, sedation, and delirium based on a comparison between the activities reported and daily clinical practice. Methods: A national survey was conducted among physicians invited to report their practice toward analgesia, sedation, and delirium in intensive care units. A point prevalence study was performed to analyze daily practices. Results: A total of 117 physicians answered the survey, and 192 patients were included in the point prevalence study. Survey and point prevalence studies reflect a high sedation assessment (92%; 88.5%), with the Richmond Agitated Sedation Scale being the most reported and used scale (41.7%; 58.2%) and propofol being the most reported and used medication (91.4%; 58.6%). Midazolam prescribing was reported by 68.4% of responders, but a point prevalence study revealed a use of 27.6%. Although 46.4% of responders reported oversedation, this was actually documented in 32% of the patients. The survey reports the daily assessment of pain (92%) using standardized scales (71%). The same was identified in the point prevalence study, with 91.1% of analgesia assessment mainly with the Behavioral Pain Scale. In the survey, opioids were reported as the first analgesic. In clinical practice, acetaminophen was the first option (34.6%), followed by opioids. Delirium assessment was reported by 70% of physicians but was performed in less than 10% of the patients. Conclusion: The results from the survey did not accurately reflect the common practices in Portuguese intensive care units, as reported in the point prevalence study. Efforts should be made specifically to avoid oversedation and to promote delirium assessment.

Sepsis Associated Delirium.

Sepsis is a potentially life-threatening condition caused by a systemic dysregulated host response to infection. The brain is particularly susceptible to the effects of sepsis with clinical manifestations ranging from mild confusion to a deep comatose state. Sepsis-associated delirium (SAD) is a cerebral manifestation commonly occurring in patients with sepsis and is thought to occur due to a combination of neuroinflammation and disturbances in cerebral perfusion, the blood brain barrier (BBB) and neurotransmission. The neurological impairment associated with SAD can persist for months or even longer, after the initial septic episode has subsided which may impair the rehabilitation potential of sepsis survivors. Early identification and treatment of the underlying sepsis is key in the management of SAD as once present it can be difficult to control. Through the regular use of validated screening tools for delirium, cases of SAD can be identified early; this allows potentially aggravating factors to be addressed promptly. The usefulness of biomarkers, neuroimaging and electroencephalopathy (EEG) in the diagnosis of SAD remains controversial. The Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) guidelines advise against the use of medications to treat delirium unless distressing symptoms are present or it is hindering the patient's ability to wean from organ support.

Outcomes of subsyndromal delirium in ICU: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Subsyndromal delirium (SSD) is a frequent condition and has been commonly described as an intermediate stage between delirium and normal cognition. However, the true frequency of SSD and its impact on clinically relevant outcomes in the intensive care unit (ICU) remains unclear. METHODS: We performed a systematic search in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, and PsychINFO, with no language restrictions, up to 1 October 2016 to identify publications that evaluated SSD in ICU patients. RESULTS: The six eligible studies were evaluated. SSD was present in 950 (36%) patients. Four studies evaluated only surgical patients. Four studies used the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC) and two used the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) score to diagnose SSD. The meta-analysis showed an increased hospital length of stay (LOS) in SSD patients (0.31, 0.12-0.51, p = 0.002; I 2 = 34%). Hospital mortality was described in two studies but it was not significant (hazard ratio 0.97, 0.61-1.55, p = 0.90 and 5% vs 9%, p = 0.05). The use of antipsychotics in SSD patients to prevent delirium was evaluated in two studies but it did not modify ICU LOS (6.5 (4-8) vs 7 (4-9) days, p = 0.66 and 2 (2-3) vs 3 (2-3) days, p = 0.517) or mortality (9 (26.5%) vs 7 (20.6%), p = 0.55). CONCLUSIONS: SSD occurs in one-third of the ICU patients and has limited impact on the outcomes. The current literature concerning SSD is composed of small-sample studies with methodological differences, impairing a clear conclusion about the association between SSD and progression to delirium or worse ICU clinical outcomes.