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.

Delirium and delirium severity screening in the intensive care-correspondence of screenings tools.

BACKGROUND: Delirium severity scores are gaining acceptance for measuring delirium in the intensive care unit (ICU). OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the concordance between the Confusion Assessment Method for the intensive care unit (CAM-ICU)-7 and the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC) as delirium severity measurement tools. METHODS: This was a prospective, comparative, observational multicentre study. This study was conducted in 18 Danish ICUs. Delirium was assessed in adult critically ill patients admitted to an ICU with a Richmond Agitation and Sedation Score (RASS) of -2 or above. ICU nurses assessed delirium with randomised paired delirium screening instruments, using the CAM-ICU, the ICDSC, and the CAM-ICU-7. The correlation between the CAM-ICU-7 and the ICDSC severity scores was evaluated for all predefined patient subgroups. RESULTS: A total of 1126 paired screenings were conducted by 127 ICU nurses in 850 patients. The patients' median age was 70 years (interquartile range: 61-77), 40% (339/850) were female, and 54% (457/850) had at least one positive delirium score. Delirium severity ranges (CAM-ICU-7: 0-7; and ICDSC: 0-8) were positively correlated (Pearson's correlation coefficient, r = 0.83; p < 0.0001). The overall agreement between the CAM-ICU-7 and the ICDSC for delirium measurement (CAM-ICU-7: >2, and ICDSC: >3) was substantial (kappa = 0.74), but the agreement decreased to fair (kappa = 0.38) if a patient had a RASS less than 0. CONCLUSIONS: The agreement between the CAM-ICU-7 and the ICDSC for delirium severity measurement was substantial but might be affected by the patient's sedation and agitation level at the time of assessment. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Both CAM-ICU-7 and ICDSC can be implemented for delirium severity measurement. Attention is warranted in both scores if a patient has a RASS of -2.

A survey of preferences for respiratory support in the intensive care unit for patients with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure.

BACKGROUND: When caring for mechanically ventilated adults with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure (AHRF), clinicians are faced with an uncertain choice between ventilator modes allowing for spontaneous breaths or ventilation fully controlled by the ventilator. The preferences of clinicians managing such patients, and what motivates their choice of ventilator mode, are largely unknown. To better understand how clinicians' preferences may impact the choice of ventilatory support for patients with AHRF, we issued a survey to an international network of intensive care unit (ICU) researchers. METHODS: We distributed an online survey with 32 broadly similar and interlinked questions on how clinicians prioritise spontaneous or controlled ventilation in invasively ventilated patients with AHRF of different severity, and which factors determine their choice. RESULTS: The survey was distributed to 1337 recipients in 12 countries. Of these, 415 (31%) completed the survey either fully (52%) or partially (48%). Most respondents were identified as medical specialists (87%) or physicians in training (11%). Modes allowing for spontaneous ventilation were considered preferable in mild AHRF, with controlled ventilation considered as progressively more important in moderate and severe AHRF. Among respondents there was strong support (90%) for a randomised clinical trial comparing spontaneous with controlled ventilation in patients with moderate AHRF. CONCLUSIONS: The responses from this international survey suggest that there is clinical equipoise for the preferred ventilator mode in patients with AHRF of moderate severity. We found strong support for a randomised trial comparing modes of ventilation in patients with moderate AHRF.

Distribution of delirium motor subtypes in the intensive care unit: a systematic scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Delirium is the most common cerebral dysfunction in the intensive care unit (ICU) and can be subdivided into a hypoactive, hyperactive, or mixed motor subtype based on the clinical manifestation. The aim of this review was to describe the distribution, pharmacological interventions, and outcomes of delirium motor subtypes in ICU patients. METHODS: This systematic scoping review was performed according to the PRISMA-ScR and Cochrane guidelines. We performed a systematic search in six major databases to identify relevant studies. A meta-regression analysis was performed where pooled estimates with 95% confidence intervals were computed by a random effect model. RESULTS: We included 131 studies comprising 13,902 delirious patients. There was a large between-study heterogeneity among studies, including differences in study design, setting, population, and outcome reporting. Hypoactive delirium was the most prevalent delirium motor subtype (50.3% [95% CI 46.0-54.7]), followed by mixed delirium (27.7% [95% CI 24.1-31.3]) and hyperactive delirium (22.7% [95% CI 19.0-26.5]). When comparing the delirium motor subtypes, patients with mixed delirium experienced the longest delirium duration, ICU and hospital length of stay, the highest ICU and hospital mortality, and more frequently received administration of specific agents (antipsychotics, α2-agonists, benzodiazepines, and propofol) during ICU stay. In studies with high average age for delirious patients (> 65 years), patients were more likely to experience hypoactive delirium. CONCLUSIONS: Hypoactive delirium was the most prevalent motor subtype in critically ill patients. Mixed delirium had the worst outcomes in terms of delirium duration, length of stay, and mortality, and received more pharmacological interventions compared to other delirium motor subtypes. Few studies contributed to secondary outcomes; hence, these results should be interpreted with care. The large between-study heterogeneity suggests that a more standardized methodology in delirium research is warranted.

Patients' experiences of well-being when being cared for in the intensive care unit-An integrative review.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this integrative review was to identify facilitators and barriers to patients' well-being when being cared for in an ICU setting, from the perspective of the patients. BACKGROUND: To become critically ill and hospitalised in an ICU is a stressful, chaotic event due to the life-threatening condition itself, as well as therapeutic treatments and the environment. A growing body of evidence has revealed that patients often suffer from physical, psychological and cognitive problems after an ICU stay. Several strategies, such as sedation and pain management, are used to reduce stress and increase well-being during ICU hospitalisation, but the ICU experience nevertheless affects the body and mind. DESIGN; METHODS: Since research exploring patients' sense of well-being in an ICU setting is limited, an integrative review approach was selected. Searches were performed in CINAHL, Medline, Psych Info, Eric and EMBASE. After reviewing 66 studies, 12 studies were included in the integrative review. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the studies. The PRISMA checklist for systematic reviews was used. RESULTS: The results are presented under one main theme, 'Well-being as a multidimensional experience-interwoven in barriers and facilitators' and six sub-themes representing barriers to and facilitators of well-being in an ICU. Barriers identified were physical stressors, emotional stressors, environmental disturbances and insecurity relating to time and space. Facilitators were meeting physical needs and activities that included dimensions of a caring and relational environment. CONCLUSION: Our main findings were that experiences of well-being were multidimensional and included physical, emotional, relational and environmental aspects, and they were more often described through barriers than facilitators of well-being. RELEVANCE FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE: This integrative review has shown that it is necessary to adopt an individual focus on patient well-being in an ICU setting since physical, emotional, relational and environmental stressors might impact each patient differently.

Risk factors for long-term cognitive impairment in ICU survivors: A multicenter, prospective cohort study.

PURPOSE: To describe the incidence of and risk factors for impaired cognitive function in intensive care unit (ICU) survivors. We hypothesized that age, severity of illness, and days in coma, delirium, mechanical ventilation in the ICU would be associated with impaired cognitive function. METHODS: We included all adults, alive 6 months after acute admission to one of the 24 Danish ICUs participating in the AID-ICU cohort study. Trained professionals assessed cognitive function in patients' homes or in outpatient clinics using the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS) 6 months after ICU admission. Potential risk factors for cognitive impairment were analyzed with linear regression models. RESULTS: In total, 237 ICU patients were alive 6 months after ICU admission and did not meet the exclusion criteria. A total of 106 patients completed the cognitive assessment. The median RBANS global cognitive score was 76 (interquartile range, 62-91), and 52% had a global cognitive score 1.5 SD below the normative mean and 36% displayed a global cognitive score 2 SD below the normative mean, similar to that of Alzheimer's disease. Higher age was associated with poorer RBANS global cognitive score (estimate -0.35 [95% confidence interval -0.63 to -0.07] per year). CONCLUSIONS: In this multicenter study of adult ICU survivors, cognitive impairment was frequent and severe in those assessed at 6 months. Higher age was a risk factor for cognitive impairment, but events related to the ICU stay were not associated with poorer cognitive performance at 6 months.

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

BACKGROUND: Haloperidol is the most frequently used drug to treat delirium in the critically ill patients. Yet, no systematic review has focussed on the effects of haloperidol in critically ill patients with delirium. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of haloperidol vs any intervention on all-cause mortality, serious adverse reactions/events, days alive without delirium, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), cognitive function and delirium severity in critically ill patients with delirium. We also report on QTc prolongation, delirium resolution and extrapyramidal symptoms. RESULTS: We included 8 RCTs with 11 comparisons (n = 951). We adjudicated one trial as having overall low risk of bias. Three trials used rescue haloperidol; excluding these, we did not find an effect of haloperidol vs control on all-cause mortality (RR 1.01; 95% CI 0.33-3.06; I2  = 0%; 112 participants; 3 trials; 4 comparisons; very low certainty) or delirium severity (SMD -0.15; 95% CI -0.61-0.30; I2  = 27%; 134 participants; 3 trials; 4 comparisons; very low certainty). No trials reported adequately on serious adverse reactions/events. Only one trial reported on days alive without delirium, cognitive function and QTc prolongation, and no trials reported on HRQoL. Sensitivity analyses, including trials using rescue haloperidol, did not change the results. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence for the use of haloperidol to treat critically ill patients with delirium is sparse, of low quality and inconclusive. We therefore have no certainty regarding any beneficial, harmful or neutral effects of haloperidol in these patients.

Platform trials.

Platform trials focus on the perpetual testing of many interventions in a disease or a setting. These trials have lasting organizational, administrative, data, analytic, and operational frameworks making them highly efficient. The use of adaptation often increases the probabilities of allocating participants to better interventions and obtaining conclusive results. The COVID-19 pandemic showed the potential of platform trials as a fast and valid way to improved treatments. This review gives an overview of key concepts and elements using the Intensive Care Platform Trial (INCEPT) as an example.

Prevalence and risk factors related to haloperidol use for delirium in adult intensive care patients: the multinational AID-ICU inception cohort study.

PURPOSE: We assessed the prevalence and variables associated with haloperidol use for delirium in ICU patients and explored any associations of haloperidol use with 90-day mortality. METHODS: All acutely admitted, adult ICU patients were screened during a 2-week inception period. We followed the patient throughout their ICU stay and assessed 90-day mortality. We assessed patients and their variables in the first 24 and 72 h in ICU and studied their association together with that of ICU characteristics with haloperidol use. RESULTS: We included 1260 patients from 99 ICUs in 13 countries. Delirium occurred in 314/1260 patients [25% (95% confidence interval 23-27)] of whom 145 received haloperidol [46% (41-52)]. Other interventions for delirium were benzodiazepines in 36% (31-42), dexmedetomidine in 21% (17-26), quetiapine in 19% (14-23) and olanzapine in 9% (6-12) of the patients with delirium. In the first 24 h in the ICU, all subtypes of delirium [hyperactive, adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 29.7 (12.9-74.5); mixed 10.0 (5.0-20.2); hypoactive 3.0 (1.2-6.7)] and circulatory support 2.7 (1.7-4.3) were associated with haloperidol use. At 72 h after ICU admission, circulatory support remained associated with subsequent use of haloperidol, aOR 2.6 (1.1-6.9). Haloperidol use within 0-24 h and within 0-72 h of ICU admission was not associated with 90-day mortality [aOR 1.2 (0.5-2.5); p = 0.66] and [aOR 1.9 (1.0-3.9); p = 0.07], respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In our study, haloperidol was the main pharmacological agent used for delirium in adult patients regardless of delirium subtype. Benzodiazepines, other anti-psychotics and dexmedetomidine were other frequently used agents. Haloperidol use was not statistically significantly associated with increased 90-day mortality.