A new medication-based prediction score for postoperative delirium in surgical patients: Development and proof of feasibility in a retrospective patient cohort.

Structured risk screening for postoperative delirium (POD) considering prehospital medication is not established. We aimed to develop a POD-risk prediction score based on known risk factors and delirium-risk increasing drugs to be used by pharmacists during medication reconciliation at hospital admission, and to test for feasibility in a retrospective cohort of surgical patients. Therefore, established POD-risk factors and drugs were extracted from the literature and a score was generated. Following this, the score was tested for feasibility in a retrospective 3-month-cohort of surgical patients. For patients with higher scores suggesting higher probability of POD, patient charts were screened for documentation of POD. For development of the score, the following POD-risk factors were defined and points assigned for score calculation: age (≥65 years=1 point/≥75 years=2), male sex (1), renal insufficiency (RI; 1), hepatic impairment (HI; Model-of-endstage-liver-disease (MELD) 10-14=1/≥15=2), delirium-risk increasing drugs (1 point per drug class), anticholinergic drug burden (ACB; ≥3=1). In the retrospective test cohort of 1174 surgical patients these factors concerned: age ≥65 years 567 patients (48%)/≥75 years 303 (26%), male 652 (55%), RI 238 (20%), MELD 10-14 106 (9%)/≥15 65 (5%), ≥ 1 delirium-risk increasing drug 418 (36%), ACB ≥3 106 (9%). The median POD-risk prediction score was 2 (range 0-9). Of 146 patients (12%) with a score ≥ 5, POD was documented for 43 (30%), no evidence for POD for 91 (62%) and data inconclusive for 12 (8%). For scores of ≥ 7, POD was documented for 50% of the patients with sufficient POD documentation. Overall, POD documentation was poor. To summarize, we developed and successfully tested the feasibility of a POD-prediction-score assessable by pharmacists at medication reconciliation at hospital admission.

[Sepsis-associated encephalopathy : A nationwide survey on diagnostic procedures and neuromonitoring in German intensive care units]. / Sepsis-assoziierte Enzephalopathie : Eine bundesweite Umfrage zu Verfahren der Diagnostik und des Neuromonitorings auf deutschen Intensivstationen.

BACKGROUND: Sepsis-associated encephalopathy (SAE) is one of the most frequent causes of neurocognitive impairment in intensive care patients. It is associated with increased hospital mortality and poor long-term neurocognitive outcome. To date there are no evidence-based recommendations for the diagnostics and neuromonitoring of SAE. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to evaluate the current clinical practice of diagnostics and neuromonitoring of SAE on intensive care units (ICU) in Germany. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Based on available literature focusing on SAE, a questionnaire consisting of 26 items was designed and forwarded to 438 members of the Scientific Working Group for Intensive Care Medicine (WAKI) and the Scientific Working Group for Neuroanesthesia (WAKNA) as an online survey. RESULTS: The total participation rate in the survey was 12.6% (55/438). A standardized diagnostic procedure of SAE was reported by 21.8% (12/55) of the participants. The majority of participants preferred delirium screening tools (50/55; 90.9%) and the clinical examination (49/55; 89.1%) to detect SAE. Brain imaging (26/55; 47.3%), laboratory/biomarker determination (15/55; 27.3%), electrophysiological techniques (14/55; 25.5%) and cerebrospinal fluid examination (12/55; 21.8%) are less frequently performed. The follow-up examination of SAE is most frequently performed by a clinical examination (45/55; 81.8%). Neuromonitoring techniques, such as continuous electroencephalography (31/55; 56.4%), transcranial doppler sonography (31/55; 56.4%) and near-infrared spectroscopy (18/55, 32.7%) are not frequently used. We observed statistically significant differences between the theoretically attributed importance and clinical practice. The great majority of respondents (48/55; 87.3%) endorse the development of guidelines containing recommendations for diagnostics and neuromonitoring in SAE. DISCUSSION: This explorative survey demonstrated a great heterogeneity in diagnostics and neuromonitoring of SAE in German ICUs. Uniform concepts have not yet been established but are desired by the majority of study participants. Innovative biomarkers of neuroaxonal injury in blood and cerebrospinal fluid as well as electrophysiological and brain imaging techniques could provide valuable prognostic information on the neurocognitive outcome of patients and would thus be a useful addition to the clinical assessment of ICU patients with SAE.

Screening for delirium after surgery: validation of the 4 A's test (4AT) in the post-anaesthesia care unit.

Postoperative delirium is common and has multiple adverse consequences. Guidelines recommend routine screening for postoperative delirium beginning in the post-anaesthesia care unit. The 4 A's test (4AT) is a widely used assessment tool for delirium but there are no studies evaluating its use in the post-anaesthesia care unit. We evaluated the performance of the 4AT in the post-anaesthesia care unit in a tertiary German medical centre. Adults who were able to provide informed consent, were not scheduled for postoperative intensive care, and who did not have dementia or severe neuropsychiatric disorders underwent screening by trained research staff with the Nurse Delirium Screening Scale and a new German translation of the 4AT in a random order at the point of discharge from the post-anaesthesia care unit. Reference standard assessment of delirium was psychiatric evaluation by experienced clinicians. Five hundred and forty-three patients (mean age (SD) 52 (18) years) were analysed; 22 (4.1%) patients developed delirium. The sensitivity and specificity of the 4AT were 95.5% (95%CI 77.2-99.9) and 99.2% (95%CI 98.1-99.8), respectively. The area under the receiver operator characteristic curve was 0.998 (95%CI 0.995-1.000). The Nursing Delirium Screening Scale had a sensitivity of 27.3% (95%CI 10.7-50.2) and specificity of 99.4% (95%CI 98.3-99.9), with an area under the curve of 0.761 (95%CI 0.629-0.894). These findings suggest that the 4AT is an effective and robust instrument for delirium detection in the post-anaesthesia care unit.

[Knowledge and implementation of the S3 guideline on delirium management in Germany]. / Kenntnis und Umsetzung der S3-Leitlinie zum Delirmanagement in Deutschland.

BACKGROUND: Delirium is a common complication in critical care. The syndrome is often underestimated due to its potentially no less dangerous course as a hypoactive delirium. Therefore, current guidelines ask for a structured, regular and routine screening in all intensive care units. If delirium is diagnosed, symptomatic therapy should be initiated promptly. OBJECTIVES: The aim of the current study was to evaluate recent German anesthetists' strategies regarding delirium care compared to the German guidelines for sedation and delirium in intensive care. METHODS: In an online survey German hospitals' senior anesthetists (n = 922) were interviewed anonymously between May and June 2015 regarding guideline use in delirium management in German intensive care units. In 33 direct questions the anesthetists were invited to answer items regarding the structure of their hospitals, intensive care and delirium therapy in order to review their knowledge of the German delirium guidelines that expired in 2014. RESULTS: The 249 senior anesthetists who responded to the survey, can be associated with (or represent) a quarter of German intensive care beds and cases, respectively. In every tenth clinic that runs an intensive care unit the guideline was unknown. In three of four intensive care units physicians specified a preferred delirium score, the CAM-ICU (49.4 %) is used most frequently. With knowledge of the guidelines more often a recommended delirium score is used (p = 0.017). However, only 53.6 % of the respondents ascertain a score every eight hours and 36 % have no facility for standardized documentation in the records. At intensive care rounds, a possible diagnosis of delirium is an inherent part in only 34.9 % of the responders even with guideline knowledge. The particular gold standard for the therapy of delirium (alphaagonists for vegetative symptoms; 89.6 %, benzodiazepines for anxiety, 77.5 %; antipsychotics in 86.7 % for psychotic symptoms) is implemented more often with growing knowledge of the guidelines. The latter applies to the implementation of structured programs for delirium prophylaxis, cognition and therapy. CONCLUSION: For the first time, this study documents knowledge and implementation of the German S3 guidelines for delirium in intensive care. Overall, the guidelines for delirium care are less well executed than those for sedation. With growing knowledge of the guidelines, diagnosis and treatment of delirium fits the guidelines more frequently. The facility to document a delirium score in intensive records is insufficient. Especially a nursing-based delirium strategy could possibly improve implementation of the guidelines, claiming an eight-hour screening and documentation. However, the small number of hospitals that have integrated the guidelines into in-house standard operating procedures (40 %) shows urgent need for optimization. A re-evaluation involving all relevant caretakers could probably improve the implementation of guidelines in intensive care and perioperative medicine.