Update of the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine evidence-based and consensus-based guideline on postoperative delirium in adult patients.

Postoperative delirium (POD) remains a common, dangerous and resource-consuming adverse event but is often preventable. The whole peri-operative team can play a key role in its management. This update to the 2017 ESAIC Guideline on the prevention of POD is evidence-based and consensus-based and considers the literature between 01 April 2015, and 28 February 2022. The search terms of the broad literature search were identical to those used in the first version of the guideline published in 2017. POD was defined in accordance with the DSM-5 criteria. POD had to be measured with a validated POD screening tool, at least once per day for at least 3 days starting in the recovery room or postanaesthesia care unit on the day of surgery or, at latest, on postoperative day 1. Recent literature confirmed the pathogenic role of surgery-induced inflammation, and this concept reinforces the positive role of multicomponent strategies aimed to reduce the surgical stress response. Although some putative precipitating risk factors are not modifiable (length of surgery, surgical site), others (such as depth of anaesthesia, appropriate analgesia and haemodynamic stability) are under the control of the anaesthesiologists. Multicomponent preoperative, intra-operative and postoperative preventive measures showed potential to reduce the incidence and duration of POD, confirming the pivotal role of a comprehensive and team-based approach to improve patients' clinical and functional status.

Automated Monitoring of Adherence to Evidenced-Based Clinical Guideline Recommendations: Design and Implementation Study.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines are systematically developed statements intended to optimize patient care. However, a gapless implementation of guideline recommendations requires health care personnel not only to be aware of the recommendations and to support their content but also to recognize every situation in which they are applicable. To not miss situations in which recommendations should be applied, computerized clinical decision support can be provided through a system that allows an automated monitoring of adherence to clinical guideline recommendations in individual patients. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to collect and analyze the requirements for a system that allows the monitoring of adherence to evidence-based clinical guideline recommendations in individual patients and, based on these requirements, to design and implement a software prototype that integrates guideline recommendations with individual patient data, and to demonstrate the prototype's utility in treatment recommendations. METHODS: We performed a work process analysis with experienced intensive care clinicians to develop a conceptual model of how to support guideline adherence monitoring in clinical routine and identified which steps in the model could be supported electronically. We then identified the core requirements of a software system to support recommendation adherence monitoring in a consensus-based requirements analysis within the loosely structured focus group work of key stakeholders (clinicians, guideline developers, health data engineers, and software developers). On the basis of these requirements, we designed and implemented a modular system architecture. To demonstrate its utility, we applied the prototype to monitor adherence to a COVID-19 treatment recommendation using clinical data from a large European university hospital. RESULTS: We designed a system that integrates guideline recommendations with real-time clinical data to evaluate individual guideline recommendation adherence and developed a functional prototype. The needs analysis with clinical staff resulted in a flowchart describing the work process of how adherence to recommendations should be monitored. Four core requirements were identified: the ability to decide whether a recommendation is applicable and implemented for a specific patient, the ability to integrate clinical data from different data formats and data structures, the ability to display raw patient data, and the use of a Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources-based format for the representation of clinical practice guidelines to provide an interoperable, standards-based guideline recommendation exchange format. CONCLUSIONS: Our system has advantages in terms of individual patient treatment and quality management in hospitals. However, further studies are needed to measure its impact on patient outcomes and evaluate its resource effectiveness in different clinical settings. We specified a modular software architecture that allows experts from different fields to work independently and focus on their area of expertise. We have released the source code of our system under an open-source license and invite for collaborative further development of the system.

Colchicine for the treatment of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The development of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and poor clinical outcomes are associated with hyperinflammation and a complex dysregulation of the immune response. Colchicine is an anti-inflammatory medicine and is thought to improve disease outcomes in COVID-19 through a wide range of anti-inflammatory mechanisms. Patients and healthcare systems need more and better treatment options for COVID-19 and a thorough understanding of the current body of evidence. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of Colchicine as a treatment option for COVID-19 in comparison to an active comparator, placebo, or standard care alone in any setting, and to maintain the currency of the evidence, using a living systematic review approach. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (comprising CENTRAL, MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and medRxiv), Web of Science (Science Citation Index Expanded and Emerging Sources Citation Index), and WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions to 21 May 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials evaluating colchicine for the treatment of people with COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, age, sex, or ethnicity. We excluded studies investigating the prophylactic effects of colchicine for people without severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection but at high risk of SARS-CoV-2 exposure. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. We used the Cochrane risk of bias tool (ROB 2) to assess bias in included studies and GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for the following prioritised outcome categories considering people with moderate or severe COVID-19: all-cause mortality, worsening and improvement of clinical status, quality of life, adverse events, and serious adverse events and for people with asymptomatic infection or mild disease: all-cause mortality, admission to hospital or death, symptom resolution, duration to symptom resolution, quality of life, adverse events, serious adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: We included three RCTs with 11,525 hospitalised participants (8002 male) and one RCT with 4488 (2067 male) non-hospitalised participants. Mean age of people treated in hospital was about 64 years, and was 55 years in the study with non-hospitalised participants. Further, we identified 17 ongoing studies and 11 studies completed or terminated, but without published results. Colchicine plus standard care versus standard care (plus/minus placebo) Treatment of hospitalised people with moderate to severe COVID-19 All-cause mortality: colchicine plus standard care probably results in little to no difference in all-cause mortality up to 28 days compared to standard care alone (risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93 to 1.08; 2 RCTs, 11,445 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Worsening of clinical status: colchicine plus standard care probably results in little to no difference in worsening of clinical status assessed as new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death compared to standard care alone (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.09; 2 RCTs, 10,916 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Improvement of clinical status: colchicine plus standard care probably results in little to no difference in improvement of clinical status, assessed as number of participants discharged alive up to day 28 without clinical deterioration or death compared to standard care alone (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.01; 1 RCT, 11,340 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Quality of life, including fatigue and neurological status: we identified no studies reporting this outcome. Adverse events: the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of colchicine on adverse events compared to placebo (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.78; 1 RCT, 72 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Serious adverse events: the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of colchicine plus standard care on serious adverse events compared to standard care alone (0 events observed in 1 RCT of 105 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Treatment of non-hospitalised people with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection or mild COVID-19 All-cause mortality: the evidence is uncertain about the effect of colchicine on all-cause mortality at 28 days (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.57, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.62; 1 RCT, 4488 participants; low-certainty evidence). Admission to hospital or death within 28 days: colchicine probably slightly reduces the need for hospitalisation or death within 28 days compared to placebo (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.03; 1 RCT, 4488 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Symptom resolution: we identified no studies reporting this outcome. Quality of life, including fatigue and neurological status: we identified no studies reporting this outcome. Adverse events: the evidence is uncertain about the effect of colchicine on adverse events compared to placebo . Results are from one RCT reporting treatment-related events only in 4412 participants (low-certainty evidence). Serious adverse events: colchicine probably slightly reduces serious adverse events (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.00; 1 RCT, 4412 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Colchicine versus another active treatment (e.g. corticosteroids, anti-viral drugs, monoclonal antibodies) No studies evaluated this comparison. Different formulations, doses, or schedules of colchicine No studies assessed this. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on the current evidence, in people hospitalised with moderate to severe COVID-19 the use of colchicine probably has little to no influence on mortality or clinical progression in comparison to placebo or standard care alone. We do not know whether colchicine increases the risk of (serious) adverse events. We are uncertain about the evidence of the effect of colchicine on all-cause mortality for people with asymptomatic infection or mild disease. However, colchicine probably results in a slight reduction of hospital admissions or deaths within 28 days, and the rate of serious adverse events compared with placebo. None of the studies reported data on quality of life or compared the benefits and harms of colchicine versus other drugs, or different dosages of colchicine. We identified 17 ongoing and 11 completed but not published RCTs, which we expect to incorporate in future versions of this review as their results become available. Editorial note: due to the living approach of this work, we monitor newly published results of RCTs on colchicine on a weekly basis and will update the review when the evidence or our certainty in the evidence changes.

Systemic corticosteroids for the treatment of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Systemic corticosteroids are used to treat people with COVID-19 because they counter hyper-inflammation. Existing evidence syntheses suggest a slight benefit on mortality. So far, systemic corticosteroids are one of the few treatment options for COVID-19. Nonetheless, size of effect, certainty of the evidence, optimal therapy regimen, and selection of patients who are likely to benefit most are factors that remain to be evaluated. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether systemic corticosteroids are effective and safe in the treatment of people with COVID-19, and to keep up to date with the evolving evidence base using a living systematic review approach. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (which includes PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, and medRxiv), Web of Science (Science Citation Index, Emerging Citation Index), and the WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies to 16 April 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated systemic corticosteroids for people with COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, participant age, gender or ethnicity.  We included any type or dose of systemic corticosteroids. We included the following comparisons: systemic corticosteroids plus standard care versus standard care (plus/minus placebo), dose comparisons, timing comparisons (early versus late), different types of corticosteroids and systemic corticosteroids versus other active substances.  We excluded studies that included populations with other coronavirus diseases (severe acute respiratory syndrome or Middle East respiratory syndrome), corticosteroids in combination with other active substances versus standard care, topical or inhaled corticosteroids, and corticosteroids for long-COVID treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess the risk of bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' 2 tool for RCTs. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality, ventilator-free days, new need for invasive mechanical ventilation, quality of life, serious adverse events, adverse events, and hospital-acquired infections. MAIN RESULTS: We included 11 RCTs in 8075 participants, of whom 7041 (87%) originated from high-income countries. A total of 3072 participants were randomised to corticosteroid arms and the majority received dexamethasone (n = 2322). We also identified 42 ongoing studies and 16 studies reported as being completed or terminated in a study registry, but without results yet.  Hospitalised individuals with a confirmed or suspected diagnosis of symptomatic COVID-19 Systemic corticosteroids plus standard care versus standard care plus/minus placebo  We included 10 RCTs (7989 participants), one of which did not report any of our pre-specified outcomes and thus our analysis included outcome data from nine studies.  All-cause mortality (at longest follow-up available): systemic corticosteroids plus standard care probably reduce all-cause mortality slightly in people with COVID-19 compared to standard care alone (median 28 days: risk difference of 30 in 1000 participants fewer than the control group rate of 275 in 1000 participants; risk ratio (RR) 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 1.00; 9 RCTs, 7930 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).  Ventilator-free days: corticosteroids may increase ventilator-free days (MD 2.6 days more than control group rate of 4 days, 95% CI 0.67 to 4.53; 1 RCT, 299 participants; low-certainty evidence). Ventilator-free days have inherent limitations as a composite endpoint and should be interpreted with caution.  New need for invasive ventilation: the evidence is of very low certainty. Because of high risk of bias arising from deaths that occurred before ventilation we are uncertain about the size and direction of the effects. Consequently, we did not perform analysis beyond the presentation of descriptive statistics.  Quality of life/neurological outcome: no data were available. Serious adverse events: we included data on two RCTs (678 participants) that evaluated systemic corticosteroids compared to standard care (plus/minus placebo); for adverse events and hospital-acquired infections, we included data on five RCTs (660 participants). Because of high risk of bias, heterogeneous definitions, and underreporting we are uncertain about the size and direction of the effects. Consequently, we did not perform analysis beyond the presentation of descriptive statistics (very low-certainty evidence).    Different types, dosages or timing of systemic corticosteroids  We identified one study that compared methylprednisolone with dexamethasone. The evidence for mortality and new need for invasive mechanical ventilation is very low certainty due to the small number of participants (n = 86). No data were available for the other outcomes. We did not identify comparisons of different dosages or timing. Outpatients with asymptomatic or mild disease Currently, there are no studies published in populations with asymptomatic infection or mild disease. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Moderate-certainty evidence shows that systemic corticosteroids probably slightly reduce all-cause mortality in people hospitalised because of symptomatic COVID-19. Low-certainty evidence suggests that there may also be a reduction in ventilator-free days. Since we are unable to  adjust for the impact of early death on subsequent endpoints, the findings for ventilation outcomes and harms have limited applicability to inform treatment decisions. Currently, there is no evidence for asymptomatic or mild disease (non-hospitalised participants).  There is an urgent need for good-quality evidence for specific subgroups of disease severity, for which we propose level of respiratory support at randomisation. This applies to the comparison or subgroups of different types and doses of corticosteroids, too. Outcomes apart from mortality should be measured and analysed appropriately taking into account confounding through death if applicable.  We identified 42 ongoing and 16 completed but not published RCTs in trials registries suggesting possible changes of effect estimates and certainty of the evidence in the future. Most ongoing studies target people who need respiratory support at baseline. With the living approach of this review, we will continue to update our search and include eligible trials and published data.

Familial Alzheimer's Disease Mutations in PSEN1 Lead to Premature Human Stem Cell Neurogenesis.

Mutations in presenilin 1 (PSEN1) or presenilin 2 (PSEN2), the catalytic subunit of γ-secretase, cause familial Alzheimer's disease (fAD). We hypothesized that mutations in PSEN1 reduce Notch signaling and alter neurogenesis. Expression data from developmental and adult neurogenesis show relative enrichment of Notch and γ-secretase expression in stem cells, whereas expression of APP and ß-secretase is enriched in neurons. We observe premature neurogenesis in fAD iPSCs harboring PSEN1 mutations using two orthogonal systems: cortical differentiation in 2D and cerebral organoid generation in 3D. This is partly driven by reduced Notch signaling. We extend these studies to adult hippocampal neurogenesis in mutation-confirmed postmortem tissue. fAD cases show mutation-specific effects and a trend toward reduced abundance of newborn neurons, supporting a premature aging phenotype. Altogether, these results support altered neurogenesis as a result of fAD mutations and suggest that neural stem cell biology is affected in aging and disease.

Postoperative anaemia might be a risk factor for postoperative delirium and prolonged hospital stay: A secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative anaemia is a frequent surgical complication and in contrast to preoperative anaemia has not been validated in relation to mortality, morbidity and its associated health economic effect. Postoperative anaemia can predispose postoperative delirium through impairment of cerebral oxygenation. The aim of this secondary analysis is to investigate the association of postoperative anaemia in accordance with the sex specific World Health Organization definition of anaemia to postoperative delirium and its impact on the duration of hospital stay. METHODS: A secondary analysis of the prospective multicentric observational CESARO-study was conducted. 800 adult patients undergoing elective surgery were enrolled from various operative disciplines across seven hospitals ranging from university hospitals, district general hospitals to specialist clinics of minimally invasive surgery in Germany. Patients were classified as anaemic according to the World Health Organization parameters, setting the haemoglobin level cut off below 12g/dl for females and below 13g/dl for males. Focus of the investigation were patients with acute anaemia. Patients with present preoperative anaemia or missing haemoglobin measurement were excluded from the sample set. Delirium screening was established postoperatively for at least 24 hours and up to three days, applying the validated Nursing Delirium Screening Scale. RESULTS: The initial sample set contained 800 patients of which 183 were suitable for analysis in the study. Ninety out of 183 (49.2%) suffered from postoperative anaemia. Ten out of 93 (10.9%) patients without postoperative anaemia developed a postoperative delirium. In the group with postoperative anaemia, 28 (38.4%) out of 90 patients suffered from postoperative delirium (odds ratio 3.949, 95% confidence interval, (1.358-11.480)) after adjustment for NYHA-stadium, severity of surgery, cutting/suture time, duration of anaesthesia, transfusion of packed red cells and sedation status with Richmond Agitation Scale after surgery. Additionally, patients who suffered from postoperative anaemia showed a significantly longer duration of hospitalisation (7.75 vs. 12.42 days, odds ratio = 1.186, 95% confidence interval, 1.083-1.299, after adjustments). CONCLUSION: The study results reveal that postoperative anaemia is not only a frequent postsurgical complication with an incidence probability of almost 50%, but could also be associated with a postoperative delirium and a prolonged hospitalisation.

Anticholinergic burden of long-term medication is an independent risk factor for the development of postoperative delirium: A clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative delirium (POD) is a common complication after surgery. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine the association between preoperative anticholinergic load calculated using the anticholinergic drug scale (ADS) and POD in cancer patients over 65 years of age. DESIGN: A retrospective sub-investigation of a randomised controlled interventional trial. SETTING: Two tertiary university hospitals. PATIENTS: Overall, patients aged 65 years and older scheduled for surgical treatment of gastrointestinary, genitourinary or gynaecological cancers. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the interaction between anticholinergic drug scale and occurrence of postoperative delirium. Patient clinical parameters and ADS scores were assessed preoperatively. POD screening was conducted for a total of 7 days following surgery using validated measures. Independent associations between ADS and POD were assessed using multivariate logistical regression analyses. RESULTS: A total of 651 patients (mean age, 71.8 years; 68.5% males) were included. Of those, 66 patients (10.1%) developed POD. The ADS score was independently associated with the occurrence of POD (higher ADS per point OR 1.496; 95% CI 1.09-2.05; p = 0.01). Additionally, age (per year OR 1.06; CI 95% CI 1.01-1.11; p = 0.03) and ASA state (OR 2.16; 95% CI 1.22-3.83; p = 0.01), as well as stay on ICU (yes vs. no OR 2.8; 95% CI 1.57-4.998; p < 0.01), were independently associated with POD. CONCLUSIONS: ADS assessment according to chronic medication use is a cost-effective, non-invasive method of identifying elderly cancer patients at risk for POD. TRIAL REGISTRY: www.clinicaltrials.gov. Identifier NCT01278537. Ethics: IRB of Charité University-Medicine Berlin, Germany; EA2/241/08.

Critical care guidelines on pain, agitation and delirium management: Which one to use? A systematic literature search and quality appraisal with AGREE II.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) facilitate the provision of standardized, high-quality intensive care medicine. For the management of pain, agitation and delirium, several coexisting CPGs have been published. This study aims at the appraisal of CPGs on pain, agitation and delirium management in the intensive care unit to (a) identify high quality guidelines appropriate for clinical use and (b) identify potential areas for future improvement. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature search of Medline, three guideline registers and two grey-literature databases. The scope covered guidelines from 2007 to 2020 available in English or German. Identified CPGs were appraised by three independent reviewers using the appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument. RESULTS: Eight CPGs were included in the final analysis. Three of the included guidelines exceeded the quality threshold of 60% in all six domains. The highest median [IQR] scores were achieved in the domain "Scope and Purpose" (84.3% [78.7-88.9]), whereas "Applicability" (45.8% [19.4-79.9]) received the lowest median score. CONCLUSION: Three of the eight reviewed guidelines exceeded the quality threshold in all domains, while the overall guideline quality was also very high. Focusing on guideline applicability and identifying strategies to facilitate implementation can improve future CPGs.

Evidence and consensus based guideline for the management of delirium, analgesia, and sedation in intensive care medicine. Revision 2015 (DAS-Guideline 2015) - short version.

In 2010, under the guidance of the DGAI (German Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine) and DIVI (German Interdisciplinary Association for Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine), twelve German medical societies published the "Evidence- and Consensus-based Guidelines on the Management of Analgesia, Sedation and Delirium in Intensive Care". Since then, several new studies and publications have considerably increased the body of evidence, including the new recommendations from the American College of Critical Care Medicine (ACCM) in conjunction with Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) and American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP) from 2013. For this update, a major restructuring and extension of the guidelines were needed in order to cover new aspects of treatment, such as sleep and anxiety management. The literature was systematically searched and evaluated using the criteria of the Oxford Center of Evidence Based Medicine. The body of evidence used to formulate these recommendations was reviewed and approved by representatives of 17 national societies. Three grades of recommendation were used as follows: Grade "A" (strong recommendation), Grade "B" (recommendation) and Grade "0" (open recommendation). The result is a comprehensive, interdisciplinary, evidence and consensus-based set of level 3 guidelines. This publication was designed for all ICU professionals, and takes into account all critically ill patient populations. It represents a guide to symptom-oriented prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of delirium, anxiety, stress, and protocol-based analgesia, sedation, and sleep-management in intensive care medicine.