Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
External Validation of Two Models to Predict Delirium in Critically Ill Adults Using Either the Confusion Assessment Method-ICU or the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist for Delirium Assessment.
Wassenaar, Annelies; Schoonhoven, Lisette; Devlin, John W; van Haren, Frank M P; Slooter, Arjen J C; Jorens, Philippe G; van der Jagt, Mathieu; Simons, Koen S; Egerod, Ingrid; Burry, Lisa D; Beishuizen, Albertus; Matos, Joaquim; Donders, A Rogier T; Pickkers, Peter; van den Boogaard, Mark.
Afiliación
  • Wassenaar A; Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
  • Schoonhoven L; Faculty of Health Sciences and National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (Wessex), University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.
  • Devlin JW; Scientific Institute for Quality of Healthcare, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
  • van Haren FMP; School of Pharmacy, Northeastern University, Boston, MA.
  • Slooter AJC; Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care and Sleep Medicine, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA.
  • Jorens PG; Intensive Care Unit, Department of Intensive Care Medicine, The Canberra Hospital, Canberra, ACT, Australia.
  • van der Jagt M; Faculty of Health, University of Canberra, Canberra, ACT, Australia.
  • Simons KS; College of Health and Medicine, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia.
  • Egerod I; Department of Intensive Care Medicine and Brain Center Rudolf Magnus, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
  • Burry LD; Department of Critical Care Medicine, Antwerp University Hospital, University of Antwerp, Edegem (Antwerp), Belgium.
  • Beishuizen A; Department of Intensive Care, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
  • Matos J; Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Jeroen Bosch Ziekenhuis, 's-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands.
  • Donders ART; Intensive Care Unit, Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
  • Pickkers P; Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
  • van den Boogaard M; Department of Pharmacy, Mount Sinai Hospital, Sinai Health System, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Crit Care Med ; 47(10): e827-e835, 2019 10.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31306177
ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES:

To externally validate two delirium prediction models (early prediction model for ICU delirium and recalibrated prediction model for ICU delirium) using either the Confusion Assessment Method-ICU or the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist for delirium assessment.

DESIGN:

Prospective, multinational cohort study.

SETTING:

Eleven ICUs from seven countries in three continents. PATIENTS Consecutive, delirium-free adults admitted to the ICU for greater than or equal to 6 hours in whom delirium could be reliably assessed.

INTERVENTIONS:

None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN

RESULTS:

The predictors included in each model were collected at the time of ICU admission (early prediction model for ICU delirium) or within 24 hours of ICU admission (recalibrated prediction model for ICU delirium). Delirium was assessed using the Confusion Assessment Method-ICU or the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist. Discrimination was determined using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. The predictive performance was determined for the Confusion Assessment Method-ICU and Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist cohort, and compared with both prediction models' original reported performance. A total of 1,286 Confusion Assessment Method-ICU-assessed patients and 892 Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist-assessed patients were included. Compared with the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.75 (95% CI, 0.71-0.79) in the original study, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the early prediction model for ICU delirium was 0.67 (95% CI, 0.64-0.71) for delirium as assessed using the Confusion Assessment Method-ICU and 0.70 (95% CI, 0.66-0.74) using the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist. Compared with the original area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.77 (95% CI, 0.74-0.79), the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the recalibrated prediction model for ICU delirium was 0.75 (95% CI, 0.72-0.78) for assessing delirium using the Confusion Assessment Method-ICU and 0.71 (95% CI, 0.67-0.75) using the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist.

CONCLUSIONS:

Both the early prediction model for ICU delirium and recalibrated prediction model for ICU delirium are externally validated using either the Confusion Assessment Method-ICU or the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist for delirium assessment. Per delirium prediction model, both assessment tools showed a similar moderate-to-good statistical performance. These results support the use of either the early prediction model for ICU delirium or recalibrated prediction model for ICU delirium in ICUs around the world regardless of whether delirium is evaluated with the Confusion Assessment Method-ICU or Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist.
Asunto(s)

Texto completo: 1 Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Cuidados Críticos / Delirio / Lista de Verificación / Modelos Teóricos Tipo de estudio: Diagnostic_studies / Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies / Screening_studies Idioma: En Revista: Crit Care Med Año: 2019 Tipo del documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Cuidados Críticos / Delirio / Lista de Verificación / Modelos Teóricos Tipo de estudio: Diagnostic_studies / Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies / Screening_studies Idioma: En Revista: Crit Care Med Año: 2019 Tipo del documento: Article