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.

Intensive care unit nurses' perception of three different methods for delirium screening: A survey (DELIS-3).

BACKGROUND: Delirium is common in critically ill patients with detrimental effects in terms of increased morbidity, mortality, costs, and human suffering. Delirium detection and management depends on systematic screening for delirium, which can be challenging to implement in clinical practice. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to explore how nurses in the intensive care unit perceived the use of Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU), the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit-7 (CAM-ICU-7), and Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC) for delirium screening of patients in the intensive care unit. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional, electronic-based survey of nurses' perceptions of delirium screening with the three different instruments for delirium screening. Nurses were asked to grade their perception of the usability of the three instruments and how well they were perceived to detect delirium and delirium symptom changes on a 1- to 6-point Likert scale. Open questions about perceived advantages and disadvantages of each instrument were analysed using the framework method. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-seven of 167 invited nurses completed the survey and rated the CAM-ICU-7 as faster and easier than the ICDSC, which was more nuanced and reflected changes in the patient's delirium better. Despite being rated as the fastest, easiest, and most used, the CAM-ICU provided less information and was considered inferior to the CAM-ICU-7 and ICDSC. Using familiar instruments made delirium screening easier, but being able to grade and nuance the delirium assessment was experienced as important for clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: Both the ICDSC and the CAM-ICU-7 were perceived well suited for detection of delirium and reflected changes in delirium intensity. The CAM-ICU was rated as fast and easy but inferior in its ability to grade and nuance the assessment of delirium. Emphasis on clinical meaningfulness and continued education in delirium screening are necessary for adherence to delirium management guidelines.

Intravenous fosphenytoin as treatment for acute exacerbation of trigeminal neuralgia: A prospective systematic study of 15 patients.

INTRODUCTION: Intravenous fosphenytoin is widely used for acute exacerbation of trigeminal neuralgia, however, few studies have investigated this treatment. We aimed to examine the efficacy and side effects of initial intravenous fosphenytoin plus oral tapering of phenytoin for exacerbation of trigeminal neuralgia. METHODS: Consecutive patients with primary trigeminal neuralgia were included in this prospective observational 90-days follow-up study. Data were collected using standardized interviews before, at 24 hours, day 7, 30 and 90 post loading dose. The primary outcome was the proportion of responders defined as a 50% reduction in pain intensity 24 hours post loading dose. RESULTS: We included 15 patients. Nine patients (60%) were responders. Pain intensity 24 hours post loading dose was reduced by 5.00 points on the numerical rating scale (p < 0.001), and at day 7 by 5.5 points (p < 0.001). The most common side effects were hypotension and dizziness. CONCLUSION: Intravenous fosphenytoin relieves trigeminal neuralgia pain in most patients and provides a window for titrating prophylactic trigeminal neuralgia medications or planning neurosurgery. The decision to administer intravenous fosphenytoin should be taken with support from trigeminal neuralgia experts and involves considerations of co-morbidities and other treatment options for acute exacerbation of trigeminal neuralgia.Clinical Trial: Preregistered (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03712254.