Monitoring delirium in the intensive care unit: Diagnostic accuracy of the CAM-ICU tool when performed by certified nursing assistants - A prospective multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Monitoring delirium in critically ill patients is recognized as a major challenge. Although involving certified nursing assistants could be a valuable help in this field, such strategy has never been formally investigated. OBJECTIVES: Following theoretical training, we conducted a prospective multicenter study assessing the diagnostic accuracy of a CAM-ICU delirium screening strategy performed by CNAs in clinical settings, compared to parallel blinded evaluations conducted by nurses and physicians. METHODS: From October 2020 to June 2022, adult intensive care patients admitted in three French University teaching hospitals with Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale ≥-2 were independently assessed for delirium by the three members of the care team (clinical nursing assistant, nurse and physician) using CAM-ICU in a random order. Physician's assessment served as the reference standard for comparisons. RESULTS: We analyzed results from 268 triplets of CAM-ICU assessments performed sequentially on 203 patients. Prevalence of delirium was 22%. Compared to physician's assessments, clinical nursing assistants demonstrated a sensitivity (Se) of 88% CI95% [80-96] and a specificity (Sp) of 95% [92-98] in detecting delirium. There was no significant difference in the performance of clinical nursing assistants and nurses (Se = 90 % [82-97] p = 0.77, Sp = 98 % [95-100] p = 0.19). We observed high agreement between results obtained by physicians and clinical nursing assistants (ĸ = 0.82) and clinical nursing assistants performance remained consistent in the subgroups at higher risk of delirium. CONCLUSION: Evaluation of the CAM-ICU by clinical nursing assistants is feasible and should be seen as an opportunity to increase routine monitoring of delirium in intensive care patients. IMPLICATION FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE: Delirium is a severe and underestimated complication of intensive care unit stay. This study results demonstrate the great performance of trained clinical nursing assistants in detecting delirium using the CAM-ICU. Further research is needed to define the most effective role for clinical nursing assistants in the routine management of delirium in intensive care patients.

Heterogeneity in the definition of delirium in ICUs and association with the intervention effect in randomized controlled trials: a meta-epidemiological study.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the heterogeneity in the definition of delirium in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) included in meta-analyses of delirium in intensive care units (ICUs) and to explore whether intervention effect depends on the definition used. METHODS: We searched PubMed for meta-analyses including RCTs evaluating prevention or treatment strategies of delirium in ICU. The definition of delirium was collected from RCTs and classified as validated (DSM criteria, CAM-ICU, ICDSC, NEECHAM, DRS-R98) or non-validated (non-validated scales, set of symptoms, physician appreciation or not reported). We conducted a meta-epidemiological analysis to compare intervention effects between trials using or not a validated definition by a two-step method as primary analysis and a multilevel model as secondary analysis. A ratio of odds ratios (ROR) < 1 indicated larger intervention effects in trials using a non-validated definition. RESULTS: Of 149 RCTs (41 meta-analyses), 109 (73.1%) used a validated definition and 40 (26.8%) did not (including 31 [20.8%] not reporting the definition). The primary analysis of 7 meta-analyses (30 RCTs) found no significant difference in intervention effects between trials using a validated definition and the others (ROR = 0.54, 95% CI 0.27-1.08), whereas the secondary multilevel analysis including 12 meta-analyses (67 RCTs) found significantly larger effects for trials using a non-validated versus a validated definition (ROR = 0.36, 95% CI 0.21-0.62). CONCLUSION: The definition of delirium was heterogeneous across RCTs, with one-fifth not reporting how they evaluated delirium. We did not find a significant association with intervention effect in the primary analysis. The secondary analysis including more studies revealed significantly larger intervention effects in trials using a non-validated versus a validated definition.

Virtual Reality for PEripheral Regional Anesthesia (VR-PERLA Study).

When used as an add-on to regional anesthesia, virtual reality (VR) has been reported to provide anxiety-reducing benefits and sedation-sparing effects. However, its impact on patient satisfaction is still a matter of controversy. We investigated the feasibility and benefits of implementing intraoperative VR distraction in a French University Hospital (Hôpital Saint-Antoine, AP-HP). This monocentric observational before-after study included 100 patients who underwent ambulatory upper limb surgery under peripheral nerve block in January 2019, 50 before and 50 after implementation of an intraoperative VR distraction protocol. Primary outcome was patient self-rated satisfaction score evaluated right after surgery. Secondary outcomes included 2-month patient-reported satisfaction score, perioperative self-rated anxiety and intraoperative hemodynamic changes. Compared to former standard care, VR distraction was associated with significantly higher postoperative satisfaction scores (10 [IQR 9; 10] vs. 9 [8; 10], p < 0.001) still reported two months after surgery (10 [10;10] vs. 10 [8.5;10], p = 0.06). Patient median intraoperative anxiety score was lower in the VR group, compared to Standard Care group (0 [0; 2] vs. 3 [0.25; 7], p < 0.001), and occurrence of intraoperative hemodynamic changes was also lessened in the VR group (2% vs. 16%, 0R = 0.11[95% CI 0.002-0.87], p = 0.031). The present findings suggest that VR distraction program in the operating room could effectively improve patient satisfaction with anxiety-reduction and hemodynamic benefits.