Perioperative dexmedetomidine-induced delirium in a patient with schizophrenia: a case report.

BACKGROUND: Dexmedetomidine is a selective α2 receptor agonist with sedative, analgesic, anxiolytic, and anti-sympathetic effects. Dexmedetomidine is widely used for various surgical procedures performed under general anaesthesia and sedation in the intensive care unit. Dexmedetomidine was known to relieve or improve the symptoms of delirium. Schizophrenia is a common psychiatric disease, and the number of surgical patients with schizophrenia is increasing gradually. Dexmedetomidine-induced delirium in patients with schizophrenia is a particular case. CASE PRESENTATION: This patient was a 75-year-old woman (height: 156 cm; weight: 60 kg) with a 5-year history of schizophrenia. Her schizophrenia was well controlled with medications. She was scheduled for open reduction and internal fixation for a patellar fracture. Spinal anaesthesia was administered for surgery, and dexmedetomidine was administered intravenously to maintain sedation. The patient became delirious half an hour after the surgery began. The intravenous infusion of dexmedetomidine was discontinued immediately, intravenous propofol was subsequently administered, and the patient stopped experiencing dysphoria and fell asleep. After surgery, the patient stopped using propofol and recovered smoothly. She was transferred back to the general ward and was discharged from the hospital without any abnormal conditions on the 9th day after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report of a patient with schizophrenia who developed delirium during the infusion of a normal dose of dexmedetomidine without an intravenous injection of any other sedative. The exact mechanism causing dexmedetomidine-induced delirium remains unclear, and this adverse reaction is rare and easy to ignore. Clinicians and pharmacists should be vigilant in identifying this condition.

Physostigmine reversal of delirium from second generation antipsychotic exposure: a retrospective cohort study from a regional poison center.

INTRODUCTION: Physostigmine is an effective antidote for antimuscarinic delirium. There is little evidence for its use to reverse delirium following second generation antipsychotic exposure. The purpose of this study is to describe the safety and effectiveness of physostigmine in reversing delirium from second generation antipsychotic exposure. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of all patients reported to a single regional poison center treated with physostigmine following a second generation antipsychotic exposure from January 1, 2000 to April 15, 2021. The poison center electronic medical record was queried to identify cases and for data abstraction. The primary outcome was the positive response rate to physostigmine, as determined by two trained abstractors. Secondary outcomes included physostigmine dosing, and adverse events. RESULTS: Of 147 charts reviewed, 138 individual patients were included, and the response to physostigmine was reported in 128 patients. The most common second-generation antipsychotic exposure was quetiapine (97; 70.3 percent). A positive response to physostigmine was noted in 106/128 (82.8 percent) patients [95 percent confidence interval 68.9-83.6 percent]. Median number of physostigmine doses was 1 (interquartile range 1-3; range 1-9). The median total physostigmine dose received was 2 mg (interquartile range 2-6 mg; range 0.15-30 mg). The positive physostigmine response rate for patients with an antimuscarinic co-ingestion was not significantly different compared to patients with a different co-ingestion or no co-ingestion (25/34 versus 81/94; P = 0.09). Adverse events were reported in four (2.9 percent) patients, including one death. DISCUSSION: A positive response to physostigmine to treat antimuscarinic delirium from second generation antipsychotic exposure was reported in 82.8 percent of patients, which is similar to previous physostigmine studies. Adverse events were infrequent, and included diaphoresis (one 0.7 percent), seizure (one; 0.7 percent), and bradycardia (one; 0.7 percent). One (0.7%) patient suffered a cardiac arrest 60 minutes after receiving physostigmine to treat antimuscarinic delirium following having received increasing clozapine doses over the previous month. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, physostigmine appears to be a safe and effective treatment for antimuscarinic delirium from second generation antipsychotic exposure. Further studies are needed to validate the safety and effectiveness of physostigmine for this indication.

Association between antidepressant use and delirium in older adults: an analysis of the World Health Organization's global pharmacovigilance database.

BACKGROUND: Psychoactive drugs frequently cause delirium adverse events in older adults. However, few data on the relationship between antidepressants and delirium are available. Here, we investigated the association between antidepressant prescription and pharmacovigilance reports of delirium in older adults. METHODS: Using the World Health Organization's VigiBase® global pharmacovigilance database from 1967 to 2022, we performed a disproportionality analysis in order to probe the putative associations between each antidepressant class (non-selective monoamine reuptake inhibitors (NSMRIs), selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs), alpha-2-adrenergic receptor antagonists, and other antidepressants) and reports of delirium in people aged 65 or over. We calculated the reporting odds ratios (r-OR) and their 95% confidence interval ([95%CI]) with logistic regression models before and after adjustment for confounding factors. Secondary analyses were performed for each drug and within each class by age group (65-74, and 75 and over). We also studied the reports of concomitant delirium and hyponatremia. RESULTS: Our main analysis included 87,524 cases of delirium. After adjustment for confounders, a significant association was found between delirium and all antidepressant classes other than SNRIs. Intraclass disparities were found for the association between the most frequently prescribed antidepressants and reports of delirium. An elevated risk of reports of concomitant delirium and hyponatremia was found for SSRIs (4.46 [4.01-4.96]), SNRIs (1.25 [1.07-1.46]), MAOIs (1.72 [1.41-2.09]), and the "other antidepressants" class (1.47 [1.30-1.65]). CONCLUSIONS: There was a significant association between reports of delirium and antidepressant classes (other than SNRIs). However, this association varied from one drug to another within a given antidepressant class. Moreover, this association could not always be explained by antidepressant-induced hyponatremia.

Novel opportunities for clinical pharmacy research: development of a machine learning model to identify medication related causes of delirium in different patient groups.

The advent of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies has taken the world of science by storm in 2023. The opportunities of this easy to access technology for clinical pharmacy research are yet to be fully understood. The development of a custom-made large language model (LLM) (DELSTAR) trained on a wide range of internationally recognised scientific publication databases, pharmacovigilance sites and international product characteristics to help identify and summarise medication related information on delirium, as a proof-of-concept model, identified new facilitators and barriers for robust clinical pharmacy practice research. This technology holds great promise for the development of much more comprehensive prescribing guidelines, practice support applications for clinical pharmacy, increased patient and prescribing safety and resultant implications for healthcare costs. The challenge will be to ensure its methodologically robust use and the detailed and transparent verification of its information accuracy.

A Mediation Analysis Examining High Risk, Anticholinergic Medication Use, Delirium, and Dementia After Major Surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Anticholinergic medications are known to cause adverse cognitive effects in community-dwelling older adults and medical inpatients, including dementia. The prevalence with which such medications are prescribed in older adults undergoing major surgery is not well described nor is their mediating relationship with delirium and dementia. We sought to determine the prevalence of high-risk medication use in major surgery patients and their relationship with the subsequent development of dementia. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study which used data between January 2013 and December 2019, in a large midwestern health system, including sixteen hospitals. All patients over age 50 undergoing surgery requiring an inpatient stay were included. The primary exposure was the number of doses of anticholinergic medications delivered during the hospital stay. The primary outcome was a new diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias at 1-y postsurgery. Regression methods and a mediation analysis were used to explore relationships between anticholinergic medication usage, delirium, and dementia. RESULTS: There were 39,665 patients included, with a median age of 66. Most patients were exposed to anticholinergic medications (35,957/39,665; 91%), and 7588/39,665 (19.1%) patients received six or more doses during their hospital stay. Patients with at least six doses of these medications were more likely to be female, black, and with a lower American Society of Anesthesiologists class. Upon adjusted analysis, high doses of anticholinergic medications were associated with increased odds of dementia at 1 y relative to those with no exposure (odds ratio 2.7; 95% confidence interval 2.2-3.3). On mediation analysis, postoperative delirium mediated the effect of anticholinergic medications on dementia, explaining an estimated 57.6% of their association. CONCLUSIONS: High doses of anticholinergic medications are common in major surgery patients and, in part via a mediating relationship with postoperative delirium, are associated with the development of dementia 1 y following surgery. Strategies to decrease the use of these medications and encourage the use of alternatives may improve long-term cognitive recovery.

Rivastigmine for the management of anticholinergic delirium.

INTRODUCTION: Anticholinergic agents are commonly taken in overdose, often causing delirium. The spectrum of anticholinergic delirium ranges from mild agitation to severe behavioural disturbance. Physostigmine is an effective treatment for anticholinergic delirium, but its availability is limited. As rivastigmine is readily available, it has been used to manage anticholinergic delirium; however, there is limited research investigating its use. METHOD: This was a retrospective review of patients with anticholinergic delirium treated in two toxicology units with rivastigmine (oral capsule or transdermal patch) from January 2019 to June 2023. The primary outcome was the use of further parenteral treatment (sedation or physostigmine) for delirium post rivastigmine administration. RESULTS: Fifty patients were administered rivastigmine for the management of anticholinergic delirium. The median age was 36 years (interquartile range: 25-49 years) and 27 (54 per cent) were females. Features consistent with anticholinergic toxicity included tachycardia in 44 (88 per cent) and urinary retention requiring catheterisation in 40 (80 per cent). Forty-three patients (86 per cent) were treated with physostigmine before rivastigmine administration. Twenty-two were managed with transdermal rivastigmine (most commonly 9.5 mg/24 hour patch), and 28 with oral rivastigmine 6 mg. Further parenteral sedation and/or physostigmine treatment were required more often in patients given transdermal than oral rivastigmine [16/22 (73 per cent) versus 9/28 (32 per cent), P = 0.010)]. No patients had bradycardia or gastrointestinal symptoms following rivastigmine administration. One patient with a history of epilepsy had a seizure, 1.5 hours post physostigmine administration and 7 hours post transdermal rivastigmine. DISCUSSION: Rivastigmine has been increasingly used for the management of patients with anticholinergic delirium, due to the lack of availability of physostigmine. In this case series, rivastigmine transdermal patch appeared to be less effective than oral rivastigmine capsules, likely due to its slow onset of action and/or insufficient dose. CONCLUSION: Rivastigmine can be used to treat anticholinergic delirium. In our case series oral rivastigmine appeared more effective than transdermal rivastigmine.

The risk of delirium after sedation with propofol or midazolam in intensive care unit patients.

AIM: Knowledge of risk factors may provide strategies to reduce the high burden of delirium in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. We aimed to compare the risk of delirium after deep sedation with propofol versus midazolam in ICU patients. METHODS: In this prospective cohort study, ICU patients who were in an unarousable state for ≥24 h due to continuous sedation with propofol and/or midazolam were included. Patients admitted ≤24 h, those with an acute neurological disorder and those receiving palliative sedation were excluded. ICU patients were assessed daily for delirium during the 7 days following an unarousable state due to continuous sedation. RESULTS: Among 950 included patients, 605 (64%) subjects were delirious during the 7 days after awaking. The proportion of subsequent delirium was higher after midazolam sedation (152/207 [73%] patients) and after both propofol and midazolam sedation (257/377 [68%] patients), compared to propofol sedation only (196/366 [54%] patients). Midazolam sedation (adjusted cause-specific hazard ratio [adj. cause-specific HR] 1.32, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05-1.66) and propofol and midazolam sedation (adj. cause-specific HR 1.29, 95% CI 1.06-1.56) were associated with a higher risk of subsequent delirium compared to propofol sedation only. CONCLUSION: This study among sedated ICU patients suggests that, compared to propofol sedation, midazolam sedation is associated with a higher risk of subsequent delirium. This risk seems more apparent in patients with high cumulative midazolam intravenous doses. Our findings underpin the recommendations of the Society of Critical Care Medicine Pain, Agitation/sedation, Delirium, Immobility (rehabilitation/mobilization), and Sleep (disruption) guidelines to use propofol over benzodiazepines for sedation in ICU patients.

Effectiveness of antipsychotics for managing agitated delirium in patients with advanced cancer: a secondary analysis of a multicenter prospective observational study in Japan (Phase-R).

PURPOSE: Delirium is a common and serious comorbidity in patients with advanced cancer, necessitating effective management. Nonetheless, effective drugs for managing agitated delirium in patients with advanced cancer remain unclear in real-world settings. Thus, the present study aimed to explore an effective pharmacotherapy for this condition. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of a multicenter prospective observational study in Japan. The analysis included patients with advanced cancer who presented with agitated delirium and received pharmacotherapy. Agitation was defined as a score of the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale for palliative care (RASS-PAL) of ≥ 1. The outcome was defined as -2 ≤ RASS-PAL ≤ 0 at 72 h after the initiation of pharmacotherapy. Multiple propensity scores were quantified using a multinomial logistic regression model, and adjusted odds ratios (ORs) were calculated for haloperidol, chlorpromazine, olanzapine, quetiapine, and risperidone. RESULTS: The analysis included 271 patients with agitated delirium, and 87 (32%) showed -2 ≤ RASS-PAL ≤ 0 on day 3. The propensity score-adjusted OR of olanzapine was statistically significant (OR, 2.91; 95% confidence interval, 1.12 to 7.80; P = 0.030). CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that olanzapine may effectively improve delirium agitation in patients with advanced cancer.

Antipsychotics and the QTc Interval During Delirium in the Intensive Care Unit: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Antipsychotic medications, often prescribed for delirium in intensive care units (ICUs), may contribute to QTc interval prolongation. Objective: To determine whether antipsychotics increase the QTc interval in patients with delirium in the ICU. Design, Setting, and Participants: An a priori analysis of a randomized clinical trial in medical/surgical ICUs within 16 centers across the US was conducted. Participants included adults with delirium in the ICU with baseline QTc interval less than 550 ms. The study was conducted from December 2011 to August 2017. Data analysis was performed from April 25 to August 18, 2021. Interventions: Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to intravenous haloperidol, ziprasidone, or saline placebo administered twice daily until resolution of delirium, ICU discharge, or 14 days. Main Outcomes and Measures: Twelve-lead electrocardiograms were used to measure baseline QTc before study drug initiation and telemetry was used to measure QTc before each subsequent dose of study drug. Unadjusted day-to-day changes in QTc were calculated and multivariable proportional odds regression was used to estimate the effects of antipsychotics vs placebo on next-day maximum QTc interval, adjusting for prespecified baseline covariates and potential interactions with sex. Safety end points, including the occurrence of torsade de pointes, were evaluated. All analyses were conducted based on the intention to treat principle. Results: A total of 566 patients were randomized to haloperidol (n = 192), ziprasidone (n = 190), or placebo (n = 184). Median age was 60.1 (IQR, 51.4-68.7) years; 323 were men (57%). Baseline median QTc intervals across the groups were similar: haloperidol, 458.0 (IQR, 432.0-479.0) ms; ziprasidone, 451.0 (IQR, 424.0-472.0) ms; and placebo, 452.0 (IQR, 432.0-472.0) ms. From day 1 to day 2, median QTc changed minimally: haloperidol, -1.0 (IQR, -28.0 to 15.0) ms; ziprasidone, 0 (IQR, -23.0 to 20.0) ms; and placebo, -3.5 (IQR, -24.8 to 17.0) ms. Compared with placebo, neither haloperidol (odds ratio [OR], 0.95; 95% CI, 0.66-1.37; P = .78) nor ziprasidone (OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.75-1.57; P = .78) was associated with next-day QTc intervals. Effects were not significantly modified by sex (P = .41 for interaction). There were 2 occurrences of nonfatal torsade de pointes, both in the haloperidol group. Neither was associated with study drug administration. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this trial suggest that daily QTc interval monitoring during antipsychotic use may have limited value in patients in the ICU with normal baseline QTc and few risk factors for QTc prolongation. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01211522.

Ertapenem-induced encephalopathy in a patient with liver abscess and acute kidney injury.

A man in his late 70s, retired and independent, generally fit and well with a history of normal cognitive function baseline presented with liver abscess and acute kidney injury. He received meropenem 1 g three times a day for 15 days then subsequently changed to ertapenem 1 g one time a day in preparation for outpatient antibiotic treatment. After 2 days of starting ertapenem, the patient developed night-time delirium, decreased orientation and insomnia, loss of appetite, jerking and hallucination. Investigations have been done to investigate the cause of acute delirium, including lumbar puncture, CT brain, MRI brain, repeat CT abdomen and pelvis to monitor the liver abscess, and electroencephalogram but results were all unremarkable. Medication history during admission was reviewed and discontinued one by one the medications that were suspected to have caused the encephalopathy. Two days following the discontinuation of ertapenem, the patient's symptoms improved with a rapid return to his baseline and without neurological deficit.

Comparison of phenobarbital monotherapy to a benzodiazepine-based regimen for management of alcohol withdrawal syndrome in trauma patients.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS) is associated with increased morbidity and mortality in the trauma population. Benzodiazepines (BZDs) are standard of care for AWS; however, given the risk of delirium with BZDs and reports of BZD-refractory withdrawal, phenobarbital (PHB) has emerged as an alternative therapy for AWS. Safety and efficacy studies of PHB for AWS in trauma patients are lacking. Our aim was to compare a BZD versus PHB protocol in the management of AWS in trauma patients. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study at a level 1 trauma center of patients at risk for AWS managed with either a BZD or a low-dose oral PHB regimen. Patients were excluded if they were taking BZDs or barbiturates before admission, received propofol or dexmedetomidine before initiation of the study drug, presented with delirium tremens or seizures, or died or discharged within 24 hours of presentation. The primary outcome was complicated AWS (seizures or alcohol withdrawal delirium/delirium tremens). Secondary outcomes included uncomplicated AWS; therapy escalation; oversedation; delirium-, intensive care unit-, and ventilator-free days; and length of stay. RESULTS: A total of 411 patients were identified; 118 received BZD, and 293 received PHB. The odds of developing complicated AWS with PHB versus BZD-based therapy were not statistically significant (odds ratio [OR], 0.52; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.21-1.39); however, patients receiving PHB were less likely to develop uncomplicated AWS (OR, 0.08; 95% CI, 0.04-0.14) and less likely to require escalation of therapy (OR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.24-0.84). The PHB group had a length of stay 3.1 days shorter than the BZD group ( p = 0.002). There was no difference in intensive care unit-, ventilator-, or delirium-free days. CONCLUSION: A PHB-based protocol for the management of AWS is a safe and effective alternative to BZD-based regimens in trauma patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level IV.

Comparison of Volatile Anesthetics Versus Propofol on Postoperative Cognitive Function After Cardiac Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of volatile anesthetics and propofol on neurocognitive function after cardiac surgery. DESIGN: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. SETTING: A literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, Scopus, and Web of Science databases was conducted. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 10 randomized controlled trials comparing volatile anesthetics and propofol in cardiac surgery were included in the study. INTERVENTIONS: The standardized mean difference and risk ratio were calculated to estimate pooled effect sizes. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary outcome was the postoperative neurocognitive function score, and the secondary outcome was the incidence of delirium after cardiac surgery. The analysis did not show significant differences in postoperative neurocognitive function scores (standardized mean difference -0.06, 95% CI -0.81-0.69; p = 0.879). The incidences of delirium (risk ratio 1.10, 95% CI 0.81-1.50) between the volatile anesthetics and propofol groups were not significant (p = 0.533). CONCLUSIONS: Unlike noncardiac surgery, there are no differences between volatile anesthetics and propofol regarding postoperative neurocognitive dysfunction after cardiac surgery.

Efficacy and Safety of Risperidone in Patients With Delirium: The RIDDLE Pilot Study.

BACKGROUND: The cornerstone treatment of delirium is to assess and treat its underlying causes and prevent further complications. Drug therapy may be necessary to control agitation and behavioral symptoms associated with delirium. The aim of this pilot study was to evaluate the feasibility of a randomized placebo controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of risperidone in the treatment of delirium. METHODS: This was a randomized double-blinded placebo-controlled trial. Patients were enrolled in the study if they were hospitalized and 65 years or older and had a diagnosis of delirium. Delirium Rating Scale revised 98 was used to determine delirium and motor agitation. RESULTS: A total of 14 participants with 57% being men and having a mean age of 86 years were included. There were no statistically significant differences between the risperidone and placebo group for the Delirium Rating Scale revised 98 score. There were no severe adverse reactions reported in the study, and no patients discontinued the study for adverse reactions. CONCLUSIONS: Risperidone at low doses (1 mg daily or less) was well tolerated for the treatment of delirium. Future large-scale trials are needed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of risperidone in the treatment of delirium. This pilot study taught us that the phase 2 RIsperDone DELirium trial will need a multicenter design with more research personnel to increase the number of participants enrolled.

Association Between Antidiabetic Drugs and Delirium: A Study Based on the Adverse Drug Event Reporting Database in Japan.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Several associations between diabetes mellitus and delirium have been reported; however, they have been inconsistent, and evidence on the effects of antidiabetic medications on delirium is also limited. This study aimed to investigate whether the use of antidiabetic drugs is a risk factor for delirium development. METHODS: Using the Japanese Adverse Event Reporting Database, we analyzed 662,899 reports between 2004 and 2022. Reporting odds ratios (RORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for delirium associated with diabetes and using each antidiabetic medication were calculated after adjusting for potential confounders. RESULTS: Overall, 8892 of the reports analyzed were associated with delirium. A comparison of the incidence of delirium between patients with and without diabetes showed no significant difference, with 1.34% in patients without diabetes and 1.37% in those with diabetes. In each antidiabetic medication, signals for delirium were detected for sulfonylurea (crude ROR, 1.35; 95% CI 1.21-1.51) and insulin (crude ROR, 1.28; 95% CI 1.13-1.44). These results were maintained even after adjusting for factors with potential confounders (sulfonylurea: adjusted ROR, 1.75; 95% CI 1.54-2.00, insulin: adjusted ROR, 1.35; 95% CI 1.20-1.54). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest no association between diabetes and delirium; however, using sulfonylurea and insulin may be associated with delirium development. Nonetheless, these findings should be validated in future studies.