Non-pharmacological interventions for preventing delirium in hospitalised non-ICU patients.

BACKGROUND: Delirium is an acute neuropsychological disorder that is common in hospitalised patients. It can be distressing to patients and carers and it is associated with serious adverse outcomes. Treatment options for established delirium are limited and so prevention of delirium is desirable. Non-pharmacological interventions are thought to be important in delirium prevention.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions designed to prevent delirium in hospitalised patients outside intensive care units (ICU). SEARCH METHODS: We searched ALOIS, the specialised register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group, with additional searches conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS, Web of Science Core Collection, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization Portal/ICTRP to 16 September 2020. There were no language or date restrictions applied to the electronic searches, and no methodological filters were used to restrict the search. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of single and multicomponent non-pharmacological interventions for preventing delirium in hospitalised adults cared for outside intensive care or high dependency settings. We only included non-pharmacological interventions which were designed and implemented to prevent delirium.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently examined titles and abstracts identified by the search for eligibility and extracted data from full-text articles. Any disagreements on eligibility and inclusion were resolved by consensus. We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. The primary outcomes were: incidence of delirium; inpatient and later mortality; and new diagnosis of dementia. We included secondary and adverse outcomes as pre-specified in the review protocol. We used risk ratios (RRs) as measures of treatment effect for dichotomous outcomes and between-group mean differences for continuous outcomes. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using GRADE. A complementary exploratory analysis was undertaker using a Bayesian component network meta-analysis fixed-effect model to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of the individual components of multicomponent interventions and describe which components were most strongly associated with reducing the incidence of delirium. MAIN RESULTS: We included 22 RCTs that recruited a total of 5718 adult participants. Fourteen trials compared a multicomponent delirium prevention intervention with usual care. Two trials compared liberal and restrictive blood transfusion thresholds. The remaining six trials each investigated a different non-pharmacological intervention. Incidence of delirium was reported in all studies.  Using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, we identified risks of bias in all included trials. All were at high risk of performance bias as participants and personnel were not blinded to the interventions. Nine trials were at high risk of detection bias due to lack of blinding of outcome assessors and three more were at unclear risk in this domain.  Pooled data showed that multi-component non-pharmacological interventions probably reduce the incidence of delirium compared to usual care (10.5% incidence in the intervention group, compared to 18.4% in the control group, risk ratio (RR) 0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46 to 0.71, I2 = 39%; 14 studies; 3693 participants; moderate-certainty evidence, downgraded due to risk of bias).  There may be little or no effect of multicomponent interventions on inpatient mortality compared to usual care (5.2% in the intervention group, compared to 4.5% in the control group, RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.74, I2 = 15%; 10 studies; 2640 participants; low-certainty evidence downgraded due to inconsistency and imprecision).  No studies of multicomponent interventions reported data on new diagnoses of dementia.  Multicomponent interventions may result in a small reduction of around a day in the duration of a delirium episode (mean difference (MD) -0.93, 95% CI -2.01 to 0.14 days, I2 = 65%; 351 participants; low-certainty evidence downgraded due to risk of bias and imprecision). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of multicomponent interventions on delirium severity (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.49, 95% CI -1.13 to 0.14, I2=64%; 147 participants; very low-certainty evidence downgraded due to risk of bias and serious imprecision). Multicomponent interventions may result in a reduction in hospital length of stay compared to usual care (MD -1.30 days, 95% CI -2.56 to -0.04 days, I2=91%; 3351 participants; low-certainty evidence downgraded due to risk of bias and inconsistency), but little to no difference in new care home admission at the time of hospital discharge (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.07; 536 participants; low-certainty evidence downgraded due to risk of bias and imprecision). Reporting of other adverse outcomes was limited.  Our exploratory component network meta-analysis found that re-orientation (including use of familiar objects), cognitive stimulation and sleep hygiene were associated with reduced risk of incident delirium. Attention to nutrition and hydration, oxygenation, medication review, assessment of mood and bowel and bladder care were probably associated with a reduction in incident delirium but estimates included the possibility of no benefit or harm.  Reducing sensory deprivation, identification of infection, mobilisation and pain control all had summary estimates that suggested potential increases in delirium incidence, but the uncertainty in the estimates was substantial.  Evidence from two trials suggests that use of a liberal transfusion threshold over a restrictive transfusion threshold probably results in little to no difference in incident delirium (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.36; I2 = 9%; 294 participants; moderate-certainty evidence downgraded due to risk of bias).  Six other interventions were examined, but evidence for each was limited to single studies and we identified no evidence of delirium prevention.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate-certainty evidence regarding the benefit of multicomponent non-pharmacological interventions for the prevention of delirium in hospitalised adults, estimated to reduce incidence by 43% compared to usual care. We found no evidence of an effect on mortality. There is emerging evidence that these interventions may reduce hospital length of stay, with a trend towards reduced delirium duration, although the effect on delirium severity remains uncertain. Further research should focus on implementation and detailed analysis of the components of the interventions to support more effective, tailored practice recommendations.

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) for stroke recovery.

BACKGROUND: Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) might theoretically reduce post-stroke disability by direct effects on the brain. This Cochrane Review was first published in 2012 and last updated in 2019. OBJECTIVES: To determine if SSRIs are more effective than placebo or usual care at improving outcomes in people less than 12 months post-stroke, and to determine whether treatment with SSRIs is associated with adverse effects. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last searched 7 January 2021), Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CENTRAL, Issue 7 of 12, 7 January 2021), MEDLINE (1946 to 7 January 2021), Embase (1974 to 7 January 2021), CINAHL (1982 to 7 January 2021), PsycINFO (1985 to 7 January 2021), and AMED (1985 to 7 January 2021). PsycBITE had previously been searched (16 July 2018). We searched clinical trials registers. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) recruiting stroke survivors within the first year. The intervention was any SSRI, at any dose, for any period, and for any indication. The comparator was usual care or placebo. Studies reporting at least one of our primary (disability score or independence) or secondary outcomes (impairments, depression, anxiety, quality of life, fatigue, cognition, healthcare cost, death, adverse events and leaving the study early) were included in the meta-analysis. The primary analysis included studies at low risk of bias. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data on demographics, stroke type and, our pre-specified outcomes, and bias sources. Two review authors independently extracted data. We used mean difference (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMDs) for continuous variables, and risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous variables, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed bias risks and applied GRADE criteria. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 76 eligible studies (13,029 participants); 75 provided data at end of treatment, and of these two provided data at follow-up. Thirty-eight required participants to have depression to enter. The duration, drug, and dose varied. Six studies were at low risk of bias across all domains; all six studies did not need participants to have depression to enter, and all used fluoxetine. Of these six studies, there was little to no difference in disability between groups SMD -0.0; 95% CI -0.05 to 0.05; 5 studies, 5436 participants, high-quality evidence) or in independence (RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.93 to 1.03; 5 studies, 5926 participants; high-quality evidence) at the end of treatment. In the studies at low risk of bias across all domains, SSRIs slightly reduced the average depression score (SMD 0.14 lower, 95% CI 0.19 lower to 0.08 lower; 4 studies; 5356 participants, high-quality evidence) and there was a slight reduction in the proportion with depression (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.86; 3 studies, 5907 participants, high-quality evidence). Cognition was slightly better in the control group (MD -1.22, 95% CI -2.37 to -0.07; 4 studies, 5373 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Only one study (n = 30) reported neurological deficit score (SMD -0.39, 95% CI -1.12 to 0.33; low-quality evidence). SSRIs resulted in little to no difference in motor deficit (SMD 0.03, -0.02 to 0.08; 6 studies, 5518 participants, moderate-quality evidence). SSRIs slightly increased the proportion leaving the study early (RR 1.57, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.40; 6 studies, 6090 participants, high-quality evidence). SSRIs slightly increased the outcome of a seizure (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.98; 6 studies, 6080 participants, moderate-quality evidence) and a bone fracture (RR 2.35, 95% CI 1.62 to 3.41; 6 studies, 6080 participants, high-quality evidence). One study at low risk of bias across all domains reported gastrointestinal side effects (RR 1.71, 95% CI 0.33, to 8.83; 1 study, 30 participants). There was no difference in the total number of deaths between SSRI and placebo (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.24; 6 studies, 6090 participants, moderate quality evidence). SSRIs probably result in little to no difference in fatigue (MD -0.06; 95% CI -1.24 to 1.11; 4 studies, 5524 participants, moderate-quality of evidence), nor in quality of life (MD 0.00; 95% CI -0.02 to 0.02, 3 studies, 5482 participants, high-quality evidence). When all studies, irrespective of risk of bias, were included, SSRIs reduced disability scores but not the proportion independent. There was insufficient data to perform a meta-analysis of outcomes at end of follow-up. Several small ongoing studies are unlikely to alter conclusions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is high-quality evidence that SSRIs do not make a difference to disability or independence after stroke compared to placebo or usual care, reduced the risk of future depression, increased bone fractures and probably increased seizure risk.

Non-pharmacological interventions for preventing delirium in hospitalised non-ICU patients.

BACKGROUND: Delirium is an acute neuropsychological disorder that is common in hospitalised patients. It can be distressing to patients and carers and it is associated with serious adverse outcomes. Treatment options for established delirium are limited and so prevention of delirium is desirable. Non-pharmacological interventions are thought to be important in delirium prevention.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions designed to prevent delirium in hospitalised patients outside intensive care units (ICU). SEARCH METHODS: We searched ALOIS, the specialised register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group, with additional searches conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS, Web of Science Core Collection, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization Portal/ICTRP to 16 September 2020. There were no language or date restrictions applied to the electronic searches, and no methodological filters were used to restrict the search. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of single and multicomponent non-pharmacological interventions for preventing delirium in hospitalised adults cared for outside intensive care or high dependency settings. We only included non-pharmacological interventions which were designed and implemented to prevent delirium.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently examined titles and abstracts identified by the search for eligibility and extracted data from full-text articles. Any disagreements on eligibility and inclusion were resolved by consensus. We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. The primary outcomes were: incidence of delirium; inpatient and later mortality; and new diagnosis of dementia. We included secondary and adverse outcomes as pre-specified in the review protocol. We used risk ratios (RRs) as measures of treatment effect for dichotomous outcomes and between-group mean differences for continuous outcomes. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using GRADE. A complementary exploratory analysis was undertaker using a Bayesian component network meta-analysis fixed-effect model to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of the individual components of multicomponent interventions and describe which components were most strongly associated with reducing the incidence of delirium. MAIN RESULTS: We included 22 RCTs that recruited a total of 5718 adult participants. Fourteen trials compared a multicomponent delirium prevention intervention with usual care. Two trials compared liberal and restrictive blood transfusion thresholds. The remaining six trials each investigated a different non-pharmacological intervention. Incidence of delirium was reported in all studies.  Using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, we identified risks of bias in all included trials. All were at high risk of performance bias as participants and personnel were not blinded to the interventions. Nine trials were at high risk of detection bias due to lack of blinding of outcome assessors and three more were at unclear risk in this domain.  Pooled data showed that multi-component non-pharmacological interventions probably reduce the incidence of delirium compared to usual care (10.5% incidence in the intervention group, compared to 18.4% in the control group, risk ratio (RR) 0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46 to 0.71, I2 = 39%; 14 studies; 3693 participants; moderate-certainty evidence, downgraded due to risk of bias).  There may be little or no effect of multicomponent interventions on inpatient mortality compared to usual care (5.2% in the intervention group, compared to 4.5% in the control group, RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.74, I2 = 15%; 10 studies; 2640 participants; low-certainty evidence downgraded due to inconsistency and imprecision).  No studies of multicomponent interventions reported data on new diagnoses of dementia.  Multicomponent interventions may result in a small reduction of around a day in the duration of a delirium episode (mean difference (MD) -0.93, 95% CI -2.01 to 0.14 days, I2 = 65%; 351 participants; low-certainty evidence downgraded due to risk of bias and imprecision). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of multicomponent interventions on delirium severity (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.49, 95% CI -1.13 to 0.14, I2=64%; 147 participants; very low-certainty evidence downgraded due to risk of bias and serious imprecision). Multicomponent interventions may result in a reduction in hospital length of stay compared to usual care (MD -1.30 days, 95% CI -2.56 to -0.04 days, I2=91%; 3351 participants; low-certainty evidence downgraded due to risk of bias and inconsistency), but little to no difference in new care home admission at the time of hospital discharge (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.07; 536 participants; low-certainty evidence downgraded due to risk of bias and imprecision). Reporting of other adverse outcomes was limited.  Our exploratory component network meta-analysis found that re-orientation (including use of familiar objects), cognitive stimulation and sleep hygiene were associated with reduced risk of incident delirium. Attention to nutrition and hydration, oxygenation, medication review, assessment of mood and bowel and bladder care were probably associated with a reduction in incident delirium but estimates included the possibility of no benefit or harm.  Reducing sensory deprivation, identification of infection, mobilisation and pain control all had summary estimates that suggested potential increases in delirium incidence, but the uncertainty in the estimates was substantial.  Evidence from two trials suggests that use of a liberal transfusion threshold over a restrictive transfusion threshold probably results in little to no difference in incident delirium (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.36; I2 = 9%; 294 participants; moderate-certainty evidence downgraded due to risk of bias).  Six other interventions were examined, but evidence for each was limited to single studies and we identified no evidence of delirium prevention.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate-certainty evidence regarding the benefit of multicomponent non-pharmacological interventions for the prevention of delirium in hospitalised adults, estimated to reduce incidence by 43% compared to usual care. We found no evidence of an effect on mortality. There is emerging evidence that these interventions may reduce hospital length of stay, with a trend towards reduced delirium duration, although the effect on delirium severity remains uncertain. Further research should focus on implementation and detailed analysis of the components of the interventions to support more effective, tailored practice recommendations.

Predicting Discharge to Institutional Long-Term Care After Stroke: A Systematic Review and Metaanalysis.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Stroke is a leading cause of disability worldwide, and a significant proportion of stroke survivors require long-term institutional care. Understanding who cannot be discharged home is important for health and social care planning. Our aim was to establish predictive factors for discharge to institutional care after hospitalization for stroke. DESIGN: We registered and conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis (PROSPERO: CRD42015023497) of observational studies. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL Plus to February 2017. Quantitative synthesis was performed where data allowed. SETTING: Acute and rehabilitation hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Adults hospitalized for stroke who were newly admitted directly to long-term institutional care at the time of hospital discharge. MEASUREMENTS: Factors associated with new institutionalization. RESULTS: From 10,420 records, we included 18 studies (n = 32,139 participants). The studies were heterogeneous and conducted in Europe, North America, and East Asia. Eight studies were at high risk of selection bias. The proportion of those surviving to discharge who were newly discharged to long-term care varied from 7% to 39% (median 17%, interquartile range 12%), and the model of care received in the long-term care setting was not defined. Older age and greater stroke severity had a consistently positive association with the need for long-term care admission. Individuals who had a severe stroke were 26 times as likely to be admitted to long-term care than those who had a minor stroke. Individuals aged 65 and older had a risk of stroke that was three times as great as that of younger individuals. Potentially modifiable factors were rarely examined. CONCLUSION: Age and stroke severity are important predictors of institutional long-term care admission directly from the hospital after an acute stroke. Potentially modifiable factors should be the target of future research. Stroke outcome studies should report discharge destination, defining the model of care provided in the long-term care setting.

New horizons in the pathogenesis, assessment and management of delirium.

UNLABELLED: Delirium is one of the foremost unmet medical needs in healthcare. It affects one in eight hospitalised patients and is associated with multiple adverse outcomes including increased length of stay, new institutionalisation, and considerable patient distress. Recent studies also show that delirium strongly predicts future new-onset dementia, as well as accelerating existing dementia. The importance of delirium is now increasingly being recognised, with a growing research base, new professional international organisations, increased interest from policymakers, and greater prominence of delirium in educational and audit programmes. Nevertheless, the field faces several complex research and clinical challenges. In this article we focus on selected areas of recent progress and/or uncertainty in delirium research and practice. (i) PATHOGENESIS: recent studies in animal models using peripheral inflammatory stimuli have begun to suggest mechanisms underlying the delirium syndrome as well as its link with dementia. A growing body of blood and cerebrospinal fluid studies in humans have implicated inflammatory and stress mediators. (ii) PREVENTION: delirium prevention is effective in the context of research studies, but there are several unresolved issues, including what components should be included, the role of prophylactic drugs, and the overlap with general best care for hospitalised older people. (iii) ASSESSMENT: though there are several instruments for delirium screening and assessment, detection rates remain dismal. There are no clear solutions but routine screening embedded into clinical practice, and the development of new rapid screening instruments, offer potential. (iv) MANAGEMENT: studies are difficult given the heterogeneity of delirium and currently expert and comprehensive clinical care remains the main recommendation. Future studies may address the role of drugs for specific elements of delirium. In summary, though facing many challenges, the field continues to make progress, with several promising lines of enquiry and an expanding base of interest among researchers, clinicians and policymakers.

Fatigue after subarachnoid haemorrhage: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Fatigue is common and debilitating symptom in many neurological disorders and it has been reported in patients after non-traumatic subarachnoid haemorrhage (SAH). OBJECTIVES: We undertook a systematic review to identify and critically appraise all published studies that have reported frequency, severity and time course of fatigue after SAH, the factors associated with its development and the impact of fatigue on patients' life after SAH. METHODS: We searched Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, AMED, PubMed and included in the review all studies published in English, recruiting at least 10 patients (> 18 years old) after SAH, which reported fatigue. RESULTS: We identified 13 studies (total number of subjects 737) meeting our inclusion criteria. The frequency of fatigue ranged from 31 to 90%. Fatigue remained common even several years after the ictus. According to some studies fatigue after SAH was associated with sleep disturbances, anxiety, depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, cognitive and physical impairment, but these could not explain all cases of fatigue. Fatigue reduces quality of life and life satisfaction in patients after SAH. CONCLUSIONS: Fatigue is common after SAH and seems to persist. Further research is needed to clarify its time course and identify factors associated with its development.

Is fatigue after stroke associated with physical deconditioning? A cross-sectional study in ambulatory stroke survivors.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the relationship between a measure of fatigue and 2 indices of physical fitness, lower limb extensor power (LLEP) and walking economy. DESIGN: This was a cross-sectional study of patients with stroke. Fatigue was assessed by vitality (VIT) score of the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey version 2 (SF-36v2). LLEP of the unaffected limb was measured using a lower leg extensor power rig. Walking economy was calculated by measuring oxygen consumption (mL·kg(-1)·m(-1)) during walking at a comfortable speed. Bivariate analyses were performed relating VIT to indices of fitness. Multiple regression analyses were also performed and included age, sex, and either SF-36v2 emotional role function or SF-36v2 mental health, as predictors of VIT. SETTING: Community setting. PARTICIPANTS: Participants (N=66; 36 men; mean age ± SD, 71.0±9.9y) were all community dwelling, had survived a stroke, were able to walk independently, and had completed their stroke rehabilitation. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome measure is SF-36v2 (VIT), with walking economy and LLEP of the limb unaffected by the stroke being independent variables. RESULTS: Walking economy was not significantly related to VIT (R=-.024, P=.86, n=60). LLEP was positively related to VIT in bivariate analysis (R=.38, P=.003, n=58). After controlling for age, sex, and SF-36 emotional role function (or SF-36v2 mental health if the extreme outlier was excluded), LLEP remained a significant predictor of VIT. CONCLUSIONS: We found an association between fatigue and reduced LLEP. If a larger study confirms these findings, it would support the need to develop and test interventions to increase LLEP as a treatment for fatigue after stroke.