Practical Application of a Battery of Brief Tools to Evaluate Geriatric Medical Inpatients for the Three Ds.

OBJECTIVE: The investigators aimed to identify the clinical characteristics of patients with or without delirium and preexisting depression, dementia, both, or neither by using validated tools easily administered in clinical practice. METHODS: In this cross-sectional prospective observational study conducted in Medellín, Colombia, 200 geriatric inpatients were evaluated with the Delirium Diagnostic Tool-Provisional (DDT-Pro), Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly, Hachinski Ischemic Scale, Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia, and Charlson Comorbidity Index-short form. Delirium motor subtype, mortality, and length of hospital stay were assessed. RESULTS: The study included 134 patients without delirium (67%), 14 with delirium only (7%), 16 with delirium and dementia (8%), 13 with delirium and depression (7%), and 23 with delirium, dementia, and depression (the three Ds) (12%). Prevalence rates of dementia (59%) and depression (55%) among 66 patients with delirium were higher than prevalence rates among patients without delirium (13% and 28%, respectively), suggesting that both conditions are risk factors. Main medical diagnoses, mortality, and dementia type did not differ among groups. Motor subtypes were similar among delirium groups. Patients in the delirium groups, except those in the delirium and depression group, were older than patients without delirium. Medical burden was highest among the patients with delirium and dementia and those with all three conditions. Delirium and dementia were more severe when comorbid with each other. Depression was most severe among patients with delirium and depression. Patients with all three conditions had a longer length of hospital stay than those without delirium. CONCLUSIONS: Using brief tools to detect dementia and depression in conjunction with the DDT-Pro to assess delirium diagnosis and severity is feasible and enables a more in-depth evaluation of elderly hospitalized patients. Because previous longitudinal research suggests that these comorbid conditions influence prognosis following a delirium episode, better identification of the three Ds offers proactive interventional opportunities. Depression is an underrecognized risk factor for delirium.

Variables associated with concordance or discordance for delirium diagnosis between referring and consulting physicians at a Tertiary Hospital in Colombia: Prospective observational study.

Delirium is an acute state of impaired consciousness and a medical urgency. Its broad range of alterations in mental status make diagnosis challenging. Awareness and accurate provisional diagnosis by nonpsychiatric clinicians are important for prompt management. Because delirium symptoms overlap and mimic other neuropsychiatric conditions, a referral to a consultant psychiatrist is often needed. The aim of this study was to determine the discriminating variables that are associated with concordance or discordance for a DSM-5 delirium diagnosis made by the consultation/liaison (C/L) psychiatrist as compared to the referral diagnosis/reasons given by the referring physicians for inpatients from a Tertiary Hospital in a Latin-American country. Prospective study of a cohort of 399 consecutive patients admitted to any ward of a university hospital in Medellin-Colombia and referred by a specialist physician to the C/L Psychiatry service. Analyses for diagnostic concordance used a nested sample of 140 cases diagnosed with delirium by the psychiatrist. Two multivariate logistic models were run, for delirium diagnosis concordance and discordance between the referring physician and C/L psychiatrist. The referral diagnosis was concordant with that of Psychiatry in 90/140 patients in 64.3%, with 35.7% discordance. Increasing age (OR = 1.024) and internal medicine ward (OR = 3.0) were significantly related (Wald statistic P < .05) to concordance in the multivariate analysis whose model accuracy was 68.6%. Trauma/orthopedics ward (OR = 5.7) and SARS-CoV-2 infection (OR = 3.8) were important contributors to the model fit though not significant. Accuracy of the discordance model was 70.7%, where central nervous system (CNS) disorder (OR = 6.1) and referrals from ICU (OR = 4.9), surgery (OR = 4.6), neurology/neurosurgery (OR = 5.1) and another consultant (OR = 4.7) were significantly related (Wald statistic P < .05), while metabolic/endocrine disorder (OR = 2.7) was important for model fit, but not significant. Concordance for delirium diagnosis was higher from services where education, guidelines and working relationships with C/L Psychiatry could have contributed beneficially whereas, surprisingly, CNS disorders and neurology/neurosurgery services had higher discordance, as well as the ICU. Routine use of brief sensitive delirium assessment tools such as the DDT-Pro could enhance provisional delirium diagnosis.

Etiologies of Delirium in Consecutive COVID-19 Inpatients and the Relationship Between Severity of Delirium and COVID-19 in a Prospective Study With Follow-Up.

OBJECTIVE: The investigators aimed to describe delirium etiologies and clinical characteristics, as well as the relationship between COVID-19 and delirium severities, at baseline and follow-up after delirium improvement among patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: A longitudinal study of 20 consecutive critically ill, delirious COVID-19 inpatients, assessed with the Charlson Comorbidity Index-Short Form (CCI-SF), COVID-19 Clinical Severity Scale (CCSS), Delirium Etiology Checklist, Delirium Motor Subtype Scale-4, and Delirium Diagnostic Tool-Provisional (DDT-Pro), was conducted. Correlational analysis of delirium severity (DDT-Pro) with each measure of clinical severity (CCI-SF and CCSS) and comparison of baseline DDT-Pro scores between patients who were living and those who were deceased at follow-up were conducted. RESULTS: Participants were 50-90 years old (male, 75%; hypertension, 60%). The prevalence of preexisting medical comorbidities (CCI-SF) was low and not correlated with delirium severity (p=0.193). Eighteen patients were on mechanical or high-flow noninvasive ventilation at baseline in the intensive care unit (ICU; CCSS scores 2-4). Delirium severity (DDT-Pro scores 0-6) correlated with COVID-19 severity (0.459, p=0.021). Delirium motor subtype was hyperactive in 75% of patients. There were three to four etiologies for delirium in each patient, most commonly organ insufficiency (100%), systemic infection (100%), and metabolic and endocrine disturbances (95%). The baseline DDT-Pro score was ≤4 for five (25%) patients who died before the final assessment, with a trend of being lower than that for survivors (χ2=3.398, p=0.065). CONCLUSIONS: Among inpatients with COVID-19, at least three different etiological categories were identified for delirium. ICU staff treating patients with severe cases of COVID-19 should anticipate a greater severity of delirium. Although multivariate analyses with larger study samples are needed, more severe delirium may herald greater risk of death among COVID-19 patients.

Discriminant Performance of Dysexecutive and Frontal Release Signs for Delirium in Patients With High Dementia Prevalence: Implications for Neural Network Impairment.

BACKGROUND: Prevalence of signs of abnormal executive function (EF) and primitive reflexes (PR) with delirium in older hospitalized patients with or without comorbid dementia has not been reported. OBJECTIVE: To describe prevalence of signs of EF deficits and PR in older inpatients and their discriminant value for delirium while accounting for dementia. METHODS: Participants were evaluated for delirium using the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 5th edition and the Delirium Rating Scale Revised-98, dementia using Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly, and signs of PR (n = 5) and EF deficits (n = 3) using bedside neuropsychiatric examination. Three indices (PR, EF, and Combined) and 4 diagnostic groups were created for correlational and discriminant analyses. RESULTS: Correlations of indices were higher with the Delirium Rating Scale Revised-98 than with the Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly and even higher in those with dementia, especially the Combined index (Delirium Frontal Index). Among individual signs, glabellar and Simple Luria Hand Sequence were most common in delirium and the best for delirium discrimination irrespective of dementia status. The Combined index had about 80% sensitivity and specificity at the ≥2 cutoff in the whole cohort (positive and negative predictive values and likelihood ratios: PPV 50.0%, NPV 93.8%, +LR 3.82, -LR 0.25). The Combined index also had the best performance on discriminating delirium in dementia patients at the ≥3 cutoff, with about 80% for both sensitivity and specificity. CONCLUSIONS: PR and EF deficit signs are consistent with reduced neural network integration during delirium, even worse in those with dementia whose baseline structural injury impairs network connectivity with frontal regions. We recommend simple bedside assessment of PR and EF signs to help assess for delirium as an indicator of cerebral cortical neural network impairment in older persons.

Delirium diagnostic tool-provisional (DDT-Pro) scores in delirium, subsyndromal delirium and no delirium.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether the Delirium Diagnostic Tool-Provisional (DDT-Pro), a 0-9 point scale with three items each representing symptoms from delirium's three core domains, differentiates subsyndromal delirium (SSD) from delirium and no delirium. METHODS: We applied cluster analyses of DDT-Pro scores from 200 consecutive inpatients using three reference standards for delirium diagnosis to determine DDT-Pro cutoff values for delirium, SSD and no delirium groups. Clinical validators and DDT-Pro item scores were compared among groups. RESULTS: DDT-Pro SSD range was 6-7 (n = 54), with no delirium having higher scores (n = 98) and delirium lower (n = 48). Dementia prevalence in the SSD group (40.7%) was intermediate between no delirium (20.4%) and delirium (66.7%). SSD and delirium groups were more affected than no delirium regarding medical comorbidities, hospital stay (no delirium <1 week, SSD and delirium >1 week) and mortality (SSD = 7.4%, delirium = 18.8%, no delirium = 1%). Values for motor subtypes, frontal lobe signs, and DRS-R98 in the SSD group were intermediate between no delirium and delirium, as well as for the DDT-Pro items (all p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: All DDT-Pro items, which represent the three delirium core domains, are important for SSD diagnosis. Patients scoring in the SSD 6-7 range have significant clinical and prognostic features and deserve clinical attention.

Validation of the Delirium Diagnostic Tool-Provisional (DDT-Pro) With Medical Inpatients and Comparison With the Confusion Assessment Method Algorithm.

OBJECTIVE: Delirium remains underdetected as a result of its broad constellation of symptoms and the inadequate neuropsychiatric expertise of most medical-surgical clinicians. Brief, accurate tools are needed to enhance detection. METHODS: The authors extended validation of the Delirium Diagnostic Tool-Provisional (DDT-Pro), originally validated in a study of inpatients with traumatic brain injury for diagnosis of delirium by nonexpert clinicians, for 200 general medical inpatients in Colombia. The three structured, quantitatively rated items in DDT-Pro represent the three core delirium domains. RESULTS: High interrater reliability between physician and nurse (0.873) administrators, internal consistency (>0.81), and content validity were found. Compared with independent reference standard diagnosis with DSM-5 or the Delirium Rating Scale-Revised-98, the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (global diagnostic accuracy) range was 93.8%-96.3%. ROC analysis revealed the same cutoff score (≤6) as that for the original study, with somewhat lower sensitivities of 88.0%-90.0% and specificities of 85.3%-81.2% (independent expert physician or nurse ratings). Even when rated by a trained expert physician, the original version of the Confusion Assessment Method algorithm (CAM-A) performed moderately, with lower sensitivities (61.8%-70.0%) than the DDT-Pro (88.0%-100%) and somewhat higher specificities (84.8%-95.3% versus 67.4%-86.7%), with values depending on dementia status, reference standard, and rater type. Accuracies for the DDT-Pro and CAM-A were comparable (DDT-Pro: 83.0%-87.5% versus CAM-A: 87.5%-88.5%), although lower in the dementia subgroup, especially for CAM-A. However, these tools were significantly discordant, especially in negative cases, which suggests that they do not detect diagnosis of patients in the same way. CONCLUSIONS: The DDT-Pro had high validity and reliability in provisional delirium diagnosis by physicians and nonexpert clinicians, although further validation is warranted before widespread use can be recommended.