Diagnostic accuracy of Ascertain Dementia 8-item Questionnaire by participant and informant-A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The Ascertain Dementia 8-item Questionnaire (AD8) is a screening tool for cognitive impairment that can be administered to older persons and/or their informants. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy and compare the predictive parameters of the informant and participant-completed Ascertain Dementia 8-item Questionnaire (iAD8 and pAD8, respectively) in older adults with cognitive impairment. METHODS/DESIGN: We searched ten electronic databases (including MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase) from tool inception to March 2022. We included studies with patients ≥60 years old that were screened for cognitive impairment using AD8 in any healthcare setting. Predictive parameters were assessed against reference standards to estimate accuracy and diagnostic ability using bivariate random-effects meta-analyses. We used QUADAS-2 criteria to assess risk of bias. RESULTS: A cut-off of ≥2/8 was used to classify mild cognitive impairment (MCI), dementia, and cognitive impairment (MCI or dementia). Seven studies using the iAD8 (n = 794) showed a sensitivity of 80% and specificity of 79% to detect MCI. Nine studies using the iAD8 (n = 2393) established 91% sensitivity and 64% specificity to detect dementia. To detect MCI using the pAD8, four studies (n = 836) showed 57% sensitivity and 71% specificity. To detect dementia using the pAD8, four studies (n = 3015) demonstrated 82% sensitivity and 75% specificity. Recurring high or unclear risk of bias was noted in the domains of "Index test" and "reference standard". CONCLUSIONS: The diagnostic accuracy of iAD8 is superior to that of pAD8 when screening for cognitive impairment. The AD8 may be an acceptable alternative to screen for cognitive impairment in older adults when there are limitations to formal testing.

Association between postoperative delirium and adverse outcomes in older surgical patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To assess the incidence of postoperative delirium and its outcomes in older non-cardiac surgical patients. DESIGN: A systematic review and meta-analysis with multiple databases searched from inception to February 22, 2022. SETTING: Postoperative assessments. PATIENTS: Non-cardiac and non-neurological surgical patients aged ≥60 years with and without postoperative delirium. Included studies must report ≥1 postoperative outcome. Studies with a small sample size (N < 100 subjects) were excluded. MEASUREMENTS: Outcomes comprised the pooled incidence of postoperative delirium and its postoperative outcomes, including mortality, complications, unplanned intensive care unit admissions, length of stay, and non-home discharge. For dichotomous and continuous outcomes, OR and difference in means were computed, respectively, with a 95% CI. MAIN RESULTS: Fifty-four studies (20,988 patients, 31 elective studies, 23 emergency studies) were included. The pooled incidence of postoperative delirium was 19% (95% CI: 16%, 23%) after elective surgery and 32% (95% CI: 25%, 39%) after emergency surgery. In elective surgery, postoperative delirium was associated with increased mortality at 1-month (OR: 6.60; 95% CI: 1.58, 27.66), 6-month (OR: 5.69; 95% CI: 2.33, 13.88), and 1-year (OR: 2.87; 95% CI: 1.63, 5.06). The odds of postoperative complications, unplanned intensive care unit admissions, prolonged length of hospital stay, and non-home discharge were also higher in delirium cases. In emergency surgery, patients with postoperative delirium had greater odds of mortality at 1-month (OR: 3.56; 95% CI: 1.77, 7.15), 6-month (OR: 2.60; 95% CI: 1.88, 3.61), and 1-year (OR: 2.30; 95% CI: 1.77, 3.00). CONCLUSIONS: Postoperative delirium was associated with higher odds of mortality, postoperative complications, unplanned intensive care unit admissions, length of hospital stay, and non-home discharge. Prevention and perioperative management of delirium may optimize surgical outcomes.

Incidence of preoperative instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) dependence and adverse outcomes in older surgical patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs) are essential to patient function and quality of life after surgery. In older surgical patients, the incidence of preoperative IADL dependence has not been well characterized in the literature. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the pooled incidence of preoperative IADL dependence and the associated adverse outcomes in the older surgical population. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. SETTING: MEDLINE, MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print and In-Process, In-Data-Review & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Embase/Embase Classic, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, ClinicalTrials.Gov, the WHO ICTRP (International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) were searched for relevant articles from 1969 to April 2022. PATIENTS: Patients aged ≥60 years old undergoing surgery with preoperative IADL assessed by the Lawton IADL Scale. INTERVENTIONS: Preoperative assessment. MEASUREMENT: The primary outcome was the pooled incidence of preoperative IADL dependency. Additional outcomes included post-operative mortality, postoperative delirium [POD], functional status improvement, and discharge disposition. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-one studies (n = 5690) were included. In non-cardiac surgeries, the pooled incidence of preoperative IADL dependence was 37% (95% CI: 26.0%, 48.0%) among 2909 patients. Within cardiac surgeries, the pooled incidence of preoperative IADL dependence was 53% (95% CI: 24.0%, 82.0%) among 1074 patients. Preoperative IADL dependence was associated with an increased risk of postoperative delirium than those without IADL dependence (44.9% vs 24.4, OR 2.26; 95% CI: 1.42, 3.59; I2: 0%; P = 0.0005). CONCLUSIONS: There is a high incidence of IADL dependence in older surgical patients undergoing non-cardiac and cardiac surgery. Preoperative IADL dependence was associated with a two-fold risk of postoperative delirium. Further work is needed to determine the feasibility of using the IADL scale preoperatively as a predictive tool for postoperative adverse outcomes.

The prevalence and risk factors of sleep disturbances in surgical patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Determining the prevalence and risk factors related to sleep disturbance in surgical patients would be beneficial for risk stratification and perioperative care planning. The objectives of this systematic review and meta-analysis are to determine the prevalence and risk factors of sleep disturbances and their associated postoperative complications in surgical patients. The inclusion criteria were: (1) patients ≥18 years old undergoing a surgical procedure, (2) in-patient population, and (3) report of sleep disturbances using a validated sleep assessment tool. The systematic search resulted in 21,951 articles. Twelve patient cohorts involving 1497 patients were included. The pooled prevalence of sleep disturbances at preoperative assessment was 60% (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 50%, 69%) and the risk factors for postoperative sleep disturbances were a high preoperative Pittsburgh sleep quality index (PSQI) score indicating preexisting disturbed sleep and anxiety. Notably, patients with postoperative delirium had a higher prevalence of pre- and postoperative sleep disturbances and high preoperative wake after sleep onset percentage (WASO%). The high prevalence of preoperative sleep disturbances in surgical patients has a negative impact on postoperative outcomes and well-being. Further work in this area is warranted.

The effectiveness of positive airway pressure therapy in reducing postoperative adverse outcomes in surgical patients with obstructive sleep apnea: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

IMPORTANCE: Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is prevalent in surgical patients and is associated with an increased risk of adverse perioperative events. STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of positive airway pressure (PAP) therapy in reducing the risk of postoperative complications in patients with OSA undergoing surgery. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis searching Medline and other databases from inception to October 17, 2021. The search terms included: "positive airway pressure," "surgery," "post-operative," and "obstructive sleep apnea." The inclusion criteria were: 1) adult patients with OSA undergoing surgery; (2) patients using preoperative and/or postoperative PAP; (3) at least one postoperative outcome reported; (4) control group (patients with OSA undergoing surgery without preoperative and/or postoperative PAP therapy); and (5) English language articles. PATIENTS: Twenty-seven studies included 30,514 OSA patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery and 837 OSA patients undergoing cardiac surgery. INTERVENTION: PAP therapy MAIN RESULTS: In patients with OSA undergoing non-cardiac surgery, PAP therapy was associated with a decreased risk of postoperative respiratory complications (2.3% vs 3.6%; RR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.51-1.00, asymptotic P = 0.05) and unplanned ICU admission (0.12% vs 4.1%; RR: 0.44, 95% CI: 0.19-0.99, asymptotic P = 0.05). No significant differences were found for all-cause complications (11.6% vs 14.4%; RR: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.74-1.06, P = 0.18), postoperative cardiac and neurological complications, in-hospital length of stay, and in-hospital mortality between the two groups. In patients with OSA undergoing cardiac surgery, PAP therapy was associated with decreased postoperative cardiac complications (33.7% vs 50%; RR: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.51-0.77, P < 0.0001), and postoperative atrial fibrillation (40.1% vs 66.7%; RR: 0.59, 95% CI 0.45-0.77, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: In patients with OSA undergoing non-cardiac surgery, PAP therapy was associated with a 28% reduction in the risk of postoperative respiratory complications and 56% reduction in unplanned ICU admission. In patients with OSA undergoing cardiac surgery, PAP therapy decreased the risk of postoperative cardiac complications and atrial fibrillation by 37% and 41%, respectively.

Rapid cognitive assessment tools for screening of mild cognitive impairment in the preoperative setting: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

IMPORTANCE: Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is a high-risk precursor to dementia, post-operative delirium, and prolonged hospitalization. There is a need for preoperative rapid cognitive screening tools. STUDY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the predictive parameters of rapid MCI screening tools in different clinical settings for preoperative application. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analyses searching Medline, and other databases from inception to May 26, 2021. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed for data curation and quality assessment. Title and abstract screening were conducted independently via Rayyan. Data was curated through a random-effects model and statistical analysis used R-software. SETTING: Community, memory clinic, emergency, long-term care, and in-patient settings. There were no studies in the preoperative setting. PATIENTS: Twenty-three studies with 9973 patients (≥ 60 years old) undergoing rapid MCI screening. INTERVENTION: Rapid (≤ 5 min) MCI screening tools. MEASUREMENTS: Pooled predictive parameters (sensitivity, specificity) of screening tests. MAIN RESULTS: Eighteen screening tools, compared to neuropsychological tests, were identified. The overall prevalence of MCI among the Rapid Cognitive Screen (RCS), Six-item Screener (SIS), Mini-Cog, and Clock Drawing Test (CDT) studies were 24.6%, 28.3%, 40.9%, and 20.7%, respectively. RCS has 82% sensitivity and 79% specificity in detecting MCI. SIS has 61% sensitivity and 89% specificity. Mini-Cog has 52% sensitivity and 80% specificity. CDT has 56% sensitivity and 59% specificity. Seven other index tools had high sensitivities of 97%-82% and specificities of 90%-73% but were studied only once. CONCLUSION: No rapid screening tools had been validated in the surgical population. In other populations, RCS may be a promising screening tool for MCI with stronger sensitivity and specificity than Mini-Cog, SIS, and CDT. CDT alone is ineffective for MCI detection. Further validation in the preoperative setting is required to determine the efficacy of these screening tools.