Diagnostic accuracy of the Brief Assessment of Impaired Cognition case-finding instrument in a general practice setting and comparison with other widely used brief cognitive tests-a cross-validation study.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to examine the discriminative validity of the Brief Assessment of Impaired Cognition (BASIC) case-finding instrument in a general practice (GP) setting and compare it with other widely used brief cognitive instruments. METHODS: Patients aged ≥70 years were prospectively recruited from 14 Danish GP clinics. Participants were classified as having either normal cognition (n = 154) or cognitive impairment (n = 101) based on neuropsychological test performance, reported instrumental activities of daily living, and concern regarding memory decline. Comparisons involved the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), the Rowland Universal Dementia Assessment Scale (RUDAS), the Mini-Cog, the 6-item Clock Drawing Test (CDT-6) and the BASIC Questionnaire (BASIC-Q). RESULTS: BASIC demonstrated good overall classification accuracy with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.88 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.84-0.92), a sensitivity of 0.72 (95% CI 0.62-0.80) and a specificity of 0.86 (95% CI 0.79-0.91). Pairwise comparisons of the AUCs of BASIC, MMSE, MoCA and RUDAS produced non-significant results, but BASIC had significantly higher classification accuracy than Mini-Cog, BASIC-Q and CDT-6. Depending on the pretest probability of cognitive impairment, the positive predictive validity of BASIC varied from 0.83 to 0.36, and the negative predictive validity from 0.97 to 0.76. CONCLUSIONS: BASIC demonstrated good discriminative validity in a GP setting. The classification accuracy of BASIC is equivalent to more complex, time-consuming instruments, such as the MMSE, MoCA and RUDAS, and higher than very brief instruments, such as the CDT-6, Mini-Cog and BASIC-Q.

Diagnostic accuracy of BASIC-Q for detection of cognitive impairment in a primary care setting - a cross-validation study.

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy and reliability of a new, brief questionnaire, 'Brief Assessment of Impaired Cognition- Questionnaire' (BASIC-Q) for detection of cognitive impairment, primarily developed for use in primary care. BASIC-Q has three components: Self-report, Informant report, and Orientation. Self-report and Orientation are completed by the individual and Informant report is answered by a close relative. METHODS: We included 275 participants ≥ 70 years, without a prior diagnosis of dementia, and with a close relative who agreed to participate as an informant. Participants were included prospectively in 14 general practices in urban and rural Denmark using a convenience sampling method. The Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS), the informant-completed Functional Activities Questionnaire (FAQ) and reported memory concern were used as a reference standard for the classification of the participants' cognitive function. RESULTS: BASIC-Q demonstrated a fair to good diagnostic accuracy to differentiate between people with cognitive impairment and normal cognition with an area under the ROC curve (AUC) of 0.84 (95% CI 0.79-0.89) and a sensitivity and specificity of 0.80 (95% CI 0.72-0.87) and 0.71 (95% CI 0.63-0.78). A prorated BASIC-Q score derived from BASIC-Q without Informant report had significantly lower classification accuracy than the full BASIC-Q. The test-retest reliability of BASIC-Q was good with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.84. CONCLUSION: BASIC-Q is a brief, easy-to-use questionnaire for identification of cognitive impairment in older adults. It demonstrated fair to good classification accuracy in a general practice setting and can be a useful case-finding tool when suspecting dementia in primary health care.

Continuous Glucose Monitoring Reveals Perioperative Hypoglycemia in Most Patients With Diabetes Undergoing Major Surgery: A Prospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the frequency and duration of hypo- and hyperglycemia, assessed by continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) during and after major surgery, in departments with implemented diabetes care protocols. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Inadequate glycemic control in the perioperative period is associated with serious adverse events, but monitoring currently relies on point blood glucose measurements, which may underreport glucose excursions. METHODS: Adult patients without (A) or with diabetes [non-insulin-treated type 2 (B), insulin-treated type 2 (C) or type 1 (D)] undergoing major surgery were monitored using CGM (Dexcom G6), with an electrochemical sensor in the interstitial fluid, during surgery and for up to 10 days postoperatively. Patients and health care staff were blinded to CGM values, and glucose management adhered to the standard diabetes care protocol. Thirty-day postoperative serious adverse events were recorded. The primary outcome was duration of hypoglycemia (glucose <70 mg/dL). Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT04473001. RESULTS: Seventy patients were included, with a median observation time of 4.0 days. CGM was recorded in median 96% of the observation time. The median daily duration of hypoglycemia was 2.5 minutes without significant difference between the 4 groups (A-D). Hypoglycemic events lasting ≥15 minutes occurred in 43% of all patients and 70% of patients with type 1 diabetes. Patients with type 1 diabetes spent a median of 40% of the monitoring time in the normoglycemic range 70 to 180 mg/dL and 27% in the hyperglycemic range >250 mg/dL. Duration of preceding hypo- and hyperglycemia tended to be longer in patients with serious adverse events, compared with patients without events, but these were exploratory analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Significant duration of both hypo- and hyperglycemia was detected in high proportions of patients, particularly in patients with diabetes, despite protocolized perioperative diabetes management.

Validity of the Brief Assessment of Impaired Cognition case-finding instrument for identification of dementia subgroups and staging of dementia.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The aims of this study were to examine the psychometric properties of the Brief Assessment of Impaired Cognition (BASIC) case-finding instrument in clinical settings focusing on (i) test-retest reliability, (ii) the discriminative validity of BASIC and its components for identification of Alzheimer disease (AD) dementia and non-AD dementia, and (iii) the association of expert clinical rating of cognitive status with BASIC performance. METHODS: The test-retest reliability analysis was based on a sample of general practice patients (n = 59) retested with a mean interval of 19 days. Discriminative validity analyses and analysis of the association of cognitive status with BASIC performance were based on data from the primary validation study of BASIC in memory clinics. RESULTS: The test-retest reliability of BASIC was high (r = 0.861). No significant difference in discriminative validity was found for identification of AD dementia (sensitivity = 0.99, specificity = 0.98) and non-AD dementia (sensitivity = 0.90, specificity = 0.98). All components of BASIC contributed to the high discriminative validity of both AD and non-AD dementia. BASIC performance was significantly correlated with expert clinical rating of the cognitive status of patients. A crude staging model for cognitive status using BASIC score intervals had superior classification accuracy (70%) compared to a Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score range-based model (58% accuracy). CONCLUSIONS: BASIC is a reliable and valid case-finding instrument for AD dementia and non-AD dementia in clinical settings. BASIC performance is significantly associated with the degree of cognitive impairment, and BASIC seems to be superior to MMSE for staging of impairment.

Continuous monitoring is superior to manual measurements in detecting vital sign deviations in patients with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Patients admitted to the emergency care setting with COVID-19-infection can suffer from sudden clinical deterioration, but the extent of deviating vital signs in this group is still unclear. Wireless technology monitors patient vital signs continuously and might detect deviations earlier than intermittent measurements. The aim of this study was to determine frequency and duration of vital sign deviations using continuous monitoring compared to manual measurements. A secondary analysis was to compare deviations in patients admitted to ICU or having fatal outcome vs. those that were not. METHODS: Two wireless sensors continuously monitored (CM) respiratory rate (RR), heart rate (HR), and peripheral arterial oxygen saturation (SpO2 ). Frequency and duration of vital sign deviations were compared with point measurements performed by clinical staff according to regional guidelines, the National Early Warning Score (NEWS). RESULTS: SpO2 < 92% for more than 60 min was detected in 92% of the patients with CM vs. 40% with NEWS (p < .00001). RR > 24 breaths per minute for more than 5 min were detected in 70% with CM vs. 33% using NEWS (p = .0001). HR ≥ 111 for more than 60 min was seen in 51% with CM and 22% with NEWS (p = .0002). Patients admitted to ICU or having fatal outcome had longer durations of RR > 24 brpm (p = .01), RR > 21 brpm (p = .01), SpO2 < 80% (p = .01), and SpO2 < 85% (p = .02) compared to patients that were not. CONCLUSION: Episodes of desaturation and tachypnea in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 infection are common and often not detected by routine measurements.

Continuous monitoring of vital sign abnormalities; association to clinical complications in 500 postoperative patients.

BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing major surgery are at risk of complications, so-called serious adverse events (SAE). Continuous monitoring may detect deteriorating patients by recording abnormal vital signs. We aimed to assess the association between abnormal vital signs inspired by Early Warning Score thresholds and subsequent SAEs in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery. METHODS: Prospective observational cohort study continuously monitoring heart rate, respiratory rate, peripheral oxygen saturation, and blood pressure for up to 96 h in 500 postoperative patients admitted to the general ward. Exposure variables were vital sign abnormalities, primary outcome was any serious adverse event occurring within 30 postoperative days. The primary analysis investigated the association between exposure variables per 24 h and subsequent serious adverse events. RESULTS: Serious adverse events occurred in 37% of patients, with 38% occurring during monitoring. Among patients with SAE during monitoring, the median duration of vital sign abnormalities was 272 min (IQR 110-447), compared to 259 min (IQR 153-394) in patients with SAE after monitoring and 261 min (IQR 132-468) in the patients without any SAE (p = .62 for all three group comparisons). Episodes of heart rate ≥110 bpm occurred in 16%, 7.1%, and 3.9% of patients in the time before SAE during monitoring, after monitoring, and without SAE, respectively (p < .002). Patients with SAE after monitoring experienced more episodes of hypotension ≤90 mm Hg/24 h (p = .001). CONCLUSION: Overall duration of vital sign abnormalities at current thresholds were not significantly associated with subsequent serious adverse events, but more patients with tachycardia and hypotension had subsequent serious adverse events. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, identifier NCT03491137.