Influence of Sedation Level and Ventilation Status on the Diagnostic Validity of Delirium Screening Tools in the ICU-An International, Prospective, Bi-Center Observational Study (IDeAS).
ABSTRACT: Background and objectives: The use of delirium screening instruments (DSIs) is recommended in critical care practice for a timely detection of delirium. We hypothesize that the patient-related factors "level of sedation" and "mechanical ventilation" impact test validity of DSIs. Materials and Methods: This is a prospective, bi-center observational study (clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01720914). Critically ill patients were screened for delirium daily for up to seven days after enrollment using the Nursing Delirium Screening Scale (Nu-DESC), Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC), and Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU). Reference standard for delirium diagnosis was the neuropsychiatric examination using the criteria of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR). Immediately before delirium assessment, ventilation status and sedation levels were documented. Results: 160 patients were enrolled and 151 patients went into final analysis. Delirium incidence was 23.2%. Nu-DESC showed a sensitivity and specificity of 88.5%, a positive predictive value (PPV) of 71.9%, and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 95.8%. ICDSC had a sensitivity of 62.5%, a specificity of 92.4%, a PPV of 71.4%, and a NPV of 89.0%. CAM-ICU showed a sensitivity of 75.0%, a specificity of 94.7%, a PPV of 85.7%, and a NPV of 90.0%. For Nu-DESC and ICDSC, test validity was significantly better for non-sedated patients (Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) 0/-1), whereas test validity for CAM-ICU in a severity scale version showed no significant differences for different sedation levels. No DSI showed a significant difference in test validity between noninvasively and invasively ventilated patients. Conclusions: Test validities of DSIs were comparable to previous studies. The observational scores ICDSC and Nu-DESC showed a significantly better performance in awake and drowsy patients (RASS 0/-1) when compared with other sedation levels. Physicians should refrain from sedation whenever possible to avoid suboptimal performance of DSIs.
Project description:<h4>Background</h4>Delirium screening instruments (DSIs) should be used to detect delirium, but they only show moderate sensitivity in patients with neurocritical illness. We explored whether, for these patients, DSI validity is impacted by patient-specific covariates.<h4>Methods</h4>Data were prospectively collected in a single-center quality improvement project. Patients were screened for delirium once daily using the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC) and the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU). Reference was the daily assessment using criteria from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, 4th Edition, Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR). In a two-step receiver operating characteristics regression analysis adjusting for repeated measurements, the impact of acute diagnosis of stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA), neurosurgical intervention, Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale, and ventilation status on test validity was determined.<h4>Results</h4>Of 181 patients screened, 101 went into final analysis. Delirium incidence according to DSM-IV-TR was 29.7%. For the first complete assessment series (CAM-ICU, ICDSC, and DSM-IV-TR), sensitivity for the CAM-ICU and the ICDSC was 73.3% and 66.7%, and specificity was 91.8% and 94.1%, respectively. Consideration of daily repeated measurements increased sensitivity for the CAM-ICU and ICDSC to 75.7% and 73.4%, and specificity to 97.3% and 98.9%, respectively. Receiver operating characteristics regression revealed that lower Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale levels significantly impaired validity of the ICDSC (p = 0.029) and the CAM-ICU in its severity scale version (p = 0.004). Neither acute diagnosis of stroke or TIA nor neurosurgical intervention or mechanical ventilation significantly influenced DSI validity.<h4>Conclusions</h4>The CAM-ICU and ICDSC perform well in patients requiring neurocritical care, regardless of the presence of acute stroke, TIA, or neurosurgical interventions. Yet, even very light or moderate sedation can significantly impair DSI performance.
Project description:<h4>Aim</h4>The lack of standardized tools limits the diagnosis ?f postoperative delirium (POD) in the Greek population. Our aim was the translation and the cultural adaptation of the confusion assessment method (CAM) diagnostic algorithm and the nursing delirium screening scale (nu-DESC) in the Greek surgical population, and the determination of their inter-rater reliability.<h4>Methods</h4>After Ethical approval and registration as a clinical trial (NCT04154176), a prospective cohort study was conducted in the Department of Anesthesiology, University Hospital of Larissa, Greece. Patients at least 60 years old, undergoing elective non-cardiac surgery, under general anesthesia were included.<h4>Results</h4>Data from 60 patients, 180 records in total, were analyzed. There was an "almost perfect agreement" between the raters with the use of CAM (Cohen's Kappa estimate: 0.960; 95 % CI: 0.905-1.000) and nu-DESC (Cohen's Kappa estimate: 0.981; 95 % CI: 0.944-1.000). The agreement on each specific question of CAM and nu-DESC ranged from "substantial" to "almost perfect agreement". Based on the CAM, the sensitivity and specificity of nu-DESC were 0.97 (95 % CI: 0.82-1.00) and 0.99 (95 % CI: 0.96-1.00), respectively. The Greek versions of CAM and nu-DESC showed a high inter-rater agreement.<h4>Conclusion</h4>With the translation, the cultural adaptation, and the determination of their inter-rater agreement, the CAM diagnostic algorithm and the nu-DESC may serve as reliable instruments for the detection of POD in the Greek population. HIPPOKRATIA 2020, 24(1): 8-14.
Project description:Guidelines recommend daily delirium monitoring of hospitalized patients. Available delirium-screening tools have not been validated for use by nurses among diverse inpatients.We sought to validate the Nursing Delirium-Screening Scale (Nu-DESC) under these circumstances.A blinded cross-sectional and quality-improvement study was conducted from August 2015-February 2016. Nurses? Nu-DESC scores were compared to delirium diagnosis according to Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-5 (DSM-5) criteria. A total of 405 consecutive hospitalized patients were included. Nu-DESC-positive (threshold score ?2) patients were matched with equal numbers of Nu-DESC-negative patients, by sex, age, and nursing unit. Nurses recorded a Nu-DESC score for each patient on every 12-hour shift. A Nu-DESC-blinded evaluator interviewed patients for 2 consecutive days. Delirium diagnosis was determined by physicians using DSM-5 criteria applied to collected research data. Sensitivity and specificity of the Nu-DESC were calculated. In an exploratory analysis, the performance of the Nu-DESC was analyzed with the addition of bedside measures of attention.The sensitivity of the Nu-DESC at a threshold of ?2 was 42% (95% CI: 33-53%). Specificity was 98% (97-98%). At a threshold of ?1, sensitivity was 67% (52-80%) and specificity 93% (90-95%). Similar results were found with the addition of attention tasks.The Nu-DESC is a specific delirium detection tool, but it is not sensitive at the usually proposed cut point of ?2. Using a threshold of ?1 or adding a test of attention increase sensitivity with a minor decrease in specificity.
Project description:<h4>Objective</h4>To adapt and validate a chart-based delirium detection tool for use in critically ill adults.<h4>Design</h4>Validation study.<h4>Setting</h4>Medical-surgical intensive care unit (ICU) in an academic hospital.<h4>Measurements</h4>A chart-based delirium detection tool (CHART-DEL) was adapted for use in critically ill adults (CHART-DEL-ICU) and compared with prospective delirium assessments (i.e., clinical assessments (reference standard) by a research nurse trained by a neuropsychiatrist and routine delirium screening tools Confusion Assessment Method (CAM-ICU)) and (Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC)). The original CHART-DEL tool was adapted to include physician-reported ICDSC score (for probable delirium) and Richmond-Agitation Sedation Scale score (for altered level of consciousness and agitation). Two trained chart abstractors blinded to all delirium assessments manually abstracted delirium-related information from medical charts and electronic medical records and rated if delirium was present (four levels: uncertain, possible, probable, definite) or absent (no evidence).<h4>Results</h4>Charts were manually abstracted for delirium-related information for 213 patients who were included in a prospective cohort study that included prospective delirium assessments. The CHART-DEL-ICU tool had excellent interrater reliability (kappa = 0.90). Compared to the reference standard, the sensitivity was 66.0% (95% CI = 59.3-72.3%) and specificity was 82.1% (95% CI = 78.0-85.7%), with a cut-point that included definite, probable, possible, and uncertain delirium. The AUC of the CHART-DEL-ICU alone is 74.1% (95% CI = 70.4-77.8%) compared with the addition of the CAM-ICU and ICDSC (CAM-ICU/CHART-DEL-ICU: 80.9% (95% CI = 77.8-83.9%), P = .01; ICDSC/CHART-DEL-ICU: 79.2% (95% CI = 75.9-82.6%), P = .03).<h4>Conclusion</h4>A chart-based delirium detection tool has improved diagnostic accuracy when combined with routine delirium screening tools (CAM-ICU and ICDSC), compared to a chart-based method on its own. This presents a potential for retrospective detection of delirium from medical charts for research or to augment routine delirium screening methods to find missed cases of delirium.
Project description:BACKGROUND:One third of patients admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) will develop delirium. However, delirium is under-recognized by bedside clinicians without the use of delirium screening tools, such as the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC) or the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU (CAM-ICU). The CAM-ICU was updated in 2014 to improve its use by clinicians throughout the world. It has never been validated compared to the new reference standard, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 5th version (DSM-5). METHODS:We made a prospective psychometric study in a 16-bed medical-surgical ICU of a French academic hospital, to measure the diagnostic performance of the 2014 updated CAM-ICU compared to the DSM-5 as the reference standard. We included consecutive adult patients with a Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) ? -3, without preexisting cognitive disorders, psychosis or cerebral injury. Delirium was independently assessed by neuropsychological experts using an operationalized approach to DSM-5, by investigators using the CAM-ICU and the ICDSC, by bedside clinicians and by ICU patients. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were calculated considering neuropsychologist DSM-5 assessments as the reference standard (primary endpoint). CAM-ICU inter-observer agreement, as well as that between delirium diagnosis methods and the reference standard, was summarized using ? coefficients, which were subsequently compared using the Z-test. RESULTS:Delirium was diagnosed by experts in 38% of the 108 patients included for analysis. The CAM-ICU had a sensitivity of 83%, a specificity of 100%, a positive predictive value of 100% and a negative predictive value of 91%. Compared to the reference standard, the CAM-ICU had a significantly (p < 0.05) higher agreement (? = 0.86 ± 0.05) than the physicians,' residents' and nurses' diagnoses (? = 0.65 ± 0.09; 0.63 ± 0.09; 0.61 ± 0.09, respectively), as well as the patient's own impression of feeling delirious (? = 0.02 ± 0.11). Differences between the ICDSC (? = 0.69 ± 0.07) and CAM-ICU were not significant (p = 0.054). The CAM-ICU demonstrated a high reliability for inter-observer agreement (? = 0.87 ± 0.06). CONCLUSIONS:The 2014 updated version of the CAM-ICU is valid according to DSM-5 criteria and reliable regarding inter-observer agreement in a research setting. Delirium remains under-recognized by bedside clinicians.
Project description:<h4>Introduction</h4>Delirium is a frequent form of acute brain dysfunction in critically ill patients, and several detection tools for it have been developed for use in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). The objective of this study is to evaluate the current evidence on the accuracy of the Confusion Assessment Method for Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) and the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC) for the diagnosis of delirium in critically ill patients.<h4>Methods</h4>A systematic review was conducted to identify articles on the evaluation of the CAM-ICU and the ICDSC in ICU patients. A MEDLINE, SciELO, CINAHL and EMBASE databases search was performed for articles published in the English language, involving adult populations and comparing these diagnostic tools with the gold standard, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) criteria. Results were summarized by meta-analysis. The QUADAS scale was used to assess the quality of the studies.<h4>Results</h4>Nine studies evaluating the CAM-ICU (including 969 patients) and four evaluating the ICDSC (n = 361 patients) were included in the final analysis. The pooled sensitivity of the CAM-ICU was 80.0% (95% confidence interval (CI): 77.1 to 82.6%), and the pooled specificity was 95.9% (95% CI: 94.8 to 96.8%). The diagnostic odds ratio was 103.2 (95% CI: 39.6 to 268.8). The pooled area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was 0.97. The pooled sensitivity of the ICDSC was 74% (95% CI: 65.3 to 81.5%), and the pooled specificity was 81.9% (95% CI: 76.7 to 86.4%). The diagnostic odds ratio was 21.5 (95% CI: 8.51 to 54.4). The AUC was 0.89.<h4>Conclusions</h4>The CAM-ICU is an excellent diagnostic tool in critically ill ICU patients, whereas the ICDSC has moderate sensitivity and good specificity. The available data suggest that both CAM-ICU and the ICDSC can be used as a screening tool for the diagnosis of delirium in critically ill patients.
Project description:<h4>Background</h4>screening for cognitive impairment in Emergency Department (ED) requires short, reliable tools.<h4>Objective</h4>to validate the 4AT and 6-Item Cognitive Impairment Test (6-CIT) for ED dementia and delirium screening.<h4>Design</h4>diagnostic accuracy study.<h4>Setting/subjects</h4>attendees aged ?70 years in a tertiary care hospital's ED.<h4>Methods</h4>trained researchers assessed participants using the Standardised Mini Mental State Examination, Delirium Rating Scale-Revised 98 and Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly, informing ultimate expert diagnosis using Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V) criteria for dementia and delirium (reference standards). Another researcher blindly screened each participant, within 3 h, using index tests 4AT and 6-CIT.<h4>Result</h4>of 419 participants (median age 77 years), 15.2% had delirium and 21.5% had dementia. For delirium detection, 4AT had positive predictive value (PPV) 0.68 (95% confidence intervals: 0.58-0.79) and negative predictive value (NPV) 0.99 (0.97-1.00). At a pre-specified 9/10 cut-off (9 is normal), 6-CIT had PPV 0.35 (0.27-0.44) and NPV 0.98 (0.95-0.99). Importantly, 52% of participants had no family present. A novel algorithm for scoring 4AT item 4 where collateral history is unavailable (score 4 if items 2-3 score ?1; score 0 if items 1-3 score is 0) proved reliable; PPV 0.65 (0.54-0.76) and NPV 0.99 (0.97-1.00). For dementia detection, 4AT had PPV 0.39 (0.32-0.46) and NPV 0.94 (0.89-0.96); 6-CIT had PPV 0.46 (0.37-0.55) and NPV 0.94 (0.90-0.97).<h4>Conclusion</h4>6-CIT and 4AT accurately exclude delirium and dementia in older ED attendees. 6-CIT does not require collateral history but has lower PPV for delirium.
Project description:BACKGROUND:The Delirium Observation Screening Scale (DOS) was developed to facilitate early recognition of delirium by nurses during routine clinical care. It has shown good validity in a variety of patient populations, but has not yet been validated in hospitalized patients with advanced cancer, although the DOS is commonly used in this setting in daily practice. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of the DOS in hospitalized patients with advanced cancer using the revised version of the Delirium Rating Scale (DRS-R-?98) as the gold standard. METHODS:Patients with advanced cancer admitted to the medical oncology ward were screened for delirium with the DOS and DRS-R-98. Sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV) and positive predictive value (PPV) of the DOS were calculated, using a DOS score???3 as a cut-off for delirium. RESULTS:Ninety-five DOS negative and 98 DOS positive patients were identified. Sensitivity of the DOS, was >?99.9% (95%-CI, 95.8-100.0%), specificity was 99.5% (95%-CI 95.5-99.96%), PPV was 94.6% (95% CI 88.0-97.7), and NPV was >?99.9% (95% CI 96.1-100.0). CONCLUSIONS:The DOS is an accurate screening tool for delirium in patients with advanced cancer. Since it has the benefit of being easily implicated in daily practice, we recommend to educate caregivers to screen patients with advanced cancer by DOS analysis. By early recognition and adequate treatment of this distressing delirium syndrome the quality of life of patients with advanced cancer can be improved. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT01539733 (Feb 27, 2012 - retrospectively registered), Netherlands Trial Register NTR2559 (Oct 7, 2010).
Project description:INTRODUCTION:Delirium in critically ill adults is associated with prolonged hospital stay, increased mortality and greater cognitive and functional decline. Current practice guideline recommendations advocate the use of non-pharmacological strategies to reduce delirium. The routine use of scheduled haloperidol to treat delirium is not recommended given a lack of evidence regarding its ability to resolve delirium nor improve relevant short-term and longer-term outcomes. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of haloperidol for the treatment of delirium in adult critically ill patients to reduce days spent with coma or delirium. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:EuRIDICE is a prospective, multi-centre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Study population consists of adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients without acute neurological injury who have delirium based on a positive Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC) or Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU (CAM-ICU) assessment. Intervention is intravenous haloperidol 2.5?mg (or matching placebo) every 8?hours, titrated daily based on ICDSC or CAM-ICU positivity to a maximum of 5?mg every 8?hours, until delirium resolution or ICU discharge. Main study endpoint is delirium and coma-free days (DCFD) up to 14 days after randomisation. Secondary endpoints include (1) 28-day and 1-year mortality, (2) cognitive and functional performance at 3 and 12 months, (3) patient and family delirium and ICU experience, (4) psychological sequelae during and after ICU stay, (4) safety concerns associated with haloperidol use and (5) cost-effectiveness. Differences in DCFDs between haloperidol and placebo group will be analysed using Poisson regression analysis. Study recruitment started in February 2018 and continues. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:The study has been approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of the Erasmus University Medical Centre Rotterdam (MEC2017-511) and by the Institutional Review Boards of the participating sites. Its results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publication and conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION:NCT03628391.
Project description:Delirium evaluation in patients in the ICU requires the use of an arousal/sedation assessment tool prior to assessing consciousness. The Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) and the Riker Sedation-Agitation Scale (SAS) are well-validated arousal/sedation tools. We sought to assess the concordance of RASS and SAS assessments in determining eligibility of patients in the ICU for delirium screening using the confusion assessment method for the ICU (CAM-ICU).We performed a prospective cohort study in the adult medical, surgical, and progressive (step-down) ICUs of a tertiary care, university-affiliated, urban hospital in Indianapolis, Indiana. The cohort included 975 admissions to the ICU between January and October 2009.The outcome measures of interest were the correlation and agreement between RASS and SAS measurements. In 2,469 RASS and SAS paired screens, the rank correlation using the Spearman correlation coefficient was 0.91, and the agreement between the two screening tools for assessing CAM-ICU eligibility as estimated by the κ coefficient was 0.93. Analysis showed that 70.1% of screens were eligible for CAM-ICU assessment using RASS (7.1% sedated [RASS −3 to −1]; 62.6% calm ; and 0.4% restless, agitated [+1 to +3]), compared with 72.1% using SAS (5% sedated [SAS 3]; 66.5% calm ; and 0.6% anxious, agitated [5, 6]). In the mechanically ventilated subgroup, RASS identified 19.1% CAM-ICU eligible patients compared with 24.6% by SAS. The correlation coefficient in this subgroup was 0.70 and the agreement was 0.81.Both SAS and RASS led to similar rates of delirium assessment using the CAM-ICU.