TY - JOUR
T1 - Influence of sedation on delirium recognition in critically ill patients
T2 - A multinational cohort study
AU - van den Boogaard, Mark
AU - Wassenaar, Annelies
AU - van Haren, Frank M. P.
AU - Slooter, Arjen J. C.
AU - Jorens, Philippe G.
AU - van der Jagt, Mathieu
AU - Simons, Koen S.
AU - Egerod, Ingrid
AU - Burry, Lisa D.
AU - Beishuizen, Albertus
AU - Pickkers, Peter
AU - Devlin, John W.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2019 Australian College of Critical Care Nurses Ltd
PY - 2020/9
Y1 - 2020/9
N2 - Background: Guidelines advocate intensive care unit (ICU) patients be regularly assessed for delirium using either the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU (CAM-ICU) or the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC). Single-centre studies, primarily with the CAM-ICU, suggest level of sedation may influence delirium screening results. Objective: The objective of this study was to determine the association between level of sedation and delirium occurrence in critically ill patients assessed with either the CAM-ICU or the ICDSC. Methods: This was a secondary analysis of a multinational, prospective cohort study performed in nine ICUs from seven countries. Consecutive ICU patients with a Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) of-3 to 0 at the time of delirium assessment where a RASS < 0 was secondary to a sedating medication.Patients were assessed with either the CAM-ICU or the ICDSC. Logistic regression analysis was used to account for factors with the potential to influence level of sedation or delirium occurrence. Results: Among 1660 patients, 1203 patients underwent 5741 CAM-ICU assessments [9.6% were delirium positive; at RASS = 0 (3.3% were delirium positive), RASS =-1 (19.3%), RASS =-2 (35.1%); RASS =-3 (39.0%)]. The other 457 patients underwent 3210 ICDSC assessments [11.6% delirium positive; at RASS = 0 (4.9% were delirium positive), RASS =-1 (15.8%), RASS =-2 (26.6%); RASS =-3 (20.6%)]. A RASS of-3 was associated with more positive delirium evaluations (odds ratio: 2.31; 95% confidence interval: 1.34-3.98) in the CAM-ICU-assessed patients (vs. the ICDSC-assessed patients). At a RASS of 0, assessment with the CAM-ICU (vs. the ICDSC) was associated with fewer positive delirium evaluations (odds ratio: 0.58; 95% confidence interval: 0.43-0.78). At a RASS of-1 or-2, no association was found between the delirium assessment method used (i.e., CAM-ICU or ICDSC) and a positive delirium evaluation. Conclusions: The influence of level of sedation on a delirium assessment result depends on whether the CAM-ICU or ICDSC is used. Bedside ICU nurses should consider these results when evaluating their sedated patients for delirium. Future research is necessary to compare the CAM-ICU and the ICDSC simultaneously in sedated and nonsedated ICU patients.
AB - Background: Guidelines advocate intensive care unit (ICU) patients be regularly assessed for delirium using either the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU (CAM-ICU) or the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC). Single-centre studies, primarily with the CAM-ICU, suggest level of sedation may influence delirium screening results. Objective: The objective of this study was to determine the association between level of sedation and delirium occurrence in critically ill patients assessed with either the CAM-ICU or the ICDSC. Methods: This was a secondary analysis of a multinational, prospective cohort study performed in nine ICUs from seven countries. Consecutive ICU patients with a Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) of-3 to 0 at the time of delirium assessment where a RASS < 0 was secondary to a sedating medication.Patients were assessed with either the CAM-ICU or the ICDSC. Logistic regression analysis was used to account for factors with the potential to influence level of sedation or delirium occurrence. Results: Among 1660 patients, 1203 patients underwent 5741 CAM-ICU assessments [9.6% were delirium positive; at RASS = 0 (3.3% were delirium positive), RASS =-1 (19.3%), RASS =-2 (35.1%); RASS =-3 (39.0%)]. The other 457 patients underwent 3210 ICDSC assessments [11.6% delirium positive; at RASS = 0 (4.9% were delirium positive), RASS =-1 (15.8%), RASS =-2 (26.6%); RASS =-3 (20.6%)]. A RASS of-3 was associated with more positive delirium evaluations (odds ratio: 2.31; 95% confidence interval: 1.34-3.98) in the CAM-ICU-assessed patients (vs. the ICDSC-assessed patients). At a RASS of 0, assessment with the CAM-ICU (vs. the ICDSC) was associated with fewer positive delirium evaluations (odds ratio: 0.58; 95% confidence interval: 0.43-0.78). At a RASS of-1 or-2, no association was found between the delirium assessment method used (i.e., CAM-ICU or ICDSC) and a positive delirium evaluation. Conclusions: The influence of level of sedation on a delirium assessment result depends on whether the CAM-ICU or ICDSC is used. Bedside ICU nurses should consider these results when evaluating their sedated patients for delirium. Future research is necessary to compare the CAM-ICU and the ICDSC simultaneously in sedated and nonsedated ICU patients.
KW - Assessment
KW - CAM-ICU
KW - Delirium
KW - ICDSC
KW - Intensive care
KW - Sedation
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85078944654&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.aucc.2019.12.002
DO - 10.1016/j.aucc.2019.12.002
M3 - Review article
SN - 1036-7314
VL - 33
SP - 420
EP - 425
JO - Australian Critical Care
JF - Australian Critical Care
IS - 5
ER -