Using Telehealth to Improve the Accuracy of Delirium Screening by Bedside Critical Care Nurses

Background Delirium affects up to 80% of patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) but is missed in up to 75% of cases. Telehealth in the ICU (tele-ICU) has become the standard for providing timely, expert care to remotely located ICUs. Objectives This pilot study assessed the feasibility and acceptability of using tele-ICU to increase the accuracy of delirium screening and recognition by ICU nurses. Methods The pilot sites included 4 ICUs across 3 hospitals. A geriatrician with delirium expertise remotely observed 13 bedside ICU nurses administering the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU (CAM-ICU) to patients in real time via the tele-ICU platform and subsequently provided training on CAM-ICU performance and delirium management. Training evaluation consisted of a validated spot check form, a 2-item satisfaction/change-of-practice survey, and a qualitative question on acceptability. Results Thirteen ICU nurses were observed performing 26 bedside delirium assessments. The top observed barriers to accurate delirium screening were CAM-ICU knowledge deficits, establishment of baseline cognition, and inappropriate use of the “unable to assess” designation. The mean percentage of correct observations improved from 40% (first observation) to 90% (second observation) (P < .001). All 13 nurses strongly agreed that the training was beneficial and practice changing. Conclusions The use of tele-ICU to improve the accuracy of delirium screening by ICU nurses appears to be feasible and efficient for leveraging delirium expertise across multiple ICUs. Future studies should evaluate the effects of tele-ICU delirium training on patient-centered outcomes.

ICU delirium burden predicts functional neurologic outcomes

Background We investigated the effect of delirium burden in mechanically ventilated patients, beginning in the ICU and continuing throughout hospitalization, on functional neurologic outcomes up to 2.5 years following critical illness. Methods Prospective cohort study of enrolling 178 consecutive mechanically ventilated adult medical and surgical ICU patients between October 2013 and May 2016. Altogether, patients were assessed daily for delirium 2941days using the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU (CAM-ICU). Hospitalization delirium burden (DB) was quantified as number of hospital days with delirium divided by total days at risk. Survival status up to 2.5 years and neurologic outcomes using the Glasgow Outcome Scale were recorded at discharge 3, 6, and 12 months post-discharge. Results Of 178 patients, 19 (10.7%) were excluded from outcome analyses due to persistent coma. Among the remaining 159, 123 (77.4%) experienced delirium. DB was independently associated with >4-fold increased mortality at 2.5 years following ICU admission (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 4.77; 95% CI, 2.10–10.83; P < .001), and worse neurologic outcome at discharge (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.02; 0.01–0.09; P < .001), 3 (aOR, 0.11; 0.04–0.31; P < .001), 6 (aOR, 0.10; 0.04–0.29; P < .001), and 12 months (aOR, 0.19; 0.07–0.52; P = .001). DB in the ICU alone was not associated with mortality (HR, 1.79; 0.93–3.44; P = .082) and predicted neurologic outcome less strongly than entire hospital stay DB. Similarly, the number of delirium days in the ICU and for whole hospitalization were not associated with mortality (HR, 1.00; 0.93–1.08; P = .917 and HR, 0.98; 0.94–1.03, P = .535) nor with neurological outcomes, except for the association between ICU delirium days and neurological outcome at discharge (OR, 0.90; 0.81–0.99, P = .038). Conclusions Delirium burden throughout hospitalization independently predicts long term neurologic outcomes and death up to 2.5 years after critical illness, and is more predictive than delirium burden in the ICU alone and number of delirium days.

Delirium in Critically Ill Patients with and without COVID-19—A Retrospective Analysis

Background: Delirium complicating the course of Intensive care unit (ICU) therapy is a known driver of morbidity and mortality. It has been speculated that infection with the neurotrophic SARS-CoV-2 might promote delirium. Methods: Retrospective registry analysis including all patients treated at least 48 h on a medical intensive care unit. The primary endpoint was development of delirium as diagnosed by Nursing Delirium screening scale ≥2. Results were confirmed by propensity score matching. Results: 542 patients were included. The primary endpoint was reached in 352/542 (64.9%) patients, without significant differences between COVID-19 patients and non-COVID-19 patients (51.4% and 65.9%, respectively, p = 0.07) and correlated with prolonged ICU stay in both groups. In a subgroup of patients with ICU stay >10 days delirium was significantly lower in COVID-19 patients (p ≤ 0.01). After adjustment for confounders, COVID-19 correlated independently with less ICU delirium (p ≤ 0.01). In the propensity score matched cohort, patients with COVID-19 had significantly lower delirium incidence compared to the matched control patients (p ≤ 0.01). Conclusion: Delirium is frequent in critically ill patients with and without COVID-19 treated at an intensive care unit. Data suggests that COVID-19 itself is not a driver of delirium per se.

Predicting Hospital Mortality and Length of Stay: The Delirium Screening Checklist versus Confusion Assessment Method for Intensive Care Units

Background: Both the intensive care delirium screening checklist (ICDSC) and confusion assessment method for ICU (CAM-ICU) are valid tools for identification of delirium, however their relative predictive validity for important delirium outcomes, such as hospital mortality and LOS have not been well-established. We aim to compare the two tools for their predictive validity for outcomes related to delirium, hospital mortality and length of stay (LOS).Methods: The prospective cohort study conducted in six medical ICUs at a tertiary care hospital in Taiwan. The study enrolled consecutive adult patients (≥20 years) who were delirium free at ICU admission. Delirium was screened daily by trained research nurses using the ICDSC and CAM-ICU in random order. Arousal was assessed by the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS). Participants with any one positive result were classified as ICDSC- or CAM-ICU-delirium groups, respectively.Results: Delirium incidence evaluated by the ICDSC and CAM-ICU were 69.1% (67/97) and 50.5% (49/97), respectively. Although the ICDSC identified 18 more cases as delirious, substantial concordance (κ =0.63; p < 0.001) was found between tools. Independent of age, APACHE II score, and Charlson comorbidity index, both ICDSC- and CAM-ICU-rated delirium significantly predicted hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 4.93; 95% confidence interval [CI]:1.56 to 15.63 vs. 2.79; 95% CI, 1.12 to 6.97, respectively), and only the ICDSC significantly predicted hospital LOS with a mean of 17.59 additional days compared to the no-delirium group. Irrespective of delirium status, a sensitivity analysis of normal-to-increased arousal (RASS≥0) test results did not alter the predictive ability of ICDSC- or CAM-ICU-delirium for hospital mortality (aOR 2.97; 95% CI, 1.06 to 8.37 vs. 3.82; 95% CI, 1.35 to 10.82, respectively). With reduced arousal (RASS<0), neither tool significantly predicted mortality or LOS.Conclusions: The ICDSC identified more delirium cases and may have higher predictive validity for mortality and LOS than the CAM-ICU. However, arousal substantially affected performance. Future studies may want to consider patients’ arousal when deciding which tool to use to maximize the effects of delirium identification on patient mortality.Trial registration: NCT 04206306

Meta-analysis of ICU Delirium Biomarkers and Their Alignment With the NIA-AA Research Framework

Background Between 30% and 80% of survivors of critical illness experience cognitive impairment, but the underlying mechanisms remain unknown. Objective To determine whether intensive care unit (ICU) delirium biomarkers align with the National Institute on Aging–Alzheimer’s Association (NIA-AA) research framework for diagnostic biomarkers for Alzheimer disease and other related dementias (ADRD). Methods Ovid MEDLINE, PsycInfo, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched for articles published between January 1, 2000, and February 20, 2020, on the relationship between delirium and biomarkers listed in the NIA-AA framework. Only studies that addressed delirium in the ICU setting and fluid biomarkers were included in these analyses. Results Of 61 256 records screened, 38 studies met inclusion criteria, 8 of which were suitable for meta-analysis. In pooled analysis, significant associations were found between ICU delirium and amyloid β-peptide 1-40 (standard mean difference [SMD], 0.42; 95% CI, 0.09-0.75), interleukin (IL)-1 receptor antagonist (SMD, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.21-0.94), and IL-6 (SMD, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.06-0.56). No significant association was observed in pooled analyses between ICU delirium and the other biomarkers. Few studies have examined ICU delirium and pathologic tau or neurodegeneration biomarkers. Conclusions Inflammatory biomarkers and amyloid β are associated with ICU delirium and point to potential overlapping mechanisms between delirium and ADRD. Critical care providers should consider integrating diagnostic approaches used in ADRD in their assessment of post–ICU cognitive dysfunction.