Search

ImportanceThe study results suggest that delirium is the most common postoperative complication in older adults and is associated with poor outcomes, including long-term cognitive decline and incident dementia.ObjectiveTo examine the patterns and pace of cognitive decline up to 72 months (6 years) in a cohort of older adults following delirium.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis was a prospective, observational cohort study with long-term follow-up including 560 community-dwelling older adults (older than 70 years) in the ongoing Successful Aging after Elective Surgery study that began in 2010. The data were analyzed from 2021 to 2022.ExposureDevelopment of incident delirium following major elective surgery.Main Outcomes and MeasuresDelirium was assessed daily during hospitalization using the Confusion Assessment Method, which was supplemented with medical record review. Cognitive performance using a comprehensive battery of neuropsychological tests was assessed preoperatively and across multiple points postoperatively to 72 months of follow-up. We evaluated longitudinal cognitive change using a composite measure of neuropsychological performance called the general cognitive performance (GCP), which is scaled so that 10 points on the GCP is equivalent to 1 population SD. Retest effects were adjusted using cognitive test results in a nonsurgical comparison group.ResultsThe 560 participants (326 women [58%]; mean [SD] age, 76.7 [5.2] years) provided a total of 2637 person-years of follow-up. One hundred thirty-four participants (24%) developed postoperative delirium. Cognitive change following surgery was complex: we found evidence for differences in acute, post–short-term, intermediate, and longer-term change from the time of surgery that were associated with the development of postoperative delirium. Long-term cognitive change, which was adjusted for practice and recovery effects, occurred at a pace of about −1.0 GCP units (95% CI, −1.1 to −0.9) per year (about 0.10 population SD units per year). Participants with delirium showed significantly faster long-term cognitive change with an additional −0.4 GCP units (95% CI, −0.1 to −0.7) or −1.4 units per year (about 0.14 population SD units per year).Conclusions and RelevanceThis cohort study found that delirium was associated with a 40% acceleration in the slope of cognitive decline out to 72 months following elective surgery. Because this is an observational study, we cannot be sure whether delirium directly causes subsequent cognitive decline, or whether patients with preclinical brain disease are more likely to develop delirium. Future research is needed to understand the causal pathway between delirium and cognitive decline.

ImportanceNationally representative data are critical for understanding the causes, costs, and outcomes associated with dementia and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) in the US and can inform policies aimed at reducing the impact of these conditions on patients, families, and public programs. The nationally representative Health and Retirement Study (HRS) is an essential resource for such data, but the HRS substudy providing dementia diagnostic information was fielded more than 20 years ago and more recent data are needed.ObjectiveThe Harmonized Cognitive Assessment Protocol (HCAP) was developed to update national estimates of the prevalence of MCI and dementia in the US and examine differences by age, race, ethnicity, and sex.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsHRS is an ongoing longitudinal nationally representative study of people 51 years and older with staggered entry dates from 1992 to 2022 and follow-up ranging from 4 to 30 years. HCAP is a cross-sectional random sample of individuals in HRS who were 65 years or older in 2016. Of 9972 age-eligible HRS participants, 4425 were randomly selected for HCAP, and 3496 completed a comprehensive neuropsychological test battery and informant interview, none of whom were excluded. Dementia and MCI were classified using an algorithm based on standard diagnostic criteria and comparing test performance to a robust normative sample.ExposuresGroups were stratified by age, sex, education, race, and ethnicity.Main Outcomes and MeasuresNational prevalence estimates using population weights.ResultsThe mean (SD) age of the study population sample (N = 3496) was 76.4 (7.6) years, and 2095 participants (60%) were female. There were 551 participants who self-identified as Black and not Hispanic (16%), 382 who self-identified as Hispanic regardless of race (16%), 2483 who self-identified as White and not Hispanic (71%), and 80 who self-identified as another race (2%), including American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, or another self-described race. A total of 393 individuals (10%; 95% CI, 9-11) were classified as having dementia and 804 (22%; 95% CI, 20-24) as having MCI. Every 5-year increase in age was associated with higher risk of dementia (weighted odds ratio [OR], 1.95 per 5-year age difference; 95%, CI, 1.77-2.14) and MCI (OR, 1.17 per 5-year age difference, 95% CI, 1.09-1.26). Each additional year of education was associated with a decrease in risk of dementia (OR, 0.93 per year of school, 95% CI, 0.89-0.97) and MCI (OR, 0.94, 95% CI, 0.91-0.97). Dementia was more common among non-Hispanic Black individuals (OR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.20-2.75) and MCI in Hispanic individuals (OR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.03-1.96) compared with non-Hispanic White individuals. Other group comparisons by race and ethnicity were not possible owing to small numbers. No differences in prevalence were found between female individuals and male individuals.Conclusions and RelevanceUsing a comprehensive neuropsychological test battery and large sample, the national prevalence of dementia and MCI in 2016 found in this cross-sectional study was similar to that of other US-based studies, indicating a disproportionate burden of dementia and MCI among older Black and Hispanic adults and those with lower education.

Importance Measurement of delirium severity has been recognized as highly important for tracking prognosis, monitoring response to treatment, and estimating burden of care for patients both during and after hospitalization. Rather than simply rating delirium as present or absent, the ability to quantify its severity would enable development and monitoring of more effective treatment approaches for the condition. Objectives To present a comprehensive review of delirium severity instruments, conduct a methodologic quality rating of the original validation study of the most commonly used instruments, and select a group of top-rated instruments. Evidence Review This systematic review was conducted using literature from Embase, PsycINFO, PubMed, Web of Science, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, from January 1, 1974, through March 31, 2017, with the key wordsdelirium,severity,tests,measures, andintensity. Inclusion criteria were original articles assessing delirium severity and using a delirium-specific severity instrument. Final listings of articles were supplemented with hand searches of reference listings to ensure completeness. At least 2 reviewers independently completed each step of the review process: article selection, data extraction, and methodologic quality assessment of relevant articles using a validated rating scale. All discrepancies between raters were resolved by consensus. Findings Of 9409 articles identified, 228 underwent full text review, and we identified 42 different instruments of delirium severity. Eleven of the 42 tools were multidomain, delirium-specific instruments providing a quantitative rating of delirium severity; these instruments underwent a methodologic quality review. Applying prespecified criteria related to frequency of use, methodologic quality, construct or predictive validity, and broad domain coverage, an expert panel used an iterative modified Delphi process to select 6 final high-quality instruments meeting these criteria: the Confusion Assessment Method–Severity Score, Confusional State Examination, Delirium-O-Meter, Delirium Observation Scale, Delirium Rating Scale, and Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale. Conclusions and Relevance The 6 instruments identified may enable accurate measurement of delirium severity to improve clinical care for patients with this condition. This work may stimulate increased usage and head-to-head comparison of these instruments.

Importance Suicide is a leading cause of deaths in the United States. Although the emergency department (ED) is an opportune setting for initiating suicide prevention efforts, ED-initiated suicide prevention interventions remain underdeveloped. Objective To determine whether an ED-initiated intervention reduces subsequent suicidal behavior. Design, Setting, and Participants This multicenter study of 8 EDs in the United States enrolled adults with a recent suicide attempt or ideation and was composed of 3 sequential phases: (1) a treatment as usual (TAU) phase from August 2010 to December 2011, (2) a universal screening (screening) phase from September 2011 to December 2012, and (3) a universal screening plus intervention (intervention) phase from July 2012 to November 2013. Interventions Screening consisted of universal suicide risk screening. The intervention phase consisted of universal screening plus an intervention, which included secondary suicide risk screening by the ED physician, discharge resources, and post-ED telephone calls focused on reducing suicide risk. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was suicide attempts (nonfatal and fatal) over the 52-week follow-up period. The proportion and total number of attempts were analyzed. Results A total of 1376 participants were recruited, including 769 females (55.9%) with a median (interquartile range) age of 37 (26-47) years. A total of 288 participants (20.9%) made at least 1 suicide attempt, and there were 548 total suicide attempts among participants. There were no significant differences in risk reduction between the TAU and screening phases (23% vs 22%, respectively). However, compared with the TAU phase, patients in the intervention phase showed a 5% absolute reduction in suicide attempt risk (23% vs 18%), with a relative risk reduction of 20%. Participants in the intervention phase had 30% fewer total suicide attempts than participants in the TAU phase. Negative binomial regression analysis indicated that the participants in the intervention phase had significantly fewer total suicide attempts than participants in the TAU phase (incidence rate ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.52-1.00; P = .05) but no differences between the TAU and screening phases (incidence rate ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.71-1.41; P = .99). Conclusions and Relevance Among at-risk patients in the ED, a combination of brief interventions administered both during and after the ED visit decreased post-ED suicidal behavior.

Cognitive impairment is often unrecognized among older adults. Meanwhile, current assessment instruments are underused, lack sensitivity, or may be restricted by copyright laws. To address these limitations, we created a new brief cognitive assessment tool: the Sweet 16.The Sweet 16 was developed in a cohort from a large post-acute hospitalization study (n=774) and compared with the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE). Equipercentile equating identified Sweet 16 cut points that correlated with widely used MMSE cut points. Sweet 16 performance characteristics were independently validated in a cohort from the Aging, Demographics, and Memory Study (n=709) using clinical consensus diagnosis, the modified Blessed Dementia Rating Scale, and the Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly (IQCODE).The Sweet 16 correlated highly with the MMSE (Spearman r, 0.94; P.001). Validated against the IQCODE, the area under the curve was 0.84 for the Sweet 16 and 0.81 for the MMSE (P=.06). A Sweet 16 score of less than 14 (approximating an MMSE score24) demonstrated a sensitivity of 80% and a specificity of 70%, whereas an MMSE score of less than 24 showed a sensitivity of 64% and a specificity of 86% against the IQCODE. When compared with clinical diagnosis, a Sweet 16 score of less than 14 showed a sensitivity of 99% and a specificity of 72% in contrast to an MMSE score with a sensitivity of 87% and a specificity of 89%. For education of 12 years or more, the area under the curve was 0.90 for the Sweet 16 and 0.84 for the MMSE (P=.03).The Sweet 16 is simple, quick to administer, and will be available open access. The performance of the Sweet 16 is equivalent or superior to that of the MMSE.

Chronic pain is a major contributor to disability in older adults; however, the potential role of chronic pain as a risk factor for falls is poorly understood.To determine whether chronic musculoskeletal pain is associated with an increased occurrence of falls in a cohort of community-living older adults.The Maintenance of Balance, Independent Living, Intellect, and Zest in the Elderly (MOBILIZE) Boston Study is a population-based longitudinal study of falls involving 749 adults aged 70 years and older. Participants were enrolled from September 2005 through January 2008.Participants recorded falls on monthly calendar postcards mailed to the study center during an 18-month period.There were 1029 falls reported during the follow-up. A report of 2 or more locations of musculoskeletal pain at baseline was associated with greater occurrence of falls. The age-adjusted rates of falls per person-year were 1.18 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.13-1.23) for the 300 participants with 2 or more sites of joint pain, 0.90 (95% CI, 0.87-0.92) for the 181 participants with single-site pain, and 0.78 (95% CI, 0.74-0.81) for the 267 participants with no joint pain. Similarly, more severe or disabling pain at baseline was associated with higher fall rates (P.05). The association persisted after adjusting for multiple confounders and fall risk factors. The greatest risk for falls was observed in persons who had 2 or more pain sites (adjusted rate ratio [RR], 1.53; 95% CI, 1.17-1.99), and those in the highest tertiles of pain severity (adjusted RR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.12-2.08) and pain interference with activities (adjusted RR, 1.53; 95%CI, 1.15-2.05), compared with their peers with no pain or those in the lowest tertiles of pain scores.Chronic pain measured according to number of locations, severity, or pain interference with daily activities was associated with greater risk of falls in older adults.

Persistent delirium at the time of hospital discharge is associated with poor outcomes. The objectives of this study were to develop and validate a predictive model for persistent delirium at hospital discharge.This study followed a prospective validation design. For the development cohort, 491 consecutive patients 70 years or older admitted to the hospital without delirium and surviving to discharge were enrolled from the general medical units of an academic teaching hospital. For the validation cohort, 461 comparable subjects were enrolled. Twenty-two candidate risk factors were examined, including 12 baseline factors (present on admission) and 10 precipitating factors (hospital related). The primary outcome was delirium at hospital discharge, measured by the Confusion Assessment Method.Delirium at discharge was present in 58 patients (11.8%) in the development cohort. Five independent risk factors for delirium at discharge were identified: dementia (odds ratio [OR], 2.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4-3.7); vision impairment (OR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.3-3.2); functional impairment (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.2-3.0); high comorbidity (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.1-2.6); and use of physical restraints during delirium (OR, 3.2; 95% CI, 1.9-5.2). A risk stratification system was created by adding 1 point for each factor present. Rates of delirium for the low-risk (0-1 factors), intermediate-risk (2-3 factors), and high-risk (4-5 factors) groups were 4%, 18%, and 63%, respectively (P.001). The corresponding rates in the validation cohort, where 28 patients (6.1%) had delirium at discharge, were 3%, 14%, and 27% (P.001).A predictive model based on 5 risk factors has been successfully validated for prediction of delirium at discharge in hospitalized older patients. At least 4 of these risk factors are amenable to intervention strategies.

In Reply. —We became aware of the hot-line problems also discovered by Dr Cunningham and are working to correct them.