Search

Objective: To investigate the impact of delirium severity in critically ill COVID-19 patients and its association with outcomes., Methods: This prospective cohort study was performed in two tertiary intensive care units in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. COVID-19 patients were evaluated daily during the first 7 days of intensive care unit stay using the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale, Confusion Assessment Method for Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) and Confusion Method Assessment for Intensive Care Unit-7 (CAM-ICU-7). Delirium severity was correlated with outcomes and one-year mortality., Results: Among the 277 COVID-19 patients included, delirium occurred in 101 (36.5%) during the first 7 days of intensive care unit stay, and it was associated with a higher length of intensive care unit stay in days (IQR 13 [7 - 25] versus 6 [4 - 12]; p < 0.001), higher hospital mortality (25.74% versus 5.11%; p < 0.001) and additional higher one-year mortality (5.3% versus 0.6%, p < 0.001). Delirium was classified by CAM-ICU-7 in terms of severity, and higher scores were associated with higher in-hospital mortality (17.86% versus 34.38% versus 38.46%, 95%CI, p value < 0.001). Severe delirium was associated with a higher risk of progression to coma (OR 7.1; 95%CI 1.9 - 31.0; p = 0.005) and to mechanical ventilation (OR 11.09; 95%CI 2.8 - 58.5; p = 0.002) in the multivariate analysis, adjusted by severity and frailty., Conclusion: In patients admitted with COVID-19 in the intensive care unit, delirium was an independent risk factor for the worst prognosis, including mortality. The delirium severity assessed by the CAM-ICU-7 during the first week in the intensive care unit was associated with poor outcomes, including progression to coma and to mechanical ventilation.

Acute brain dysfunction (ABD) is a frequent and severe syndrome occurring in critically ill patients and early identification of high-risk patients is paramount. In the present analysis, we propose a clinically applicable model for early phenotype identification of ABD at the bedside in mechanically ventilated patients, improving the recognition of patients with prolonged ABD.Prospective cohort with 629 mechanically ventilated patients in two medical-surgical intensive care units at academic centers. We applied cluster analysis to identify phenotypes using clinical and biological data. We then tested the association of phenotypes and its respective clinical outcomes. We performed a validation on a new cohort of patients select on subsequent patients admitted to the participants intensive care units.A model with 3 phenotypes best described the study population. A 4-variable model including medical admission, sepsis diagnosis, simplified acute physiologic score II and basal serum C-reactive protein (CRP) accurately classified each phenotype (area under curve 0.82; 95% CI, 0.79-0.86). Phenotype A had the shorter duration of ABD (median, 1 day), while phenotypes B and C had progressively longer duration of ABD (median, 3 and 6 days, respectively; P < .0001). There was an association between the duration of ABD and the baseline CRP levels and simplified acute physiology score II score (sensitivity and specificity of 80%). To increase the sensitivity of the model, we added CRP kinetics. By day 1, a CRP < 1.0 times the initial level was associated with a shorter duration of ABD (specificity 0.98).A model based on widely available clinical variables could provide phenotypes associated with the duration of ABD. Phenotypes with longer duration of ABD (phenotypes B and C) are characterized by more severe inflammation and by significantly worse clinical outcomes.

Importance: The effects of intensive care unit (ICU) visiting hours remain uncertain., Objective: To determine whether a flexible family visitation policy in the ICU reduces the incidence of delirium., Design, Setting and Participants: Cluster-crossover randomized clinical trial involving patients, family members, and clinicians from 36 adult ICUs with restricted visiting hours (<4.5 hours per day) in Brazil. Participants were recruited from April 2017 to June 2018, with follow-up until July 2018., Interventions: Flexible visitation (up to 12 hours per day) supported by family education (n = 837 patients, 652 family members, and 435 clinicians) or usual restricted visitation (median, 1.5 hours per day; n = 848 patients, 643 family members, and 391 clinicians). Nineteen ICUs started with flexible visitation, and 17 started with restricted visitation., Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome was incidence of delirium during ICU stay, assessed using the CAM-ICU. Secondary outcomes included ICU-acquired infections for patients; symptoms of anxiety and depression assessed using the HADS (range, 0 [best] to 21 [worst]) for family members; and burnout for ICU staff (Maslach Burnout Inventory)., Results: Among 1685 patients, 1295 family members, and 826 clinicians enrolled, 1685 patients (100%) (mean age, 58.5 years; 47.2% women), 1060 family members (81.8%) (mean age, 45.2 years; 70.3% women), and 737 clinicians (89.2%) (mean age, 35.5 years; 72.9% women) completed the trial. The mean daily duration of visits was significantly higher with flexible visitation (4.8 vs 1.4 hours; adjusted difference, 3.4 hours [95% CI, 2.8 to 3.9]; P < .001). The incidence of delirium during ICU stay was not significantly different between flexible and restricted visitation (18.9% vs 20.1%; adjusted difference, -1.7% [95% CI, -6.1% to 2.7%]; P = .44). Among 9 prespecified secondary outcomes, 6 did not differ significantly between flexible and restricted visitation, including ICU-acquired infections (3.7% vs 4.5%; adjusted difference, -0.8% [95% CI, -2.1% to 1.0%]; P = .38) and staff burnout (22.0% vs 24.8%; adjusted difference, -3.8% [95% CI, -4.8% to 12.5%]; P = .36). For family members, median anxiety (6.0 vs 7.0; adjusted difference, -1.6 [95% CI, -2.3 to -0.9]; P < .001) and depression scores (4.0 vs 5.0; adjusted difference, -1.2 [95% CI, -2.0 to -0.4]; P = .003) were significantly better with flexible visitation., Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients in the ICU, a flexible family visitation policy, vs standard restricted visiting hours, did not significantly reduce the incidence of delirium., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02932358.

Introduction: Flexible intensive care unit (ICU) visiting hours have been proposed as a means to improve patient-centred and family-centred care. However, randomised trials evaluating the effects of flexible family visitation models (FFVMs) are scarce. This study aims to compare the effectiveness and safety of an FFVM versus a restrictive family visitation model (RFVM) on delirium prevention among ICU patients, as well as to analyse its potential effects on family members and ICU professionals., Methods and Analysis: A cluster-randomised crossover trial involving adult ICU patients, family members and ICU professionals will be conducted. Forty medical-surgical Brazilian ICUs with RFVMs (<4.5 hours/day) will be randomly assigned to either an RFVM (visits according to local policies) or an FFVM (visitation during 12 consecutive hours per day) group at a 1:1 ratio. After enrolment and follow-up of 25 patients, each ICU will be switched over to the other visitation model, until 25 more patients per site are enrolled and followed. The primary outcome will be the cumulative incidence of delirium among ICU patients, measured twice a day using the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU. Secondary outcome measures will include daily hazard of delirium, ventilator-free days, any ICU-acquired infections, ICU length of stay and hospital mortality among the patients; symptoms of anxiety and depression and satisfaction among the family members; and prevalence of burnout symptoms among the ICU professionals. Tertiary outcomes will include need for antipsychotic agents and/or mechanical restraints, coma-free days, unplanned loss of invasive devices and ICU-acquired pneumonia, urinary tract infection or bloodstream infection among the patients; self-perception of involvement in patient care among the family members; and satisfaction among the ICU professionals., Ethics and Dissemination: The study protocol has been approved by the research ethics committee of all participant institutions. We aim to disseminate the findings through conferences and peer-reviewed journals., Trial Registration: NCT02932358., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Delirium, a prevalent organ dysfunction in critically ill patients, is independently associated with increased morbidity. This last decade has witnessed an exponential growth in delirium research in hospitalized patients, including those critically ill, and this research has highlighted that delirium needs to be better understood mechanistically to help foster research that will ultimately lead to its prevention and treatment. In this invited, evidence-based paper, a multinational and interprofessional group of clinicians and researchers from within the fields of critical care medicine, psychiatry, pediatrics, anesthesiology, geriatrics, surgery, neurology, nursing, pharmacy, and the neurosciences sought to address five questions: (1) What is the current standard of care in managing ICU delirium? (2) What have been the major recent advances in delirium research and care? (3) What are the common delirium beliefs that have been challenged by recent trials? (4) What are the remaining areas of uncertainty in delirium research? (5) What are some of the top study areas/trials to be done in the next 10 years? Herein, we briefly review the epidemiology of delirium, the current best practices for management of critically ill patients at risk for delirium or experiencing delirium, identify recent advances in our understanding of delirium as well as gaps in knowledge, and discuss research opportunities and barriers to implementation, with the goal of promoting an integrated research agenda.

Background: Subsyndromal delirium (SSD) is a frequent condition and has been commonly described as an intermediate stage between delirium and normal cognition. However, the true frequency of SSD and its impact on clinically relevant outcomes in the intensive care unit (ICU) remains unclear., Methods: We performed a systematic search in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, and PsychINFO, with no language restrictions, up to 1 October 2016 to identify publications that evaluated SSD in ICU patients., Results: The six eligible studies were evaluated. SSD was present in 950 (36%) patients. Four studies evaluated only surgical patients. Four studies used the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC) and two used the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) score to diagnose SSD. The meta-analysis showed an increased hospital length of stay (LOS) in SSD patients (0.31, 0.12-0.51, p = 0.002; I 2  = 34%). Hospital mortality was described in two studies but it was not significant (hazard ratio 0.97, 0.61-1.55, p = 0.90 and 5% vs 9%, p = 0.05). The use of antipsychotics in SSD patients to prevent delirium was evaluated in two studies but it did not modify ICU LOS (6.5 (4-8) vs 7 (4-9) days, p = 0.66 and 2 (2-3) vs 3 (2-3) days, p = 0.517) or mortality (9 (26.5%) vs 7 (20.6%), p = 0.55)., Conclusions: SSD occurs in one-third of the ICU patients and has limited impact on the outcomes. The current literature concerning SSD is composed of small-sample studies with methodological differences, impairing a clear conclusion about the association between SSD and progression to delirium or worse ICU clinical outcomes.