Family-administered delirium screening improves satisfaction among ICU caregivers: a prospective cohort study

Intensive Care Medicine | Published: 08 January 2026

Purpose

Family caregivers experience distress when their loved one is in the ICU, particularly in the setting of delirium. Limited English proficiency (LEP) may worsen this experience and contribute to long-term psychological burden. Yet, caregivers with LEP are rarely included in ICU research. Whether caregiver engagement using linguistically tailored delirium assessments improves satisfaction remains unknown.

Methods

We conducted a prospective cohort study in two academic ICUs evaluating delirium detection among English and Spanish-speaking ICU patients. Within this larger study, we performed a substudy of patient–caregiver dyads focused on caregiver satisfaction. Caregivers were assigned to: (1) FAM-CAM group, in which caregivers completed daily FAM-CAM delirium assessments, or (2) control group with no FAM-CAM exposure. All caregivers completed the Family Satisfaction in the ICU-24 (FS-ICU-24) after 3 days. Outcomes included overall satisfaction and subdomains of decision-making and care (0–100 scale). Independent t-tests compared satisfaction by language, FAM-CAM exposure, and patient delirium status.

Results

Among 120 dyads, 63 caregivers preferred English and 57 Spanish. English-speaking caregivers reported higher decision-making satisfaction than Spanish speakers (90.8 vs 85.6, p < 0.05). FAM-CAM exposure improved overall satisfaction across language groups (91.9 vs 84.4, p < 0.01). Patient delirium was linked to lower caregiver satisfaction, but FAM-CAM engagement mitigated this effect, with higher scores among exposed caregivers (90.9 vs 80.3, p < 0.05).

Conclusions

English-speaking caregivers reported higher satisfaction scores than Spanish-speaking caregivers. Engagement with FAM-CAM improved satisfaction across language groups, highlighting its potential to enhance caregiver engagement and promote equity in the ICU.

Critical Care Bulletin: November 2025

 

Epidemiology of pain, delirium, psychiatric disorders, discomfort and sedation-analgesia management in the intensive care unit: a one-day nationwide study

Critical Care volume 29, Article number: 483 (2025) Published: 11 November 2025

Background

The administration of sedatives and analgesics in intensive care units (ICUs) has evolved significantly over the past 20 years, shifting from deep to light sedation strategies to minimize adverse effects. Despite this shift, substantial variability persists in sedation-analgesia practices. This study aimed to provide an updated national overview of sedation-analgesia management with a focus on discomfort assessment practices, including pain, delirium, anxiety, thirst, mood, and sleep disorders.

Methods

This was a one-day, multicenter, cross-sectional study conducted in French ICUs. Data were collected from all adult patients hospitalized in the ICU on the study day. A Unit-level survey documented ICU characteristics and sedation-analgesia protocols. Patient-level data included sedation levels, pain scores, and assessments of discomfort conditions. Statistical analyses were performed using descriptive methods and multilevel logistic regression.

Results

Among 258 French ICUs contacted, 128 units (50%) participated, enrolling 2,063 patients. Most ICUs were university-affiliated (54%) and mixed medical-surgical (58%); 63% had a written protocol for sedation-analgesia. Sedation and pain were assessed in 96% and 91% of ICUs, respectively. Light or no sedation was observed in 84% of patients, while 15% were deeply sedated – 63% of whom were misaligned with usual indications. Pain assessment was performed at rest in 90% of patients and during care in 62%. Pain prevalence increased with lighter sedation levels and during care. Hypnotics were used in 31% of patients, Mainly propofol and midazolam. Discomfort was reported in 44% of patients, mainly anxiety, sleep disorders, and thirst. Written protocols for sedation and analgesia were not associated with sedation depth, drug use, or delirium screening, but were linked to more frequent pain assessment at rest. Multivariable analyses showed that higher SOFA scores were associated with deep or misaligned deep sedation. The presence of a written protocol for sedation and analgesia reduced the risk of unassessed pain but was not associated with deep or misaligned deep sedation.

Conclusion

The shift toward lighter sedation has been successfully achieved; however, a broad spectrum of stressful symptoms persists, including pain, anxiety, thirst, and sleep disruption. These findings underscore the need for more effective strategies to optimize pain and overall patient comfort in non-deeply sedated ICU patients.

 

Potential therapeutic benefit of exogenous ketone ester administration in delirium: a narrative review

Critical Care volume 29, Article number: 424 (2025) Published: 07 October 2025

Abstract

Delirium is a prevalent neuropsychiatric syndrome during critical illness and is associated with prolonged hospitalization, increased mortality, and post-ICU cognitive decline. It is hypothesized to result from systemic inflammation, disrupted neurotransmission, and failure of cerebral energy metabolism. This narrative review highlights the key role of altered neurometabolism and neuroinflammation, which occurs due to peripheral inflammation, compromised blood-brain barrier integrity, and increased microglial glycolysis. These changes limit neuronal glucose uptake, leading to a brain energy crisis and consequently amplifying oxidative and inflammatory stress. We focus on studies of ICU delirium in the setting of acute critical illness with an emphasis on sepsis-associated encephalopathy, where mechanistic data derived from murine models are most robust. Ketones bypass the glycolytic bottleneck and enter the tricarboxylic acid cycle directly, activating signaling pathways that enhance mitochondrial biogenesis, bolster antioxidant defenses, modulate neurotransmission, and reduce inflammation. In models of neurodegenerative diseases and traumatic brain injury, ketosis restores cerebral metabolism, reduces neuroinflammation, and enhances cognitive function. Additionally, preliminary human studies have demonstrated cognitive benefits and patient tolerance of ketone supplementation. Although data in the critically ill are limited, pilot studies suggest that enteral ketone supplementation can safely achieve therapeutic serum concentrations without worsening acidosis or hemodynamic instability. We hypothesize that exogenous ketone ester supplementation may support brain energy production by providing an alternative substrate for energy production, reducing microglial substrate competition, and mitigating the neuronal stress that precipitates delirium. In conclusion, exogenous ketone esters are a biologically plausible, rapidly acting metabolic intervention that warrants rigorous clinical evaluation as a novel strategy to prevent or treat delirium in those who are critically ill. However, randomized controlled trials are essential for verifying safety, determining optimal dosing, and assessing clinical effectiveness in the intensive care setting.

 

Melatonin and delirium in the intensive care units: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

 

Intensive Care Medicine Published: 06 October 2025

Background

Delirium is frequent in critically ill patients and is associated with increased mortality. Discrepancies were found in the results of recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) regarding the effect of melatonin to prevent delirium onset in critically ill patients.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science from inception to 5 July 2025 for RCTs evaluating melatonin in critically ill patients. The primary outcome was the incidence of delirium. The main secondary outcome was mortality. We generated pooled risk ratios (RR). To base our conclusions on the highest quality of evidence, our primary analysis was based only on the trials with low to moderate risk of bias for each outcome. A secondary analysis was conducted, including all the trials.

The study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD420251041661).

Findings

Our primary analysis was based on six RCTs with 2209 patients and did not show any difference in the incidence of delirium attributable to the treatment with melatonin (RR 0.89, [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73—1.09]). This result was consistent with the secondary analysis including thirteen RCTs with 2830 patients (RR 0.86, [95% CI 0.70–1.04]). No association was found between mortality and melatonin in the primary (seven RCTs, 2165 patients, RR 0.87, [95% CI 0.73–1.02]) and secondary (8 RCTs, 2396 patients, RR 0.92, [95% CI 0.79–1.06]) analyses.

Interpretation

The results suggest that compared to placebo, melatonin does not reduce delirium incidence in critically ill patients. Similarly, no effect was observed on mortality.

 

Determinants of ICU memories and the impact on the development and trajectory of post-traumatic stress symptoms: a multicenter longitudinal cohort study

Intensive Care Medicine Published: 06 October 2025

 Purpose

To identify demographic and clinical determinants of memory formation in intensive care unit (ICU) patients, and determine the relationship between ICU memories and the development and trajectory of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms.

Methods

Adult patients (n = 426) from two Dutch University ICUs underwent a structured telephone interview using the validated ICU-Memory Tool (ICU-MT) 3 months post-ICU and were assessed for symptoms of PTSD using the Impact of Event Scale (IES-6) at 3 and 12 months post-ICU.

Results

Factual memories without delusional memories were present in 47.7% (n = 203), complete ICU amnesia in 13.8% (n = 59), and delusional memories in 38.5% (n = 164) of patients. Delirium was present in 41% (n = 68) of patients with delusional memories. Using multinomial logistic regression, female sex and number of days with deep sedation were associated with ICU amnesia (aOR 1.99, 95% CI 1.04–3.81, and aOR 1.34, 95% CI 1.09–1.65, respectively), whereas delirium and length of ICU stay were associated with delusional memories (aOR 1.94, 95% CI 1.04–3.61, and aOR 1.11, 95% CI 1.02–1.21, respectively). Of 250 patients assessed at both time points, the prevalence of PTSD symptoms increased significantly over time (4.5 to 10.0%, p < 0.01), driven by a significant increase among those with delusional memories (6.7 to 18.1%, p < 0.01). In a linear mixed-effects model, delusional memories were independently linked to both 3- and 12-month symptoms of PTSD (vs. factuals, adjusted %-difference in mean IES score, 12.9%, 95% CI 2.6–24.1%, and 18.1%, 95% CI 5.2–32.5%, respectively).

Conclusions

Female sex and prolonged deep sedation were associated with complete ICU amnesia, whereas a longer ICU stay and delirium were associated with delusional memories, although these memories were also common in those without delirium. Delusional memories were independently linked to the development and persistence of PTSD symptoms. Targeted interventions to mitigate memory disturbances, both during and after the ICU, may help alleviate the psychological impact of critical illness.

 

 

Association of low-dose ketamine with hallucinations in critically ill patients: a target trial emulation

Intensive Care Medicine: Published 05 May 2025

Purpose

Ketamine use is a potentially modifiable risk factor for hallucinations. We aimed to use target trial emulation to investigate the association between low-dose ketamine and development of hallucinations in critically ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU).

Methods

Retrospective study using data from a university affiliated ICU in Melbourne, Australia. Application of marginal structural models and parametric g-formulas to assess the impact of low-dose ketamine on the development of hallucinations.

Results

We studied 7514 patients from June 2016 to April 2021. Of these, 625 patients (8%) received low-dose ketamine, beginning at a median of 0 (0–1) days from ICU admission and at a mean daily dose of 0.11 (0.08–0.15) mg/kg/h. Low-dose ketamine treated patients had a higher rate of hallucinations within 30 days of ICU admission (26% vs. 7%; p < 0.001) and the first episode of hallucination occurred earlier than in unexposed patient (2 [1–3] vs. 3 [1–7] days from ICU admission; p < 0.001). After adjustment for baseline and time-dependent confounders, low-dose ketamine was associated with a higher risk of hallucinations within 30 days (OR, 6.46 [95% CI 5.17–8.07]; p < 0.001). These findings were confirmed with parametric g-formulas.

Conclusions

In ICU patients, low-dose ketamine was strongly associated with an increased risk of hallucinations. However, these findings should be interpreted with caution due to the observational nature of the study and the risk of residual confounding.

 

Haloperidol in treating delirium, reducing mortality, and preventing delirium occurrence: Bayesian and frequentist meta-analyses

Critical Care volume 29, Article number: 126 (2025) Published: 20 March 2025

Background

Although haloperidol is commonly used to treat or prevent delirium in intensive care unit (ICU) patients, the evidence remains inconclusive. This study aimed to comprehensively evaluate the efficacy and safety of haloperidol for delirium treatment and prevention in ICU patients.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE, the cochrane central register of controlled trials, EMBASE, ClinicalTrial.gov, and PubMed without language restrictions from database inception to June 27, 2024. We included double-blind randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on haloperidol versus placebo for treating and preventing delirium in adult ICU patients. In addition to frequentist analyses, Bayesian analysis was used to calculate the posterior probabilities of any benefit/harm and clinically important benefit/harm (CIB/CIH). The primary outcomes for delirium treatment were all-cause mortality and serious adverse events (SAEs). For delirium prevention, the primary outcomes included incident delirium, all-cause mortality, and SAEs. The secondary outcomes for efficacy were delirium-or coma-free days, ventilator-free days, length of stay in ICU, length of stay in hospital, and rescue benzodiazepine use. The secondary outcomes for safety were QTc prolongation and extrapyramidal syndrome.

Results

We included seven RCTs on delirium treatment (n = 1767) and five on delirium prevention (n = 2509). The Bayesian analysis showed that, compared to placebo for delirium treatment, haloperidol had a 68% probability of achieving CIB (defined as risk difference [RD] < −0.02) in reducing all-cause mortality, a 2% probability of achieving CIH (RD > 0.02) in causing SAEs, and a 78% probability of achieving CIB (RD < −0.02) in reducing the need for rescue benzodiazepine use. The probabilities of haloperidol causing CIH (RD > 0.02) across all other safety outcomes were low (all < 50%). In frequentist analysis on delirium treatment, the pooled estimated RD for haloperidol compared to placebo was -0.05 (−0.09, −0.00; I2 = 0%) for rescue benzodiazepine use. In Bayesian analysis on delirium prevention, haloperidol had a 12% probability of achieving CIB in all-cause mortality, a 34% probability of achieving CIB in delirium incidence, and a 0% probability of achieving CIB in SAEs. Importantly, haloperidol had a 65% probability of causing CIH (risk ratio > 1.1) for QTc prolongation, while the posterior probabilities of achieving CIB across all efficacy outcomes were low (all < 50%). In frequentist analysis on delirium prevention, all primary and secondary outcomes were not statistically significant in frequentist analysis.

Conclusion

Our study supported the use of haloperidol for delirium treatment in adult ICU patients, but not for delirium prevention.

 

The association between pain, analgesia, and delirium among critically ill adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Intensive Care Medicine

Published: 22 January 2025

Purpose

We performed a systematic review with meta-analysis examining the relationship between pain or pain medications and delirium occurence, duration, and severity.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to May 15, 2023. We included randomised or observational studies among critically ill adults, that reported data on pain or exposure to analgesics, and reported delirium presence, duration, or severity with no language or region restrictions. PROSPERO ID: CRD42022367715. Two authors independently screened records and extracted data. Risk of bias was evaluated using Risk of Bias 2 or the Risk of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions. We pooled data using the Hartung-Knapp Sidik-Jonkmann random effects model. PRISMA was followed.

Results

From 8,054 citations, 90 studies (119,230 patients) published between 2001 and 2023 were included in the systematic review. 41 studies were included in the primary meta-analysis examining prevalent delirium: seven studies evaluated pain; 12 studies evaluated fentanyl; and five studies evaluated morphine. There was a trend to association between pain and delirium occurrence (OR 2.49, 95% CI 0.98–6.30), and a significant association between pain and incident delirium (OR 3.70, 95% CI 1.73–7.93). Fentanyl (OR 2.49, 95% CI 1.45–4.27) and morphine (OR 2.13, 95% CI 1.21–3.75) were associated with delirium occurrence. Risk of bias was critical for many studies.

Conclusions

We observed an association between pain and incident delirium among critically ill adults. Exposure to morphine or fentanyl (but no other pain medications) was associated with increased risk of delirium occurrence.

 

Heterogeneity in the definition of delirium in ICUs and association with the intervention effect in randomized controlled trials: a meta-epidemiological study

 

by Lucie Collet, Aymeric Lanore, Camille Alaterre, Jean-Michel Constantin, Guillaume L. Martin, Agnès Caille, Arthur James and Agnès Dechartres 

 

Critical Care volume 27, Article number: 170 (2023)

 

Purpose

To evaluate the heterogeneity in the definition of delirium in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) included in meta-analyses of delirium in intensive care units (ICUs) and to explore whether intervention effect depends on the definition used.

Methods

We searched PubMed for meta-analyses including RCTs evaluating prevention or treatment strategies of delirium in ICU. The definition of delirium was collected from RCTs and classified as validated (DSM criteria, CAM-ICU, ICDSC, NEECHAM, DRS-R98) or non-validated (non-validated scales, set of symptoms, physician appreciation or not reported). We conducted a meta-epidemiological analysis to compare intervention effects between trials using or not a validated definition by a two-step method as primary analysis and a multilevel model as secondary analysis. A ratio of odds ratios (ROR) < 1 indicated larger intervention effects in trials using a non-validated definition.

Results

Of 149 RCTs (41 meta-analyses), 109 (73.1%) used a validated definition and 40 (26.8%) did not (including 31 [20.8%] not reporting the definition). The primary analysis of 7 meta-analyses (30 RCTs) found no significant difference in intervention effects between trials using a validated definition and the others (ROR = 0.54, 95% CI 0.27–1.08), whereas the secondary multilevel analysis including 12 meta-analyses (67 RCTs) found significantly larger effects for trials using a non-validated versus a validated definition (ROR = 0.36, 95% CI 0.21–0.62).

Conclusion

The definition of delirium was heterogeneous across RCTs, with one-fifth not reporting how they evaluated delirium. We did not find a significant association with intervention effect in the primary analysis. The secondary analysis including more studies revealed significantly larger intervention effects in trials using a non-validated versus a validated definition.

Critical Care Bulletin - November 2022

 

Association between frailty, delirium, and mortality in older critically ill patients: a binational registry study

 

by Berhe W. Sahle, David Pilcher, Edward Litton, Richard Ofori-Asenso, Karlheinz Peter, James McFadyen and Tracey Bucknall 

 

Annals of Intensive Care volume 12, Article number: 108 (2022)

 

Background

Frailty and delirium are prevalent among older adults admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) and associated with adverse outcomes; however, their relationships have not been extensively explored. This study examined the association between frailty and mortality and length of hospital stay (LOS) in ICU patients, and whether the associations are mediated or modified by an episode of delirium.

Methods

Retrospective analysis of data from the Australian New Zealand Intensive Care Society Adult Patient Database. A total of 149,320 patients aged 65 years or older admitted to 203 participating ICUs between 1 January 2017 and 31 December 2020 who had data for frailty and delirium were included in the analysis.

Results

A total of 41,719 (27.9%) older ICU patients were frail on admission, and 9,179 patients (6.1%) developed delirium during ICU admission. Frail patients had significantly higher odds of in-hospital mortality (OR: 2.15, 95% CI 2.05–2.25), episodes of delirium (OR: 1.86, 95% CI 1.77–1.95), and longer LOS (log-transformed mean difference (MD): 0.24, 95% CI 0.23–0.25). Acute delirium was associated with 32% increased odds of in-hospital mortality (OR: 1.32, 95% CI 1.23–1.43) and longer LOS (MD: 0.54, 95% CI 0.50–0.54). The odds ratios (95% CI) for in-hospital mortality were 1.37 (1.23–1.52), 2.14 (2.04–2.24) and 2.77 (2.51–3.05) for non-frail who developed delirium, frail without delirium, and frail and developed delirium during ICU admission, respectively. There was very small but statistically significant effect of frailty on in-hospital mortality (b for indirect effect: 0.00037, P < 0.001) and LOS (b for indirect effect: 0.019, P < 0.001) mediated through delirium.

Conclusion

Both frailty and delirium independently increase the risk of in-hospital mortality and LOS. Acute delirium is more common in frail patients; however, it does not mediate or modify a clinically meaningful amount of the association between frailty and in-hospital mortality and LOS.

 

Impact of Family Presence on Delirium in Critically Ill Patients: A Retrospective Cohort Study

 

by Mohsen, Samiha; Moss, Stephana J.; Lucini, Filipe; Krewulak, Karla D.; Stelfox, Henry T.; Niven, Daniel J.; Sauro, Khara M.; Fiest, Kirsten M. 

 

Critical Care Medicine: August 31, 2022 - Volume - Issue - 10.1097

 

Objective: 

To assess the effect of family presence on the prevalence and duration of delirium in adults admitted to an ICU.

Design: 

Retrospective cohort study.

Setting: 

Medical-surgical ICUs in Alberta, AB, Canada.

Patients: 

A population of 25,537 unique patients admitted at least once to an Alberta ICU.

Methods: 

We obtained electronic health records of consecutive adults (≥ 18 yr) admitted to one of 14 medical-surgical ICU in Alberta, Canada, from January 1, 2014, to December 30, 2018. Family presence was quantified using a validated algorithm and categorized as: 1) physical presence in ICU, 2) telephone call only, and 3) no presence (reference group). Delirium was measured using the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC) and defined as an ICDSC greater than or equal to 4. Multivariable mixed-effects logistic and linear regression were used to evaluate the association between family presence and prevalence (binary) and duration (d) of delirium, respectively.

Interventions: 

None.

Measurements and Main Results: 

The association between family presence and delirium prevalence differed according to admission type and admission Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS). Among medical and emergency surgical patients irrespective of admission GCS, physical presence of family was not significantly associated with the prevalence of delirium. In elective surgical patients, physical presence of family was associated with decreased prevalence of delirium in patients with intact Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS = 15; adjusted odds ratio, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.39–0.97; p = 0.02). Physical presence of family (adjusted mean difference [AMD] –1.87 d; 95% CI, –2.01 to –1.81; p < 0.001) and telephone calls (AMD –1.41 d; 95% CI, –1.52 to –1.31; p < 0.001) were associated with decreased duration of delirium in all patients.

Conclusions: 

The effects of family presence on delirium are complex and dependent on type of visitation, reason for ICU admission, and brain function on ICU admission.

 

 

 

Efficacy and safety of unrestricted visiting policy for critically ill patients: a meta-analysis

 

by Yuchen Wu, Guoqiang Wang, Zhigang Zhang, Luo Fan, Fangli Ma, Weigang Yue, Bin Li and Jinhui Tian 

 

Critical Care volume 26, Article number: 267 (2022)

 

Aim

To compare the safety and effects of unrestricted visiting policies (UVPs) and restricted visiting policies (RVPs) in intensive care units (ICUs) with respect to outcomes related to delirium, infection, and mortality.

Methods

MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL, CBMdisc, CNKI, Wanfang, and VIP database records generated from their inception to 22 January 2022 were searched. Randomized controlled trials and quasi-experimental studies were included. The main outcomes investigated were delirium, ICU-acquired infection, ICU mortality, and length of ICU stay. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risks of bias. Random‑effects and fixed-effects meta‑analyses were conducted to obtain pooled estimates, due to heterogeneity. Meta-analyses were performed using RevMan 5.3 software. The results were analyzed using odds ratios (ORs), 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and standardized mean differences (SMDs).

Results

Eleven studies including a total of 3741 patients that compared UVPs and RVPs in ICUs were included in the analyses. Random effects modeling indicated that UVPs were associated with a reduced incidence of delirium (OR = 0.4, 95% CI 0.25–0.63, I2 = 71%, p = 0.0005). Fixed-effects modeling indicated that UVPs did not increase the incidences of ICU-acquired infections, including ventilator-associated pneumonia (OR = 0.96, 95% CI 0.71–1.30, I2 = 0%, p = 0.49), catheter-associated urinary tract infection (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.52–1.80, I2 = 0%, p = 0.55), and catheter-related blood stream infection (OR = 1.15, 95% CI 0.72–1.84, I2 = 0%, p = 0.66), or ICU mortality (OR = 1.03, 95% CI 0.83–1.28, I2 = 49%, p = 0.12). Forest plotting indicated that UVPs could reduce the lengths of ICU stays (SMD =  − 0.97, 95% CI − 1.61 to 0.32, p = 0.003).

Conclusion

The current meta-analysis indicates that adopting a UVP may significantly reduce the incidence of delirium in ICU patients, without increasing the risks of ICU-acquired infection or mortality. Further large-scale, multicenter studies are needed to confirm these indications.

 

 

Distribution of delirium motor subtypes in the intensive care unit: a systematic scoping review

 

by Kirstine N. la Cour, Nina C. Andersen-Ranberg, Sarah Weihe, Lone M. Poulsen, Camilla B. Mortensen, Cilia K. W. Kjer, Marie O. Collet, Stine Estrup and Ole Mathiesen 

 

Critical Care volume 26, Article number: 53 (2022) Published: 03 March 2022

 

Background

Delirium is the most common cerebral dysfunction in the intensive care unit (ICU) and can be subdivided into a hypoactive, hyperactive, or mixed motor subtype based on the clinical manifestation. The aim of this review was to describe the distribution, pharmacological interventions, and outcomes of delirium motor subtypes in ICU patients.

Methods

This systematic scoping review was performed according to the PRISMA-ScR and Cochrane guidelines. We performed a systematic search in six major databases to identify relevant studies. A meta-regression analysis was performed where pooled estimates with 95% confidence intervals were computed by a random effect model.

Results

We included 131 studies comprising 13,902 delirious patients. There was a large between-study heterogeneity among studies, including differences in study design, setting, population, and outcome reporting. Hypoactive delirium was the most prevalent delirium motor subtype (50.3% [95% CI 46.0–54.7]), followed by mixed delirium (27.7% [95% CI 24.1–31.3]) and hyperactive delirium (22.7% [95% CI 19.0–26.5]). When comparing the delirium motor subtypes, patients with mixed delirium experienced the longest delirium duration, ICU and hospital length of stay, the highest ICU and hospital mortality, and more frequently received administration of specific agents (antipsychotics, α2-agonists, benzodiazepines, and propofol) during ICU stay. In studies with high average age for delirious patients (> 65 years), patients were more likely to experience hypoactive delirium.

Conclusions

Hypoactive delirium was the most prevalent motor subtype in critically ill patients. Mixed delirium had the worst outcomes in terms of delirium duration, length of stay, and mortality, and received more pharmacological interventions compared to other delirium motor subtypes. Few studies contributed to secondary outcomes; hence, these results should be interpreted with care. The large between-study heterogeneity suggests that a more standardized methodology in delirium research is warranted.

 

 

Practices in sedation, analgesia, mobilization, delirium, and sleep deprivation in adult intensive care units (SAMDS-ICU): an international survey before and during the COVID-19 pandemic

by Mariana Luz, Bruna Brandão Barreto, Roberta Esteves Vieira de Castro, Jorge Salluh, Felipe Dal-Pizzol, Caio Araujo, Audrey De Jong, Gérald Chanques, Sheila Nainan Myatra, Eduardo Tobar, Carolina Gimenez-Esparza Vich, Federico Carini, Eugene Wesley Ely, Joanna L. Stollings, Kelly Drumright, John Kress…

Annals of Intensive Care volume 12, Article number: 9 (2022)

Background

Since the publication of the 2018 Clinical Guidelines about sedation, analgesia, delirium, mobilization, and sleep deprivation in critically ill patients, no evaluation and adequacy assessment of these recommendations were studied in an international context. This survey aimed to investigate these current practices and if the COVID-19 pandemic has changed them.

Methods

This study was an open multinational electronic survey directed to physicians working in adult intensive care units (ICUs), which was performed in two steps: before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Results

We analyzed 1768 questionnaires and 1539 (87%) were complete. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, we received 1476 questionnaires and 292 were submitted later. The following practices were observed before the pandemic: the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) (61.5%), the Behavioral Pain Scale (BPS) (48.2%), the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) (76.6%), and the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) (66.6%) were the most frequently tools used to assess pain, sedation level, and delirium, respectively; midazolam and fentanyl were the most frequently used drugs for inducing sedation and analgesia (84.8% and 78.3%, respectively), whereas haloperidol (68.8%) and atypical antipsychotics (69.4%) were the most prescribed drugs for delirium treatment; some physicians regularly prescribed drugs to induce sleep (19.1%) or ordered mechanical restraints as part of their routine (6.2%) for patients on mechanical ventilation; non-pharmacological strategies were frequently applied for pain, delirium, and sleep deprivation management. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the intensive care specialty was independently associated with best practices. Moreover, the mechanical ventilation rate was higher, patients received sedation more often (94% versus 86.1%, p < 0.001) and sedation goals were discussed more frequently in daily rounds. Morphine was the main drug used for analgesia (77.2%), and some sedative drugs, such as midazolam, propofol, ketamine and quetiapine, were used more frequently.

Conclusions

Most sedation, analgesia and delirium practices were comparable before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. During the pandemic, the intensive care specialty was a variable that was independently associated with the best practices. Although many findings are in accordance with evidence-based recommendations, some practices still need improvement.

 

Delirium in critical illness: clinical manifestations, outcomes, and management

 

Joanna L. Stollings, Katarzyna Kotfis, Gerald Chanques, Brenda T. Pun, Pratik P. Pandharipande & 

E. Wesley Ely 

 

Intensive Care Medicine: 16 August 2021

 

Delirium is the most common manifestation of brain dysfunction in critically ill patients. In the intensive care unit (ICU), duration of delirium is independently predictive of excess death, length of stay, cost of care, and acquired dementia. There are numerous neurotransmitter/functional and/or injury-causing hypotheses rather than a unifying mechanism for delirium. Without using a validated delirium instrument, delirium can be misdiagnosed (under, but also overdiagnosed and trivialized), supporting the recommendation to use a monitoring instrument routinely. The best-validated ICU bedside instruments are CAM-ICU and ICDSC, both of which also detect subsyndromal delirium. Both tools have some inherent limitations in the neurologically injured patients, yet still provide valuable information about delirium once the sequelae of the primary injury settle into a new post-injury baseline. Now it is known that antipsychotics and other psychoactive medications do not reliably improve brain function in critically ill delirious patients. ICU teams should systematically screen for predisposing and precipitating factors. These include exacerbations of cardiac/respiratory failure or sepsis, metabolic disturbances (hypoglycemia, dysnatremia, uremia and ammonemia) receipt of psychoactive medications, and sensory deprivation through prolonged immobilization, uncorrected vision and hearing deficits, poor sleep hygiene, and isolation from loved ones so common during COVID-19 pandemic. The ABCDEF (A2F) bundle is a means to facilitate implementation of the 2018 Pain, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium, Immobility, and Sleep Disruption in Adult Patients in the ICU (PADIS) Guidelines. In over 25,000 patients across nearly 100 institutions, the A2F bundle has been shown in a dose–response fashion (i.e., greater bundle compliance) to yield improved survival, length of stay, coma and delirium duration, cost, and less ICU bounce-backs and discharge to nursing homes.

Delirium in COVID-19: can we make the unknowns knowns?

 

Delirium in COVID-19: can we make the unknowns knowns?

By: M. Elizabeth Wilcox, Manu Shankar-Hari & Daniel F. McAuley 

Intensive Care Medicine (2021) Published: 30 June 2021

Delirium is an important public health problem. It is independently associated with worse clinical outcomes, including persistent cognitive impairment, increased mortality, and greater risk of institutionalization. The prevalence of delirium is high in the intensive care unit (ICU), occurring in up to 70% of the sickest patients requiring mechanical ventilation. Early studies in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) report delirium rates of 20–30%, which increase to 60–70% in severe illness. An international multicenter cohort study that included 69 adult ICUs across 14 countries of 2088 COVID-19 patients reported that over a 21-day period, delirium had a prevalence of 55% and lasted a median of 3 days (IQR, 2–6 days), which is more common and prolonged than that in non-COVID cohorts…

Effectiveness of Bundle Interventions on ICU Delirium: A Meta-Analysis*

 

Effectiveness of Bundle Interventions on ICU Delirium: A Meta-Analysis*

 

by Zhang, Shan; Han, Yuan; Xiao, Qian; Li, Haibin; Wu, Ying 

 

Critical Care Medicine: February 2021 - Volume 49 - Issue 2 - p 335-346

 

Objective: 

To evaluate the impact of bundle interventions on ICU delirium prevalence, duration, and other patients’ adverse outcomes.

Data Sources: 

The Cochrane Library, PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsychINFO, and MEDLINE from January 2000 to July 2020. The protocol of the study was registered in International prospective register of systematic reviews (CRD42020163147).

Study Selection: 

Randomized clinical trials or cohort studies that examined the following outcomes were included in the current study: ICU delirium prevalence and duration, proportion of patient-days with coma, ventilator-free days, mechanical ventilation days, ICU or hospital length of stay, and ICU or inhospital or 28-day mortality.

Data Extraction: 

Using a standardized data-collection form, two authors screened the studies and extracted the data independently, and assessed the studies’ quality using the Modified Jadad Score Scale for randomized clinical trials and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for cohort studies.

Data Synthesis: 

Eleven studies with a total of 26,384 adult participants were included in the meta-analysis. Five studies (three randomized clinical trials and two cohort studies) involving 18,638 patients demonstrated that ICU delirium prevalence was not reduced (risk ratio = 0.92; 95% CI, 0.68–1.24). Meta-analysis showed that the use of bundle interventions was not associated with shortening the duration of ICU delirium (mean difference = –1.42 d; 95% CI, –3.06 to 0.22; two randomized clinical trials and one cohort study), increasing ventilator-free days (mean difference = 1.56 d; 95% CI, –1.56 to 4.68; three randomized clinical trials), decreasing mechanical ventilation days (mean difference = –0.83 d; 95% CI, –1.80 to 0.14; four randomized clinical trials and two cohort studies), ICU length of stay (mean difference = –1.08 d; 95% CI, –2.16 to 0.00; seven randomized clinical trials and two cohort studies), and inhospital mortality (risk ratio = 0.86; 95% CI, 0.70–1.06; five randomized clinical trials and four cohort studies). However, bundle interventions are effective in reducing the proportion of patient-days experiencing coma (risk ratio = 0.47; 95% CI, 0.39–0.57; two cohort studies), hospital length of stay (mean difference = –1.47 d; 95% CI, –2.80 to –0.15; four randomized clinical trials and one cohort study), and 28-day mortality by 18% (risk ratio = 0.82; 95% CI, 0.69–0.99; three randomized clinical trials).

Conclusions: 

This meta-analysis fails to support that bundle interventions are effective in reducing ICU delirium prevalence and duration, but supports that bundle interventions are effective in reducing the proportion of patient-days with coma, hospital length of stay, and 28-day mortality. Larger randomized clinical trials are needed to evaluate the impact of bundle interventions on ICU delirium and other clinical outcomes.

Frailty, delirium and hospital mortality of older adults admitted to intensive care: the Delirium (Deli) in ICU study

Frailty, delirium and hospital mortality of older adults admitted to intensive care: the Delirium (Deli) in ICU study

 

by David Sanchez, Kathleen Brennan, Masar Al Sayfe, Sharon-Ann Shunker, Tony Bogdanoski, Sonja Hedges, Yu Chin Hou, Joan Lynch, Leanne Hunt, Evan Alexandrou, Manoj Saxena, Simon Abel, Ramanathan Lakshmanan, Deepak Bhonagiri, Michael J. Parr, Anders Aneman…

 

Critical Care volume 24, Article number: 609 (2020)  Published: 15 October 2020

 

 

Background

Clinical frailty among older adults admitted to intensive care has been proposed as an important determinant of patient outcomes. Among this group of patients, an acute episode of delirium is also common, but its relationship to frailty and increased risk of mortality has not been extensively explored. Therefore, the aim of this study was to explore the relationship between clinical frailty, delirium and hospital mortality of older adults admitted to intensive care.

Methods

This study is part of a Delirium in Intensive Care (Deli) Study. During the initial 6-month baseline period, clinical frailty status on admission to intensive care, among adults aged 50 years or more; acute episodes of delirium; and the outcomes of intensive care and hospital stay were explored.

Results

During the 6-month baseline period, 997 patients, aged 50 years or more, were included in this study. The average age was 71 years (IQR, 63–79); 55% were male (n = 537). Among these patients, 39.2% (95% CI 36.1–42.3%, n = 396) had a Clinical Frailty Score (CFS) of 5 or more, and 13.0% (n = 127) had at least one acute episode of delirium. Frail patients were at greater risk of an episode of delirium (17% versus 10%, adjusted rate ratio (adjRR) = 1.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.20–2.43, p = 0.003), had a longer hospital stay (2.6 days, 95% CI 1–7 days, p = 0.009) and had a higher risk of hospital mortality (19% versus 7%, adjRR = 2.54, 95% CI 1.72–3.75, p < 0.001), when compared to non-frail patients. Patients who were frail and experienced an acute episode of delirium in the intensive care had a 35% rate of hospital mortality versus 10% among non-frail patients who also experienced delirium in the ICU.

Conclusion

Frailty and delirium significantly increase the risk of hospital mortality. Therefore, it is important to identify patients who are frail and institute measures to reduce the risk of adverse events in the ICU such as delirium and, importantly, to discuss these issues in an open and empathetic way with the patient and their families.

Delirium and encephalopathy in severe COVID-19: a cohort analysis of ICU patients

Link to article: Delirium and encephalopathy in severe COVID-19: a cohort analysis of ICU patients

by Julie Helms, Stéphane Kremer, Hamid Merdji, Malika Schenck, François Severac, Raphaël Clere-Jehl, Antoine Studer, Mirjana Radosavljevic, Christine Kummerlen, Alexandra Monnier, Clotilde Boulay, Samira Fafi-Kremer, Vincent Castelain, Mickaël Ohana, Mathieu Anheim, Francis Schneider…

Critical Care volume 24, Article number: 491 (2020) 08 August 2020

Background

Neurotropism of SARS-CoV-2 and its neurological manifestations have now been confirmed. We aimed at describing delirium and neurological symptoms of COVID-19 in ICU patients.

Methods

We conducted a bicentric cohort study in two French ICUs of Strasbourg University Hospital.

All the 150 patients referred for acute respiratory distress syndrome due to SARS-CoV-2 between March 3 and May 5, 2020, were included at their admission. Ten patients (6.7%) were excluded because they remained under neuromuscular blockers during their entire ICU stay. Neurological examination, including CAM-ICU, and cerebrospinal fluid analysis, electroencephalography, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were performed in some of the patients with delirium and/or abnormal neurological examination. The primary endpoint was to describe the incidence of delirium and/or abnormal neurological examination. The secondary endpoints were to describe the characteristics of delirium, to compare the duration of invasive mechanical ventilation and ICU length of stay in patients with and without delirium and/or abnormal neurological symptoms.

Results

The 140 patients were aged in median of 62 [IQR 52; 70] years old, with a median SAPSII of 49 [IQR 37; 64] points. Neurological examination was normal in 22 patients (15.7%). One hundred eighteen patients (84.3%) developed a delirium with a combination of acute attention, awareness, and cognition disturbances. Eighty-eight patients (69.3%) presented an unexpected state of agitation despite high infusion rates of sedative treatments and neuroleptics, and 89 (63.6%) patients had corticospinal tract signs. Brain MRI performed in 28 patients demonstrated enhancement of subarachnoid spaces in 17/28 patients (60.7%), intraparenchymal, predominantly white matter abnormalities in 8 patients, and perfusion abnormalities in 17/26 patients (65.4%). The 42 electroencephalograms mostly revealed unspecific abnormalities or diffuse, especially bifrontal, slow activity. Cerebrospinal fluid examination revealed inflammatory disturbances in 18/28 patients, including oligoclonal bands with mirror pattern and elevated IL-6. The CSF RT-PCR SARS-CoV-2 was positive in one patient. The delirium/neurological symptoms in COVID-19 patients were responsible for longer mechanical ventilation compared to the patients without delirium/neurological symptoms. Delirium/neurological symptoms could be secondary to systemic inflammatory reaction to SARS-CoV-2.

Conclusions and relevance

Delirium/neurological symptoms in COVID-19 patients are a major issue in ICUs, especially in the context of insufficient human and material resources.

COVID-19: ICU delirium management during SARS-CoV-2 pandemic—pharmacological considerations

COVID-19: ICU delirium management during SARS-CoV-2 pandemic—pharmacological considerations

by Lauren J. Andrews and Scott T. Benken 

Critical Care volume 24, Article number: 375 (2020) 

Letter:

The recent article by Kotfis and colleagues provides great insight regarding newly identified COVID-related risk factors contributing to ICU delirium, while also presenting valid potential solutions to barriers surrounding the implementation of the ABCDEF safety bundle for ICU liberation [1]. However, we feel that the omission of pertinent medication availability and selection limitations currently afflicting healthcare teams around the world warrants further discussion.

In the setting of medication shortages and anecdotally high sedation requirements in COVID patients, it has become increasingly necessary to utilize various combinations of second-line and adjunct therapy options in order to maintain appropriate levels of sedation, with indications for neuromuscular blockade and prone positioning further exacerbating this need [1]. Keeping the known sedation limitations of dexmedetomidine in mind [2], clinicians may be more inclined to use benzodiazepine infusions if unable to obtain adequate supplies of common first-line agents (e.g., fentanyl, propofol). Despite the well-documented association between benzodiazepines and delirium, this approach may be unavoidable for a large number of institutions. Ketamine may be a possible solution, however, as more data has recently emerged regarding its safety and efficacy as an adjunct therapy for analgosedation [3]….