ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Due to the complexity of the symptoms, delirium detection poses a challenge in stroke patients. A large body of literature has established that neurospecific challenges can have a considerable impact on diagnosis and are underrepresented in screening. OBJECTIVES: An analysis of current scientific literature on delirium screening tests and their applicability in stroke patients, acknowledging neurospecific challenges and evaluating diagnostic test accuracy. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library databases. Studies published between 2018 and 2021 were evaluated and the study quality was assessed according to the Institute for Clinical Systems Improvement. Furthermore, the specificity and sensitivity of delirium screening tests were pooled RESULTS: The systematic literature review found a total of 2636 articles, following a review of the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Thus, 18 moderate-quality studies with a total of 3320 patients and 9 distinct delirium screenings were identified. Within those 18 studies, the prevalence of delirium was 34.2%. However, the delirium prevalence was significantly lower in 6 studies that included patients with neurologic impairments (26.5 vs. 32.1%, pâ¯= 0.0004). Pooled sensitivity and specificity for the 4AT (Rapid assessment test for delirium ) were 82 and 77%, while these values were 72 and 93% for the CAM-ICU (Confusion Assessment Method for Intensive Care Units) and 79 and 72% for the ICDSC (Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist). CONCLUSIONS: Neurological impairments may influence the test quality of delirium screening in stroke patients. The CAM-ICU can be recommended for nonaphasic patients. The ICDSC can be used in all stroke patients on stoke units with an adjusted cut-off value of >â¯5 points.
Subject(s)
Delirium , Stroke , Humans , Delirium/diagnosis , Intensive Care Units , Critical Care/methods , Sensitivity and Specificity , Stroke/diagnosisABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: Does early mobilisation as standalone or part of a bundle intervention, compared to usual care, prevent and/or shorten delirium in adult patients in Intensive Care Units? BACKGROUND: Early mobilisation is recommended for the prevention and treatment of delirium in critically ill patients, but the evidence remains inconclusive. METHOD: Systematic literature search in Pubmed, CINAHL, PEDRo, Cochrane from inception to March 2022, and hand search in previous meta-analysis. Included were randomized trials or quality-improvement projects. meta-analysis was performed for Odds Ratios or mean differences including 95% Confidence Intervals for presence/duration of delirium. Risk of bias was assessed by using Joanna Briggs Quality criteria. meta-regression was performed to analyse heterogeneity. RESULTS: The search led to 13 studies of low-moderate risk of bias including 2,164 patients. Early mobilisation reduced the risk of delirium by 47 % (13 studies, 2,164 patients, low to moderate risk of bias: Odds Ratio 0.53 (95 % Confidence Interval 0.34 till 0.83, p = 0.01), with significant heterogeneity (I2 = 78 %, p < 0.001). Early mobilisation also reduced the duration of delirium by 1.8 days (3 studies, 296 patients, low-moderate risk of bias: Mean difference -1.78 days (95 % Confidence Interval -2.73 till -0.83 days, p < 0.001), heterogeneity 0 % (p = 0.41). Other analyses such as low risk of bias studies, randomised trials, studies published ≥ 2017, high intensity, and mobilisation as stand-alone intervention showed no significant results, with conflicting certainty of evidence and high heterogeneity. meta-regression could not explain heterogeneity. CONCLUSION: There is an uncertain effect of mobilisation on delirium. Provision of early mobilisation to critical ill patients might prevent delirium. There is a possible effect of early mobilisation to shorten the duration of delirium. Due to the heterogeneity in the findings, further research to define the best method and dosage of early rehabilitation is required.
