40
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The attributable mortality of delirium in critically ill patients: prospective cohort study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective To determine the attributable mortality caused by delirium in critically ill patients.

          Design Prospective cohort study.

          Setting 32 mixed bed intensive care unit in the Netherlands, January 2011 to July 2013.

          Participants 1112 consecutive adults admitted to an intensive care unit for a minimum of 24 hours.

          Exposures Trained observers evaluated delirium daily using a validated protocol. Logistic regression and competing risks survival analyses were used to adjust for baseline variables and a marginal structural model analysis to adjust for confounding by evolution of disease severity before the onset of delirium.

          Main outcome measure Mortality during admission to an intensive care unit.

          Results Among 1112 evaluated patients, 558 (50.2%) developed at least one episode of delirium, with a median duration of 3 days (interquartile range 2-7 days). Crude mortality was 94/558 (17%) in patients with delirium compared with 40/554 (7%) in patients without delirium (P<0.001). Delirium was significantly associated with mortality in the multivariable logistic regression analysis (odds ratio 1.77, 95% confidence interval 1.15 to 2.72) and survival analysis (subdistribution hazard ratio 2.08, 95% confidence interval 1.40 to 3.09). However, the association disappeared after adjustment for time varying confounders in the marginal structural model (subdistribution hazard ratio 1.19, 95% confidence interval 0.75 to 1.89). Using this approach, only 7.2% (95% confidence interval −7.5% to 19.5%) of deaths in the intensive care unit were attributable to delirium, with an absolute mortality excess in patients with delirium of 0.9% (95% confidence interval −0.9% to 2.3%) by day 30. In post hoc analyses, however, delirium that persisted for two days or more remained associated with a 2.0% (95% confidence interval 1.2% to 2.8%) absolute mortality increase. Furthermore, competing risk analysis showed that delirium of any duration was associated with a significantly reduced rate of discharge from the intensive care unit (cause specific hazard ratio 0.65, 95% confidence interval 0.55 to 0.76).

          Conclusions Overall, delirium prolongs admission in the intensive care unit but does not cause death in critically ill patients. Future studies should focus on episodes of persistent delirium and its long term sequelae rather than on acute mortality.

          Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01905033.

          Related collections

          Most cited references46

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Efficacy and safety of a paired sedation and ventilator weaning protocol for mechanically ventilated patients in intensive care (Awakening and Breathing Controlled trial): a randomised controlled trial.

          Approaches to removal of sedation and mechanical ventilation for critically ill patients vary widely. Our aim was to assess a protocol that paired spontaneous awakening trials (SATs)-ie, daily interruption of sedatives-with spontaneous breathing trials (SBTs). In four tertiary-care hospitals, we randomly assigned 336 mechanically ventilated patients in intensive care to management with a daily SAT followed by an SBT (intervention group; n=168) or with sedation per usual care plus a daily SBT (control group; n=168). The primary endpoint was time breathing without assistance. Data were analysed by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00097630. One patient in the intervention group did not begin their assigned treatment protocol because of withdrawal of consent and thus was excluded from analyses and lost to follow-up. Seven patients in the control group discontinued their assigned protocol, and two of these patients were lost to follow-up. Patients in the intervention group spent more days breathing without assistance during the 28-day study period than did those in the control group (14.7 days vs 11.6 days; mean difference 3.1 days, 95% CI 0.7 to 5.6; p=0.02) and were discharged from intensive care (median time in intensive care 9.1 days vs 12.9 days; p=0.01) and the hospital earlier (median time in the hospital 14.9 days vs 19.2 days; p=0.04). More patients in the intervention group self-extubated than in the control group (16 patients vs six patients; 6.0% difference, 95% CI 0.6% to 11.8%; p=0.03), but the number of patients who required reintubation after self-extubation was similar (five patients vs three patients; 1.2% difference, 95% CI -5.2% to 2.5%; p=0.47), as were total reintubation rates (13.8%vs 12.5%; 1.3% difference, 95% CI -8.6% to 6.1%; p=0.73). At any instant during the year after enrolment, patients in the intervention group were less likely to die than were patients in the control group (HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.92; p=0.01). For every seven patients treated with the intervention, one life was saved (number needed to treat was 7.4, 95% CI 4.2 to 35.5). Our results suggest that a wake up and breathe protocol that pairs daily spontaneous awakening trials (ie, interruption of sedatives) with daily spontaneous breathing trials results in better outcomes for mechanically ventilated patients in intensive care than current standard approaches and should become routine practice.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Quantifying biases in causal models: classical confounding vs collider-stratification bias.

            It has long been known that stratifying on variables affected by the study exposure can create selection bias. More recently it has been shown that stratifying on a variable that precedes exposure and disease can induce confounding, even if there is no confounding in the unstratified (crude) estimate. This paper examines the relative magnitudes of these biases under some simple causal models in which the stratification variable is graphically depicted as a collider (a variable directly affected by two or more other variables in the graph). The results suggest that bias from stratifying on variables affected by exposure and disease may often be comparable in size with bias from classical confounding (bias from failing to stratify on a common cause of exposure and disease), whereas other biases from collider stratification may tend to be much smaller.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Incidence, risk factors and consequences of ICU delirium.

              Delirium in the critically ill is reported in 11-80% of patients. We estimated the incidence of delirium using a validated scale in a large cohort of ICU patients and determined the associated risk factors and outcomes. Prospective study in a 16-bed medical-surgical intensive care unit (ICU). 820 consecutive patients admitted to ICU for more than 24 h. Tools used were: the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist for delirium, Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale for sedation, and Numerical Rating Scale for pain. Risk factors were evaluated with univariate and multivariate analysis, and factors influencing mortality were determined using Cox regression. Delirium occurred in 31.8% of 764 patients. Risk of delirium was independently associated with a history of hypertension (OR 1.88, 95% CI 1.3-2.6), alcoholism (2.03, 1.2-3.2), and severity of illness (1.25, 1.03-1.07 per 5-point increment in APACHE II score) but not with age or corticosteroid use. Sedatives and analgesics increased the risk of delirium when used to induce coma (OR 3.2, 95% CI 1.5-6.8), and not otherwise. Delirium was linked to longer ICU stay (11.5+/-11.5 vs. 4.4+/-3.9 days), longer hospital stay (18.2+/-15.7 vs. 13.2+/-19.4 days), higher ICU mortality (19.7% vs. 10.3%), and higher hospital mortality (26.7% vs. 21.4%). Delirium is associated with a history of hypertension and alcoholism, higher APACHE II score, and with clinical effects of sedative and analgesic drugs.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: PhD student
                Role: PhD student
                Role: statistician
                Role: PhD student
                Role: clinical technologist
                Role: epidemiologist
                Role: neurologist-intensivist
                Role: anaesthesiologist-intensivist
                Journal
                BMJ
                BMJ
                bmj
                BMJ : British Medical Journal
                BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.
                0959-8138
                1756-1833
                2014
                24 November 2014
                : 349
                : g6652
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Intensive Care Medicine, University Medical Centre Utrecht, 3508 GA, Utrecht, Netherlands
                [2 ]Department of Mathematics, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
                [3 ]Department of Medical Microbiology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands
                Author notes
                Correspondence to: P Klein Klouwenberg p.m.c.kleinklouwenberg@ 123456umcutrecht.nl
                Article
                klop020450
                10.1136/bmj.g6652
                4243039
                25422275
                3ff577cb-1a28-4587-8a89-96e2ea8ccff8
                © Klein Klouwenberg et al 2014

                This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

                History
                : 30 October 2014
                Categories
                Research

                Medicine
                Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article