Search

Delirium and dementia are common causes of cognitive impairment among older adults, which often coexist. Delirium is associated with poor clinical outcomes, and is more frequent and more severe in patients with dementia. Identifying delirium in the presence of dementia, also described as delirium superimposed on dementia (DSD), is particularly challenging, as symptoms of delirium such as inattention, cognitive dysfunction, and altered level of consciousness, are also features of dementia. Because DSD is associated with poorer clinical outcomes than dementia alone, detecting delirium is important for reducing morbidity and mortality in this population. We review a number of delirium screening instruments that have shown promise for use in DSD, including the 4-DSD, combined Six Item Cognitive Impairment Test (6-CIT) and 4 'A's Test (4AT), Confusion Assessment Method (CAM), and the combined UB2 and 3D-CAM (UB-CAM). Each has advantages and disadvantages. We then describe the operationalization of a CAM-based approach in a current ECT in dementia project as an example of modifying an existing instrument for patients with moderate to severe dementia. Ultimately, any instrument modified will need to be validated against a standard clinical reference, in order to fully establish its sensitivity and specificity in the moderate to severe dementia population. Future work is greatly needed to advance the challenging area of accurate identification of delirium in moderate or severe dementia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Over 30 instruments are in current, active use for delirium identification. In a recent systematic review, we recommended 4 commonly used and well-validated instruments for clinical and research use. The goal of this study is to harmonize the four instruments on the same metric using modern methods in psychometrics.Design: Secondary data analysis from 3 studies, and a simulation study based on the observed data.Setting: Hospitalized (non-ICU) adults over 65 years old in the United States, Ireland, and Belgium.Participants: The total sample comprised 600 participants, contributing 1,623 assessments.Measurements: Confusion Assessment Method (long-form and short-form), Delirium Observation Screening Scale, Delirium Rating Scale-Revised-98 (DRS-R-98) (total and severity scores), and Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale.Results: Using item response theory, we linked scores across instruments, placing all four instruments and their separate scorings on the same metric (the propensity to delirium). Kappa statistics comparing agreement in delirium identification among the instruments ranged from 0.37 to 0.75, with the highest agreement between the DRS-R-98 total score and MDAS. After linking scores, we created a harmonized item bank, called the Delirium Item Bank (DEL-IB), consisting of 50 items. The DEL-IB allowed us to create six crosswalks, to allow scores to be translated across instruments.Conclusions: With our results, individual instrument scores can be directly compared to aid in clinical decision-making, and quantitatively combined in meta-analyses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses a study which examined the psychological and behavior characteristics of advanced dementia that predispose long-term care residents to be at higher risk for falls.

Objectives: To document the extent and appropriateness of use of antipsychotics and benzodiazepines among nursing home residents using a nationally representative survey. Methods: Cross-sectional analysis of the 2004 National Nursing Home Survey. Bivariate and multivariate analyses examined relationships between resident and facility characteristics and antipsychotic and benzodiazepine use by appropriateness classification among residents aged 60 years and older (N = 12,090). Resident diagnoses and information about behavioral problems were used to categorize antipsychotic and benzodiazepine use as appropriate, potentially appropriate, or having no appropriate indication. Results: More than one quarter (26%) of nursing home residents used an antipsychotic medication, 40% of whom had no appropriate indication for such use. Among the 13% of residents who took benzodiazepines, 42% had no appropriate indication. In adjusted analyses, the odds of residents taking an antipsychotic without an appropriate indication were highest for residents with diagnoses of depression (odds ratio [OR] = 1.31; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.12-1.53), dementia (OR = 1.82; 95% CI: 1.52-2.18), and with behavioral symptoms (OR = 1.97, 95% CI: 1.56-2.50). The odds of potentially inappropriate antipsychotic use increased as the percentage of Medicaid residents in a facility increased (OR = 1.08, 95% CI: 1.02-1.15) and decreased as the percentage of Medicare residents increased (OR = 0.46,95% CI: 0.25-0.83). The odds of taking a benzodiazepine without an appropriate indication were highest among residents who were female (OR = 1.44; 95% CI: 1.18-1.75), white (OR = 1.95; 95% CI: 1.47-2.60), and had behavioral symptoms (OR = 1.69; 95% CI: 1.41-2.01). Conclusion: Antipsychotics and benzodiazepines seem to be commonly prescribed to residents lacking an appropriate indication for their use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Delirium is a common, morbid, and costly postoperative complication. We aimed to identify blood-based postoperative delirium markers in a nested case-control study of older surgical patients using a proteomics approach followed by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) validation. Methods The Successful Aging after Elective Surgery study enrolled dementia-free adults ≥70 years old undergoing major scheduled noncardiac surgery ( N = 566; 24% delirium). Plasma was collected at four time points: preoperative, postanesthesia care unit, postoperative day 2, and 1 month postoperative. Matched pairs were selected for the independent discovery (39 pairs) and replication cohorts (36 pairs), which were subsequently combined into the pooled cohort (75 pairs). Isobaric tags for relative and absolute quantitation–based relative quantitation mass spectrometry proteomics were performed to identify the strongest delirium-related protein, which was selected for ELISA validation. Using the ELISA results, statistical analyses using nonparametric signed rank tests were performed in all cohorts examining the association between the identified protein and delirium. Results C-reactive protein emerged from the proteomics analysis as the strongest delirium-related protein. Validation by ELISA confirmed that compared with controls, cases had significantly higher C-reactive protein levels in the discovery, replication, and pooled cohorts at the preoperative (median paired difference [MPD] 1.97 mg/L [ p < .05], 0.29 mg/L, 1.56 mg/L [ p < .01]), postanesthesia care unit (MPD 2.83 mg/L, 2.22 mg/L [ p < .05], 2.53 mg/L [ p < .01]) and postoperative day 2 (MPD 71.97 mg/L [ p < .01], 35.18 mg/L [ p < .05], 63.76 mg/L [ p < .01]) time points, but not 1 month postoperative (MPD 2.72 mg/L, −0.66 mg/L, 1.10 mg/L). Conclusions Elevated preoperative and postoperative plasma levels of C-reactive protein were associated with delirium, suggesting that a preinflammatory state and heightened inflammatory response to surgery are potential pathophysiologic mechanisms of delirium. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives To survey the current methods used to ascertain dementia and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) in longitudinal cohort studies, to categorize differences in approaches and to identify key components of expert panel methodology in current use. Methods We searched PubMed for the past 10 years, from March 6, 2007 to March 6, 2017 using a combination of controlled vocabulary and keyword terms to identify expert panel consensus methods used to diagnose MCI or dementia in large cohort studies written in English. From these results, we identified a framework for reporting standards and describe as an exemplar the clinical consensus procedure used in an ongoing study of elective surgery patients (the Successful Aging after Elective Surgery study). Results Thirty-one articles representing unique cohorts were included. Among published methods, membership of experts panel varied significantly. There was more similarity in what types of information was use to ascertain disease status. However, information describing the diagnostic decision process and resolution of disagreements was often lacking. Conclusions Methods used for expert panel diagnosis of MCI and dementia in large cohort studies are widely variable, and there is a need for more standardized reporting of these approaches. By describing the procedure in which our expert panel achieved consensus diagnoses, we hope to encourage the development and publication of well-founded and reproducible methods for diagnosis of MCI and dementia in longitudinal studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]