Publications

OBJECTIVE: Catechol-O-methyltransferase (COMT), a key enzyme in degrading catecholamines associated with the stress response, may influence susceptibility to delirium. Individuals with the COMT (rs4680) Val/Val genotype (designated "warriors") withstand the onset of neuropsychiatric disorders and cognitive decline, whereas individuals with Met/Met and Val/Met genotypes ("nonwarriors") are more susceptible to these conditions. We evaluated whether COMT genotype modifies the established association between acute phase reactant (stress marker) C-reactive protein (CRP) and postoperative delirium.

METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study conducted at two academic medical centers. The study involved 547 patients aged 70 or older undergoing major noncardiac surgery. We collected blood, extracted DNA, and performed COMT genotyping using allele-specific polymerase chain reaction assays, considering warriors versus nonwarriors. High plasma CRP, measured on postoperative day 2 using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, was defined by the highest sample-based quartile (≥234.12 mg/L). Delirium was determined using the Confusion Assessment Method, augmented by a validated chart review. We used generalized linear models adjusted for age, sex, surgery type, and race/ethnicity, stratified by COMT genotype, to determine whether the association between CRP and delirium differed by COMT.

RESULTS: Prevalence of COMT warriors was 26%, and postoperative delirium occurred in 23%. Among COMT warriors, high CRP was not associated with delirium (relative risk [RR] 1.0, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.4-2.6). In contrast, among nonwarriors, we found the expected relationship of high CRP and delirium (RR 1.5, 95% CI 1.1-2.2).

CONCLUSION: COMT warriors may be protected against the increased risk of delirium associated with high CRP on postoperative day 2. With further confirmation, COMT genotype may help target interventions for delirium prevention in the vulnerable nonwarrior group.

IMPORTANCE: Measurement of delirium severity has been recognized as highly important for tracking prognosis, monitoring response to treatment, and estimating burden of care for patients both during and after hospitalization. Rather than simply rating delirium as present or absent, the ability to quantify its severity would enable development and monitoring of more effective treatment approaches for the condition.

OBJECTIVES: To present a comprehensive review of delirium severity instruments, conduct a methodologic quality rating of the original validation study of the most commonly used instruments, and select a group of top-rated instruments.

EVIDENCE REVIEW: This systematic review was conducted using literature from Embase, PsycINFO, PubMed, Web of Science, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, from January 1, 1974, through March 31, 2017, with the key words delirium, severity, tests, measures, and intensity. Inclusion criteria were original articles assessing delirium severity and using a delirium-specific severity instrument. Final listings of articles were supplemented with hand searches of reference listings to ensure completeness. At least 2 reviewers independently completed each step of the review process: article selection, data extraction, and methodologic quality assessment of relevant articles using a validated rating scale. All discrepancies between raters were resolved by consensus.

FINDINGS: Of 9409 articles identified, 228 underwent full text review, and we identified 42 different instruments of delirium severity. Eleven of the 42 tools were multidomain, delirium-specific instruments providing a quantitative rating of delirium severity; these instruments underwent a methodologic quality review. Applying prespecified criteria related to frequency of use, methodologic quality, construct or predictive validity, and broad domain coverage, an expert panel used an iterative modified Delphi process to select 6 final high-quality instruments meeting these criteria: the Confusion Assessment Method-Severity Score, Confusional State Examination, Delirium-O-Meter, Delirium Observation Scale, Delirium Rating Scale, and Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The 6 instruments identified may enable accurate measurement of delirium severity to improve clinical care for patients with this condition. This work may stimulate increased usage and head-to-head comparison of these instruments.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac surgical procedures are associated with postoperative neurological complications such as cognitive decline and delirium, which can complicate recovery and impair quality of life. Perioperative depression and anxiety may be associated with increased mortality after cardiac surgeries. Surgical prehabilitation is an emerging concept that includes preoperative interventions to potentially reduce postoperative complications. While most current prehabilitation interventions focus on optimizing physical health, mind-body interventions are an area of growing interest. Preoperative mind-body interventions such as Isha Kriya meditation, may hold significant potential to improve postsurgical outcomes.

METHODS: This is a prospective, randomized controlled feasibility trial. A total of 40 adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery will be randomized to one of three study groups. Participants randomized to either of the two intervention groups will receive meditative intervention: (1) commencing two weeks before surgery; or (2) commencing only from the day after surgery. Meditative intervention will last for four weeks after the surgery in these groups. Participants in the third control group will receive the current standard of care with no meditative intervention. All participants will undergo assessments using neurocognitive, sleep, depression, anxiety, and pain questionnaires at various time points in the perioperative period. Blood samples will be collected at baseline, preoperatively, and postoperatively to assess for inflammatory biomarkers. The primary aim of this trial is to assess the feasibility of implementing a perioperative meditative intervention program. Other objectives include studying the effect of meditation on postoperative pain, sleep, psychological wellbeing, cognitive function, and delirium. These will be used to calculate effect size to design future studies.

DISCUSSION: This study serves as the first step towards understanding the feasibility of implementing a mind-body intervention as a prehabilitative intervention to improve postoperative surgical outcomes after cardiac surgery.

TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03198039 . Registered on 23 June 2017.

IMPORTANCE: Postoperative delirium is common following cardiac surgery and may be affected by choice of analgesic and sedative.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of postoperative intravenous (IV) acetaminophen (paracetamol) vs placebo combined with IV propofol vs dexmedetomidine on postoperative delirium among older patients undergoing cardiac surgery.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomized, placebo-controlled, factorial clinical trial among 120 patients aged 60 years or older undergoing on-pump coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery or combined CABG/valve surgeries at a US center. Enrollment was September 2015 to April 2018, with follow-up ending in April 2019.

INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to 1 of 4 groups receiving postoperative analgesia with IV acetaminophen or placebo every 6 hours for 48 hours and postoperative sedation with dexmedetomidine or propofol starting at chest closure and continued for up to 6 hours (acetaminophen and dexmedetomidine: n = 29; placebo and dexmedetomidine: n = 30; acetaminophen and propofol: n = 31; placebo and propofol: n = 30).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was incidence of postoperative in-hospital delirium by the Confusion Assessment Method. Secondary outcomes included delirium duration, cognitive decline, breakthrough analgesia within the first 48 hours, and ICU and hospital length of stay.

RESULTS: Among 121 patients randomized (median age, 69 years; 19 women [15.8%]), 120 completed the trial. Patients treated with IV acetaminophen had a significant reduction in delirium (10% vs 28% placebo; difference, -18% [95% CI, -32% to -5%]; P = .01; HR, 2.8 [95% CI, 1.1-7.8]). Patients receiving dexmedetomidine vs propofol had no significant difference in delirium (17% vs 21%; difference, -4% [95% CI, -18% to 10%]; P = .54; HR, 0.8 [95% CI, 0.4-1.9]). There were significant differences favoring acetaminophen vs placebo for 3 prespecified secondary outcomes: delirium duration (median, 1 vs 2 days; difference, -1 [95% CI, -2 to 0]), ICU length of stay (median, 29.5 vs 46.7 hours; difference, -16.7 [95% CI, -20.3 to -0.8]), and breakthrough analgesia (median, 322.5 vs 405.3 µg morphine equivalents; difference, -83 [95% CI, -154 to -14]). For dexmedetomidine vs propofol, only breakthrough analgesia was significantly different (median, 328.8 vs 397.5 µg; difference, -69 [95% CI, -155 to -4]; P = .04). Fourteen patients in both the placebo-dexmedetomidine and acetaminophen-propofol groups (46% and 45%) and 7 in the acetaminophen-dexmedetomidine and placebo-propofol groups (24% and 23%) had hypotension.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among older patients undergoing cardiac surgery, postoperative scheduled IV acetaminophen, combined with IV propofol or dexmedetomidine, reduced in-hospital delirium vs placebo. Additional research, including comparison of IV vs oral acetaminophen and other potentially opioid-sparing analgesics, on the incidence of postoperative delirium is warranted.

TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02546765.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: While there are qualitative studies examining the delirium-related experiences of patients, family caregivers, and nurses separately, little is known about common aspects of delirium burden among all three groups. We describe common delirium burdens from the perspectives of patients, family caregivers, and nurses.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted semistructured qualitative interviews about delirium burden with 18 patients who had recently experienced a delirium episode, with 16 family caregivers, and with 15 nurses who routinely cared for patients with delirium. We recruited participants from a large, urban teaching hospital in Boston, Massachusetts. Interviews were recorded and transcribed. We used interpretive description as the approach to data analysis.

RESULTS: We identified three common burden themes of the delirium experience: Symptom Burden (Disorientation, Hallucinations/Delusions, Impaired Communication, Memory Problems, Personality Changes, Sleep Disturbances); Emotional Burden (Anger/Frustration, Emotional Distress, Fear, Guilt, Helplessness); and Situational Burden (Loss of Control, Lack of Attention, Lack of Knowledge, Lack of Resources, Safety Concerns, Unpredictability, Unpreparedness). These burdens arise from different sources among patients, family caregivers, and nurses, with markedly differing perspectives on the burden experience.

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: Our findings advance the understanding of common burdens of the delirium experience for all groups and offer structure for instrument development and distinct interventions to address the burden of delirium as an individual or group experience. Our work reinforces that no one group experiences delirium in isolation. Delirium is a shared experience that will respond best to systemwide approaches to reduce associated burden.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) may be associated with less delirium and allow faster recovery than surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).

OBJECTIVE: To examine the association of delirium and its severity with clinical and functional outcomes after SAVR and TAVR.

DESIGN: Prospective cohort study.

SETTING: An academic medical center.

PARTICIPANTS: A total of 187 patients, aged 70 years and older, undergoing SAVR (N = 77) and TAVR (N = 110) in 2014 to 2016.

MEASUREMENTS: Delirium was assessed daily using the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM), with severity measured by the CAM-Severity (CAM-S) score (range = 0-19). Outcomes were prolonged hospitalization (9 days or more); institutional discharge; and functional status, measured by ability to perform 22 daily activities and physical tasks over 12 months.

RESULTS: SAVR patients had a higher incidence of delirium than TAVR patients (50.7% vs 25.5%; P < .001), despite younger mean age (77.9 vs 83.7 years) and higher baseline Mini-Mental State Examination score (26.9 vs 24.7). SAVR patients with delirium had a shorter duration (2.2 vs 3.4 days; P = .04) with a lower mean CAM-S score (4.5 vs 5.7; P = .01) than TAVR patients with delirium. The risk of prolonged hospitalization in no, mild, and severe delirium was 18.4%, 30.8%, and 61.5% after SAVR (P for trend = .009) and 26.8%, 38.5%, and 73.3% after TAVR (P for trend = .001), respectively. The risk of institutional discharge was 42.1%, 58.3%, and 84.6% after SAVR (P for trend = .01) and 32.5%, 69.2%, and 80.0% after TAVR (P for trend <.001), respectively. Severe delirium was associated with delayed functional recovery after SAVR and persistent functional impairment after TAVR at 12 months.

CONCLUSION: Less invasive TAVR was associated with lower incidence of delirium than SAVR. Once delirium developed, TAVR patients had more severe delirium and worse functional status trajectory than SAVR patients did.

REGISTRATION: NCT01845207.

This cohort study examines the incidence of mortality 1 year after the start of hemodialysis in patients 65 years and older.

PURPOSE: Our purpose was to create a content domain framework for delirium severity to inform item development for a new instrument to measure delirium severity.

METHODS: We used an established, multi-stage instrument development process during which expert panelists discussed best approaches to measure delirium severity and identified related content domains. We conducted this work as part of the Better ASsessment of ILlness (BASIL) study, a prospective, observational study aimed at developing and testing measures of delirium severity. Our interdisciplinary expert panel consisted of twelve national delirium experts and four expert members of the core research group. Over a one-month period, experts participated in two rounds of review.

RESULTS: Experts recommended that the construct of delirium severity should reflect both the phenomena and the impact of delirium to create an accurate, patient-centered instrument useful to interdisciplinary clinicians and family caregivers. Final content domains were Cognitive, Level of consciousness, Inattention, Psychiatric-Behavioral, Emotional dysregulation, Psychomotor features, and Functional. Themes debated by experts included reconciling clinical geriatrics and psychiatric content, mapping symptoms to one specific domain, and accurate capture of unclear clinical presentations.

CONCLUSIONS: We believe this work represents the first application of instrument development science to delirium. The identified content domains are inclusive of various, wide-ranging domains of delirium severity and are reflective of a consistent framework that relates delirium severity to potential clinical outcomes. Our content domain framework provides a foundation for development of delirium severity instruments that can help improve care and quality of life for patients with delirium.