Delirium and SSD after CABG are common. Greater number and severity of risk factors for delirium may predict increasingly poor outcomes, with the dose-response relationship between risk factors and outcomes for SSD intermediate between that for no symptoms and full delirium. Intervention trials are indicated, particularly for patients with a greater number and severity of predisposing and precipitating risk factors.
Background: Both the intensive care delirium screening checklist (ICDSC) and confusion assessment method for ICU (CAM-ICU) are valid tools for identification of delirium, however their relative predictive validity for important delirium outcomes, such as hospital mortality and LOS have not been well-established. We aim to compare the two tools for their predictive validity for outcomes related to delirium, hospital mortality and length of stay (LOS).Methods: The prospective cohort study conducted in six medical ICUs at a tertiary care hospital in Taiwan. The study enrolled consecutive adult patients (≥20 years) who were delirium free at ICU admission. Delirium was screened daily by trained research nurses using the ICDSC and CAM-ICU in random order. Arousal was assessed by the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS). Participants with any one positive result were classified as ICDSC- or CAM-ICU-delirium groups, respectively.Results: Delirium incidence evaluated by the ICDSC and CAM-ICU were 69.1% (67/97) and 50.5% (49/97), respectively. Although the ICDSC identified 18 more cases as delirious, substantial concordance (κ =0.63; p < 0.001) was found between tools. Independent of age, APACHE II score, and Charlson comorbidity index, both ICDSC- and CAM-ICU-rated delirium significantly predicted hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 4.93; 95% confidence interval [CI]:1.56 to 15.63 vs. 2.79; 95% CI, 1.12 to 6.97, respectively), and only the ICDSC significantly predicted hospital LOS with a mean of 17.59 additional days compared to the no-delirium group. Irrespective of delirium status, a sensitivity analysis of normal-to-increased arousal (RASS≥0) test results did not alter the predictive ability of ICDSC- or CAM-ICU-delirium for hospital mortality (aOR 2.97; 95% CI, 1.06 to 8.37 vs. 3.82; 95% CI, 1.35 to 10.82, respectively). With reduced arousal (RASS<0), neither tool significantly predicted mortality or LOS.Conclusions: The ICDSC identified more delirium cases and may have higher predictive validity for mortality and LOS than the CAM-ICU. However, arousal substantially affected performance. Future studies may want to consider patients’ arousal when deciding which tool to use to maximize the effects of delirium identification on patient mortality.Trial registration: NCT 04206306
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.