BACKGROUND There are conflicting data on the effects of antipsychotic medications on delirium in patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we assigned patients with acute respiratory failure or shock and hypoactive or hyperactive delirium to receive intravenous boluses of haloperidol (maximum dose, 20 mg daily), ziprasidone (maximum dose, 40 mg daily), or placebo. The volume and dose of a trial drug or placebo was halved or doubled at 12-hour intervals on the basis of the presence or absence of delirium, as detected with the use of the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU, and of side effects of the intervention. The primary end point was the number of days alive without delirium or coma during the 14-day intervention period. Secondary end points included 30-day and 90-day survival, time to freedom from mechanical ventilation, and time to ICU and hospital discharge. Safety end points included extrapyramidal symptoms and excessive sedation. RESULTS Written informed consent was obtained from 1183 patients or their authorized representatives. Delirium developed in 566 patients (48%), of whom 89% had hypoactive delirium and 11% had hyperactive delirium. Of the 566 patients, 184 were randomly assigned to receive placebo, 192 to receive haloperidol, and 190 to receive ziprasidone. The median duration of exposure to a trial drug or placebo was 4 days (interquartile range, 3 to 7). The median number of days alive without delirium or coma was 8.5 (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.6 to 9.9) in the placebo group, 7.9 (95% CI, 4.4 to 9.6) in the haloperidol group, and 8.7 (95% CI, 5.9 to 10.0) in the ziprasidone group (P=0.26 for overall effect across trial groups). The use of haloperidol or ziprasidone, as compared with placebo, had no significant effect on the primary end point (odds ratios, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.64 to 1.21] and 1.04 [95% CI, 0.73 to 1.48], respectively). There were no significant between-group differences with respect to the secondary end points or the frequency of extrapyramidal symptoms. CONCLUSIONS The use of haloperidol or ziprasidone, as compared with placebo, in patients with acute respiratory failure or shock and hypoactive or hyperactive delirium in the ICU did not significantly alter the duration of delirium. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and the VA Geriatric Research Education and Clinical Center; MIND-USA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01211522.)

National Institutes of Health and the Department of Veterans Affairs.

PURPOSE Cognitive impairment after critical illness is common and debilitating. We developed a cognitive therapy program for critically ill patients and assessed the feasibility and safety of administering combined cognitive and physical therapy early during a critical illness. METHODS We randomized 87 medical and surgical ICU patients with respiratory failure and/or shock in a 1:1:2 manner to three groups: usual care, early once-daily physical therapy, or early once-daily physical therapy plus a novel, progressive, twice-daily cognitive therapy protocol. Cognitive therapy included orientation, memory, attention, and problem solving exercises, and other activities. We assessed feasibility outcomes of the early cognitive plus physical therapy intervention. At 3-months, we also assessed cognitive, functional and health-related quality of life outcomes. Data are presented as median [interquartile range] or frequency (%). RESULTS Early cognitive therapy was a delivered to 41/43 (95%) of cognitive plus physical therapy patients on 100% [92–100%] of study days beginning 1.0 [1.0–1.0] day following enrollment. Physical therapy was received by 17/22 (77%) of usual care patients, by 21/22 (95%) of physical therapy only patients and 42/43 (98%) of cognitive plus physical therapy patients on 17% [10–26%], 67% [46–87%] and 75% [59–88%] of study days, respectively. Cognitive, functional and health-related quality of life outcomes did not differ between groups at 3-month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS This pilot study demonstrates that early rehabilitation can be extended beyond physical therapy to include cognitive therapy. Future work to determine optimal patient selection, intensity of treatment and benefits of cognitive therapy in the critically ill is needed.

Imagine working in an environment where all patients undergoing mechanical ventilation are alert, calm, and delirium free. Envision practicing in an environment where nonvocal patients can effectively express their need for better pain control, repositioning, or emotional reassurance. Picture an intensive care unit where a nurse-led, interprofessional team practices evidence-based, patient-centered care focused on preserving and/or restoring their clients’ physical, functional, and neurocognitive abilities. A recently proposed bundle of practices for the intensive care unit could advance the current practice environment toward this idealized environment. The Awakening and Breathing Coordination, Delirium Monitoring and Management, and Early Mobility (ABCDE) bundle incorporates the best available evidence related to delirium, immobility, sedation/analgesia, and ventilator management in the intensive care unit for adoption into everyday clinical practice.

Objective To review delirium screening tools available for use in the adult and pediatric ICU, review evidence-based delirium screening implementation and to discuss common pitfalls encountered during delirium screening in the ICU. Data Sources Review of delirium screening literature and expert opinion. Results Over the past decade, tools specifically designed for use in critically ill adults and children have been developed and validated. Delirium screening has been effectively implemented across many ICUs settings. Keys to effective implementation include addressing barriers to routine screening, multi-faceted training such as lectures, case-based scenarios, one-on-one teaching and real-time feedback of delirium screening and interdisciplinary communication through discussion of a patient’s delirium status during bedside rounds and through documentation systems. If delirium is present clinicians should search for reversible or treatable causes since it is often multifactorial. Conclusion Implementation of effective delirium screening is feasible but requires attention to implementation methods, including a change in the current ICU culture that believes delirium is inevitable or a normal part of a critical illness, to a future culture that views delirium as a dangerous syndrome which portends poor clinical outcomes and which is potentially modifiable depending on the individual patients circumstances.

Objective Delirium, an acute organ dysfunction, is common among critically ill patients leading to significant morbidity and mortality; its epidemiology in a mixed cardiology and cardiac surgery intensive care unit (CVICU) is not well established. We sought to determine the prevalence and risk factors for delirium among CVICU patients. Design Prospective observational study. Setting 27-bed medical-surgical CVICU. Patients 200 consecutive patients with an expected CVICU length of stay >24 hours. Interventions None. Measurements Baseline demographic data and daily assessments for delirium using the validated and reliable Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) were recorded, and quantitative tracking of delirium risk factors were conducted. Separate analyses studied the role of admission risk factors for occurrence of delirium during the CVICU stay and identified daily occurring risk factors for the development of delirium on a subsequent CVICU day. Main Results Prevalence of delirium was 26%, similar among cardiology and cardiac surgical patients. Nearly all (92%) exhibited the hypoactive subtype of delirium. Benzodiazepine use on admission was independently predictive of a 3-fold increased risk of delirium [Odds Ratio 3.1 (1, 9.4), p=0.04] during the CVICU stay. Of the daily occurring risk factors, patients who received benzodiazepines [2.6 (1.2, 5.7), p=0.02] or had restraints or devices that precluded mobilization [2.9 (1.3, 6.5), p<0.01] were more likely to have delirium the following day. Hemodynamic status was not associated with delirium. Conclusions Delirium occurred in 1 in 4 patients in the CVICU and was predominately hypoactive in subtype. Chemical restraints via use of benzodiazepines or the use of physical restraints/restraining devices predisposed patients to a greater risk of delirium, pointing to areas of quality improvement that would be new to the vast majority of CVICUs.

The ICU provides treatment of the sickest hospitalized patients. Advances in intensive care have rescued many who would have previously died. However, many survivors suffer from severe symptoms of disease processes acquired or accelerated during the ICU stay. These symptoms typically arise from two common and often unrecognized conditions that have a signifi cant impact on the quality and quantity of life following critical illness: ICU delirium and ICU-acquired weakness and their chronic sequelae.ICUs are experiencing an epidemic of patients with acute brain dysfunction (delirium) and weakness, both associated with increased mortality and long-term disability. These conditions are commonly acquired in the ICU and are often initiated or exacerbated by sedation and ventilation decisions and management. Despite . 10 years of evidence revealing the hazards of delirium, the quality chasm between current and ideal processes of care continues to exist. Monitoring of delirium and sedation levels remains inconsistent. In addition, sedation, ventilation, and physical therapy practices proven successful at reducing the frequency and severity of adverse outcomes are not routinely practiced. In this article, we advocate for the adoption and implementation of a standard bundle of ICU measures with great potential to reduce the burden of ICU-acquired delirium and weakness. Individual components of this bundle are evidence based and can help standardize communication, improve interdisciplinary care, reduce mortality, and improve cognitive and functional outcomes. We refer to this as the "ABCDE bundle," for awakening and breathing coordination, delirium monitoring, and exercise/early mobility. This evidence-based bundle of practices will build a bridge across the current quality chasm from the "front end" to the "back end" of critical care and toward improved cognitive and functional outcomes for ICU survivors. CHEST 2010; 138(5):1224-1233Abbreviations: ABCDE 5 awakening and breathing coordination, delirium monitoring, and exercise/early mobility; CAM-ICU 5 confusion assessment method for the ICU; LOS 5 length of stay; SAT 5 spontaneous awakening trial; SBT 5 spontaneous breathing trial

OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to describe the reliability and sustainability of delirium and sedation measurements by bedside intensive care unit (ICU) nurses. DESIGN Prospective cohort study. SETTING A tertiary care academic medical center. PARTICIPANTS 510 ICU patients from 2007 to 2010. 627 bedside nurses. MEASUREMENTS Delirium and sedation levels were independently measured in routine care by bedside nurses and well-trained reference-rater research nurses. Bedside nurses were instructed to use the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) every 12 hours and the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) every 4 hours to measure delirium and sedation, respectively. CAM-ICU and RASS assessment agreement were computed using weighted kappa statistics across the entire population and subgroups (e.g., ICU type). Sensitivity and specificity of bedside nurse identification of delirium were calculated to understand sources of discordance. RESULTS 6198 CAM-ICU and 6880 RASS measurement pairs obtained on 3846 patient-days. For CAM-ICU measurements, agreement between bedside and research nurses was substantial (weighted kappa = 0.67, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.70) and stable over 3 years of data collection. RASS measures also demonstrated substantial agreement (weighted kappa = 0.66, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.68), which was stable across all years of data collection. The sensitivity and specificity of delirium nurse assessments was 0.81 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.83) and 0.81 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.85), respectively. CONCLUSION Bedside nurse measurements of delirium and sedation are sustainable and reliable sources of information. These measures can be used for clinical decision making, quality improvement and measurement activities.