The study shows that hypoactive delirium is the most common subtype among hospitalized older patients. Specific clinical features were associated with different delirium subtypes. The use of standardized instruments can help to characterize the phenomenology of different motor subtypes of delirium.

Background Coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) is a global outbreak. COVID-19 patients seem to have relevant coagulative abnormalities, even if they are not typical of disseminated intravascular coagulopathy (DIC) of the kind seen in septicaemia. Therefore, anticoagulant therapy with heparins is increasing in interest for a clinical approach to these patients, particularly if older. Studies comparing if prophylactic doses are more effective than therapeutic ones are still missing. Methods Data were collected in the Geriatric Section of the Dolo Hospital, ULSS 3 “Serenissima”, Venice from 31st March to 01st May 2020. Heparins (calciparin, fondaparinux, enoxaparine) were divided into prophylactic or therapeutic doses. People previously treated with oral anticoagulants were removed. Vital status was assessed using administrative data. Cox’s regression analysis, adjusted for potential confounders, was used for assessing the strength of the association between heparins and mortality. The data were reported as hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results 81 older people (mean age 84.1 years; females = 61.9%) were included. No significant differences in terms of demographic and clinical characteristics emerged between people treated with prophylactic or therapeutic doses, including age, gender, X-rays findings or severity of disease. Therapeutic doses were not associated to a better survival rate (HR 1.06; 95% CI 0.47–2.60; p = 0.89), even after adjusting for 15 confounders related to mortality (HR 0.89; 95% CI 0.30–2.71; p = 0.84). Conclusions Our paper indicates that in older people affected by COVID-19 there is no justification for using therapeutic doses instead of prophylactic ones, having a similar impact on mortality risk.

The analysis of spontaneous writing can be a reliable aid in cases of retrospective evaluation of cognitive integrity. On the other side, the ability to sign is not an index of cognitive integrity.

Objective: Sensory deficits are important risk factors for delirium but have been investigated in single-center studies and single clinical settings. This multicenter study aims to evaluate the association between hearing and visual impairment or bi-sensory impairment (visual and hearing impairment) and delirium. Design: Cross-sectional study nested in the 2017 "Delirium Day" project. Setting and Participants: Patients 65 years and older admitted to acute hospital medical wards, emergency departments, rehabilitation wards, nursing homes, and hospices in Italy. Methods: Delirium was assessed with the 4AT (a short tool for delirium assessment) and sensory deficits with a clinical evaluation. We assessed the association between delirium, hearing and visual impairment in multivariable logistic regression models, adjusting for: Model 1, we included predisposing factors for delirium (ie, dementia, weight loss and autonomy in the activities of daily living); Model 2, we added to Model 1 variables, which could be considered precipitating factors for delirium (ie, psychoactive drugs and urinary catheters). Results: A total of 3038 patients were included; delirium prevalence was 25%. Patients with delirium had a higher prevalence of hearing impairment (30.5% vs 18%; P < .001), visual impairment (24.2% vs 15.7%; P < .01) and bi-sensory impairment (16.2% vs 7.5%) compared with those without delirium. In the multivariable logistic regression analysis, the presence of bi-sensory impairment was associated with delirium in Model 1 [odds ratio (OR) 1.5, confidence interval (CI) 1.2e2.1; P ¼ .00] and in Model 2 (OR 1.4; CI 1.1e1.9; P ¼ .02), whereas the presence of visual and hearing impairment alone was not associated with delirium either in Model 1 (OR 0.8; CI 0.6e1.2, P ¼ .36; OR 1.1; CI 0.8e1.4; P ¼ .42) or in Model 2 (OR 0.8, CI 0.6e1.2, P ¼ .27; OR 1.1, CI 0.8e1.4, P ¼ .63).

No abstract