Fiest, Kirsten M.

Objectives: The delirium course of critically ill adults can be classified into trajectories based on the severity and duration of delirium as shown by a recent study. It is unknown whether these trajectories and associated outcomes are reproducible. We aimed to define delirium severity trajectories using the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC) and delirium duration and evaluate the association of trajectory membership with clinical characteristics and 30-day post-discharge mortality. Design: Population-based retrospective cohort. Setting: Fourteen medical-surgical ICUs in Alberta, Canada from January 1, 2014, to December 21, 2019. Patients: We included adult patients (≥ 18 yr old) with an ICU length of stay of greater than or equal to 24 hours, an ICDSC score indicating delirium (≥ 4), and 30-day follow-up data were included. Group-based trajectory modeling identified trajectories over a 7-day period with SAS v9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC). Interventions: None. Measurements and Main Results: Demographic (age, sex) and clinical data (2 × d ICDSC score, comorbidities, illness severity, admission reason, procedures, length of stay, in-hospital, and 30-d post-discharge mortality) were captured from electronic medical records. In total, 21,071 patients were included, with a median age of 59 years (interquartile range, 46–70 yr), 59% male (n = 12,547), and 3% died at 30 days (n = 541). The five-trajectory model was selected. These trajectories followed previously defined patterns: 1) Mild-Brief (19.4%); 2); Severe-Rapid Recovers (18.5%); 3) Severe-Slow Recovers (31%); 4) Mild-Accelerating (14.1%); and 5) Severe-Nonrecovers (16.9%). Trajectory membership was not significantly associated with 30-day post-discharge mortality; however, clinically relevant trends were observed. Conclusions: The current study substantiates the proof-of-concept model of five delirium severity trajectories. Trajectory membership did not predict 30-day post-discharge mortality. Further research is needed to understand the associations between trajectory membership, biological-based biomarkers, and patient-relevant outcomes.

Importance Eligibility criteria for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are designed to select clinically relevant patient populations. However, not all eligibility criteria are strongly justified, potentially excluding marginalized groups, and limiting the generalizability of trial findings. Objective To summarize and evaluate the justification of exclusion criteria in published RCTs in critical care medicine. Evidence Review A systematic sampling review of parallel-group RCTs published in the top 5 general internal medicine journals by impact factor ( The Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, Journal of the American Medical Association, British Medical Journal, and Annals of Internal Medicine ) between January 1, 2018, and February 23, 2023, was conducted. RCTs enrolling adults in intensive care units (ICUs) and RCTs enrolling critically ill patients who required life-sustaining interventions typically initiated in the ICU were included. All study exclusion criteria were categorized as either poorly justified, potentially justified, or strongly justified, adapting previously established criteria, independently and in duplicate. Findings In total, 225 studies were identified, 75 of which were included. The median (IQR) number of exclusion criteria per trial was 19 (14-24), with 1455 total exclusion criteria. Common exclusion criteria were related to the risk of adverse reaction to interventions (302 criteria [20.8%]), followed by inability to obtain consent (120 criteria [8.2%]), and treatment limitation decisions (97 criteria [6.7%]). Most exclusion criteria were either strongly justified (1080 criteria [74.2%]) or potentially justified (297 criteria [20.4%]), whereas 5.4% (78 criteria) were poorly justified. Of the 78 poorly justified exclusion criteria, the most common were pregnancy (19 criteria [24.4%]), communication barriers (11 criteria [14.1%]), lactation (10 criteria [12.8%]), and lack of health insurance (10 criteria [12.8%]). Overall, 45 of 75 studies (60.0%) had at least 1 poorly justified exclusion criteria. Conclusions and Relevance Most exclusion criteria in critical care medicine RCTs were strongly justifiable. Across poorly justified criteria, the most common exclusions were pregnant or lactating persons, those with communication barriers, and individuals without health insurance. This highlights the need to carefully consider exclusion criteria when designing trials to minimize the inappropriate exclusion of participants and enhance generalizability.

Abstract Background Delirium is a common complication of older people in hospitals, rehabilitation and long-term facilities. Objective To assess the worldwide use of validated delirium assessment tools and the presence of delirium management protocols. Design Secondary analysis of a worldwide one-day point prevalence study on World Delirium Awareness Day, 15 March 2023. Setting Cross-sectional online survey including hospitals, rehabilitation and long-term facilities. Methods Participating clinicians reported data on delirium, the presence of protocols, delirium assessments, delirium-awareness interventions, non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions, and ward/unit-specific barriers. Results Data from 44 countries, 1664 wards/units and 36 048 patients were analysed. Validated delirium assessments were used in 66.7% (n = 1110) of wards/units, 18.6% (n = 310) used personal judgement or no assessment, and 10% (n = 166) used other assessment methods. A delirium management protocol was reported in 66.8% (n = 1094) of wards/units. The presence of protocols for delirium management varied across continents, ranging from 21.6% (on 21/97 wards/units) in Africa to 90.4% (235/260) in Australia, similar to the use of validated delirium assessments with 29.6% (29/98) in Africa to 93.5% (116/124) in North America. Wards/units with a delirium management protocol [n = 1094/1664, 66.8%] were more likely to use a validated delirium test than those without a protocol [odds ratio 6.97 (95% confidence interval 5.289–9.185)]. The presence of a delirium protocol increased the chances for valid delirium assessment and, likely, evidence-based interventions. Conclusion Wards/units that reported the presence of delirium management protocols had a higher probability of using validated delirium assessments tools to assess for delirium.

AbstractBACKGROUNDDelirium, a common syndrome with heterogeneous etiologies and clinical presentations, is associated with poor long‐term outcomes. Recording and analyzing all delirium equally could be hindering the field's understanding of pathophysiology and identification of targeted treatments. Current delirium subtyping methods reflect clinically evident features but likely do not account for underlying biology.METHODSThe Delirium Subtyping Initiative (DSI) held three sessions with an international panel of 25 experts.RESULTSMeeting participants suggest further characterization of delirium features to complement the existing Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Fifth Edition Text Revision diagnostic criteria. These should span the range of delirium‐spectrum syndromes and be measured consistently across studies. Clinical features should be recorded in conjunction with biospecimen collection, where feasible, in a standardized way, to determine temporal associations of biology coincident with clinical fluctuations.DISCUSSIONThe DSI made recommendations spanning the breadth of delirium research including clinical features, study planning, data collection, and data analysis for characterization of candidate delirium subtypes.Highlights Delirium features must be clearly defined, standardized, and operationalized. Large datasets incorporating both clinical and biomarker variables should be analyzed together. Delirium screening should incorporate communication and reasoning.