Treatment Of Delirium In Patients Research Articles

Safety and Effectiveness of Perospirone in Comparison to Risperidone for Treatment of Delirium in Patients with Advanced Cancer: A Multicenter Prospective Observational Study in Real-World Psycho-Oncology Settings.

The clinical benefit of perospirone for treatment of delirium in patients with advanced cancer is not sufficiently clear. The objective of this study was to compare the safety and effectiveness of perospirone to those of risperidone for the treatment of delirium in patients with advanced cancer. This is a secondary analysis of a multicenter prospective observational study in nine psycho-oncology consultation services in Japan. The study used the Delirium Rating Scale (DRS) Revised-98 to measure effectiveness and the CTCAE (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events) version 4 to assess safety. Data from 16 patients who received perospirone and 53 patients who received risperidone were analyzed. The mean age was 70 years in the perospirone group and 73 years in the risperidone group. Both groups showed a significant decrease in the total score of DRS-R-98 after three days of treatment (perospirone: 11.7 (7.9-15.4) to 7.0 (3.3-10.7), difference -4.7, effect size=0.72, p=0.003; risperidone: 15.5 (13.6-17.4) to 12.2 (10.1-14.2), difference -3.3, effect size=0.55, p=0.00). The risperidone group showed significant improvements in sleep-wake cycle disturbance, orientation, attention, and visuospatial ability. In the perospirone group, there was a significant improvement of sleep-wake cycle disturbance. The median daily dose of perospirone was 4 mg/day. There were fewer episodes of somnolence as an adverse event in the perospirone group. Low-dose perospirone was thus found to be effective for the treatment of delirium in patients with advanced cancer and may be associated with fewer episodes of over-sedation as an adverse event.

Use of Levomepromazine for the Treatment of Emergence Agitation in Patients Receiving Mechanical Ventilation for SARS-CoV-2 Related Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

Purpose: To report our experience with the use of Levomepromazine (LMZ) for the treatment of delirium in patients treated for Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) due to COVID-19. Methods: Retrospective series of patients admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) of a non-academic hospital and who requiring invasive mechanical ventilation for the treatment of ARDS due to SARS-CoV-2. Infection was confirmed by Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) testing, and patients presented delirium after withdrawal of neuromuscular blockade or sedation lightening treated with LMZ on top of other treatment. Results: Out of 34 ARDS patients admitted from 22 March 2020 to 23 January 2021, 11 (32.3%) died before neuromuscular blockade withdrawal, and of the remaining 23, 16 were treated with LMZ. The median time to initiation of LMZ was 6 days (interquartile, 5 to 8) from the start of sedation, and median duration of LMZ treatment was 5 (1 to 28) days. Median sedation score (as assessed by the Sedation Agitation Scale (SAS)) was 2 (1-4) at initiation and 3 (2-4) at discontinuation of LMZ, while median analgesia scores (Behavioral Pain Scale (BPS)) were respectively 3 (3-5) and 4 (3-5). Of the 16 patients treated with LMZ, 12 were weaned from mechanical ventilation immediately following discontinuation, without recurrence of delirium. No adverse effects related to LMZ use were observed. The 4 patients who could not be weaned from mechanical ventilation following LMZ required new neuromuscular blockade. Conclusions: Based on this retrospective series, LMZ seems to be useful for the management of delirium occurring after withdrawal of neuromuscular blockade or lightening of sedation in patients with ARDS due to SARS-CoV-2.

Optimizing the Intensive Care Treatment of Delirium in Patients with 1,4-butanediol Intoxication

The aim of the study is to explore the best intensive care strategies for acute 1,4-butanediol poisoning complicated by post-intoxication delirium. Materials and methods . The data of the laboratory testing and treatment of 40 men with acute severe poisoning with 1,4-butanediol, complicated by post-intoxication delirium were analyzed. Twenty patients received succinate-containing drug, others were treated with conventional methods. The control group included 18 healthy male patients aged 25 to 40 years. Clinical course of delirium, parameters of glutathione system and lipid peroxidation in patients' red blood cells, oxygen transport function (by indirect calorimetry), gammahydroxybutyric acid level in the biological fluids by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry were evaluated during the study. Results. An increases in levels of reduced glutathione by 50.3% by day 7 (from 3.68±0.57 to 5.53±0.35 pmol/g), hemoglobin (Hb), antioxidant enzymes and glutathione reduction enzymes were found; glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase increased by 17,1% (from 3.68±0.26 to 4.31±0.41 pmol/g Hb) and glutathione reductase increased by 15% (from 174.1±16.3 to 200.2±4.11 pmol/min/g Hb). At the same time, the MDA lipid peroxidation system activation was decreased by 41.9% (from 7.78±1.06 to 4.52±0.28 nmol/g Hb). Conclusion. The obtained data proved high efficacy of a succinate-containing drug in slowing down the progression of post-intoxication delirium through increasing the level of the main cellular antioxidant, the reduced glutathione.

Benzodiazepines and/or neuroleptics for the treatment of delirium in palliative care?-a critical appraisal of recent randomized controlled trials.

Delirium is a frequent condition in patients in a palliative care situation and most often associated with substantial burden or even danger for the persons concerned as well as caregivers and health-care-professionals. Despite the lack of randomized-controlled-trials (RCTs) benzodiazepines and neuroleptic agents are used extensively in palliative care for the pharmacological management of delirium. A focused review for RCTs assessing pharmacotherapy with benzodiazepines and neuroleptics for the treatment of delirium in patients treated in a palliative care or hospice setting published in 2017 was performed in PubMed. A narrative summary of the findings of the RCTs and practical recommendation are presented. Of 42 publications, two RCTs could be included. One trial assessed the use of lorazepam (in addition to haloperidol) in case of agitation, the other placebo or risperidone or haloperidol in delirious palliative care patients. Neither risperidone nor haloperidol were superior compared to placebo, but were associated with higher mortality and morbidity. Lorazepam (along with haloperidol) reduced agitation in patients with delirium compared to placebo (along with haloperidol), but was unable to reduce the severity and incidence of delirium. It is of importance to note that psychopharmacotherapy with antipsychotics is mainly indicated for the hyperactive form of delirium and psychotic symptoms (e.g., delusions or hallucinations) in the hyper- and hypoactive delirium. Severe agitation and aggressivity can be an indication for neuroleptics, when non-pharmacological interventions fail, whereas the use of benzodiazepines has to be limited to critical situations where neuroleptics cannot be applied and cases of delirium due to alcohol withdrawal. Both substances can aggravate, precipitate or mask delirium, result adverse events with substantial distress or unfavorable survival outcomes for the patients. Thus, they should only be used in severely symptomatic patients and the duration of the medication has to be limited in time. When delirium symptoms decay the psychopharmacotherapy has to be tapered. More important than psychopharmacotherapy, the thorough investigation and treatment of potentially reversible causes of delirium (e.g., pharmacotherapy, infection) and the routine identification of patients at risk for delirium along with prophylactic measures are essential. The recently published landmarks RCTs provide moderate evidence to adopt recommendations from other medical specialties (i.e., intensive care, geriatrics) to the field of palliative care.

Complementary medicine for treatment of agitation and delirium in older persons: a systematic review and narrative synthesis.

Agitation and delirium frequently occur in cognitively impaired older people. We conducted a systematic review with narrative synthesis of the literature aiming to assess effectiveness of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) modalities to address these conditions. Following preliminary search, we included 40 original researches on CAM treatment of delirium and agitation in older persons. Then, the quality of these studies was assessed using the Downs and Black Checklist and Quality Assessment Tool for Studies with Diverse Designs, and the effect sizes were calculated. We subsequently conducted a narrative synthesis of the main findings, including theory development, preliminary synthesis, exploration of relationships within and between studies, and assessment of synthesis robustness. Forty articles that met the inclusion criteria were analyzed. Sixteen of these were randomized controlled trials. One article specifically addressed CAM treatment of delirium in patients without dementia, and the remaining 39 articles described treatments of agitated older persons with dementia. Thirty-five of the 40 included studies suggested that the investigated CAM therapies may ameliorate the severity of agitation and delirium. The physiological surrogates of agitation assessed in these studies included cortisol level, chromogranin A level, and heart rate variability. Very few of the studies systematically assessed safety issues, although no major adverse effects were reported. Overall, the systematic review of the literature suggests that several CAM modalities are potentially beneficial in the treatment of agitation and delirium among older persons. We suggest that promising CAM modalities should be further explored through large-scale randomized controlled trials in different clinical settings. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The Effects of Blood Transfusion on Delirium Incidence

BackgroundBoth anemia and blood transfusion could be precipitating factors for delirium; hence in postoperative patients with anemia at high risk for delirium, it is controversial whether transfusion is the best option. The aim of this study is to investigate the association of anemia and delirium and the role of blood transfusion within the multicomponent prevention strategy of delirium. MethodsWe conducted a substudy of a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Four hundred fifteen patients aged 65 to 102 years old admitted for hip fracture surgery were enrolled. Delirium was assessed daily using criteria of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition. Data on hemoglobin values and transfusion were collected from the electronic medical records. ResultsOne hundred fifteen (32.5%) patients experienced delirium during hospitalization, 238 (57.5%) had a hemoglobin level ≤ 6.0 mmol/L (9.7 g/dL) at any time during hospitalization, and 140 (33.7%) received a blood transfusion. Anemia (a hemoglobin level ≤ 6.0 mmol/L [9.7 g/dL]) was associated with delirium (odds ratio, 1.81; 95% confidence interval, 1.15-2.86). Blood transfusion was a protective factor for delirium in patients with the lowest measured hemoglobin level ≤ 6.0 mmol/L (9.7 g/dL) (odds ratio, 0.26; 95% confidence interval, 0.10-0.70). ConclusionLow hemoglobin level is associated with delirium, and receiving a blood transfusion is associated with a lower delirium incidence. It would be interesting to investigate the effect of blood transfusion as part of the multicomponent treatment of delirium in patients with anemia.

Pharmacologic Agents for the Prevention and Treatment of Delirium in Patients Undergoing Cardiac Surgery

Pharmacologic Agents for the Prevention and Treatment of Delirium in Patients Undergoing Cardiac Surgery

Proper use of tiapride hydrochloride in the treatment of delirium in patients undergoing hemodialysis in an inpatient setting

Proper use of tiapride hydrochloride in the treatment of delirium in patients undergoing hemodialysis in an inpatient setting

Pharmacologic agents for the prevention and treatment of delirium in patients undergoing cardiac surgery: systematic review and metaanalysis.

Postcardiac surgery delirium is associated with increased risks of morbidity, cognitive decline, poor health-related quality of life and mortality, and higher healthcare costs. We performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials to examine the effect of pharmacologic agents for the prevention and the treatment of delirium after cardiac surgery. Electronic search on PubMed, Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ISI Web of Science, and CINAHL up to December 2013. Randomized controlled trials of pharmacologic agents used for the prevention and the treatment of delirium after emergency or elective cardiac surgery in adults. We extracted data on patient population, pharmacologic agents, delirium characteristics, rescue treatment, length of stays in the ICU and hospital, and mortality. For each trial, we assessed the risk of bias domains and rated the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Of the 13 studies (10 prevention and three treatment) involving 5,848 patients, one multicentered randomized controlled trial on prophylactic dexamethasone made up 77% of the total sample size. The use of pharmacologic agents (dexamethasone, rivastigmine, risperidone, ketamine, dexmedetomidine, propofol, and clonidine) reduced the risk of delirium (relative risk, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.40-0.80) with quality of evidence rated as moderate. There was high quality of evidence for no increased risk of mortality (relative risk, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.57-1.38) associated with the use of prophylactic pharmacologic agents. Metaanalysis of treatment trials was not undertaken because of high heterogeneity. In two small trials (total number of patients = 133), haloperidol did not appear to be effective in treating delirium. Moderate to high-quality evidence supports the use of pharmacologic agents for the prevention of delirium, but results are based largely on one randomized controlled trial. The evidence for treating postcardiac surgery delirium with pharmacologic agents is inconclusive.

Diagnosis and Treatment of Delirium in Patients with Cancer(<Special Issue>Psycho-oncology)

Diagnosis and Treatment of Delirium in Patients with Cancer(<Special Issue>Psycho-oncology)

Evidence-based treatment of delirium in patients with cancer.

Delirium is the most common neuropsychiatric complication seen in patients with cancer, and it is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Increased health care costs, prolonged hospital stays, and long-term cognitive decline are other well-recognized adverse outcomes of delirium. Improved recognition of delirium and early treatment are important in diminishing such morbidity. There has been an increasing number of studies published in the literature over the last 10 years regarding delirium treatment as well as prevention. Antipsychotics, cholinesterase inhibitors, and alpha-2 agonists are the three groups of medications that have been studied in randomized controlled trials in different patient populations. In patients with cancer, the evidence is most clearly supportive of short-term, low-dose use of antipsychotics for controlling the symptoms of delirium, with close monitoring for possible adverse effects, especially in older patients with multiple medical comorbidities. Nonpharmacologic interventions also appear to have a beneficial role in the treatment of patients with cancer who have or are at risk for delirium. This article presents evidence-based recommendations based on the results of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic studies of the treatment and prevention of delirium.

Current Perceptions and Practices Surrounding the Recognition and Treatment of Delirium in the Intensive Care Unit: A Survey of 250 Critical Care Pharmacists from Eight States

Pharmacists are key members of the intensive care unit (ICU) team; however, few data exist regarding their clinical role, perceptions, and current practices in recognizing and managing delirium. To describe current practices and perceptions of ICU pharmacists regarding delirium recognition and treatment relative to current recommendations. A self-administered survey was distributed to 457 pharmacists in 8 states who are members of the Society of Critical Care Medicine or the American College of Clinical Pharmacy and who spend 25% or more of their time providing clinical ICU pharmacy services. A total of 250 (55%) pharmacists responded. A delirium screening tool was routinely used by few (7%) pharmacists. Lack of time (34%) and the belief that screening is a nursing role (24%) were key barriers to pharmacist screenings. Most (85%) said that delirium should be pharmacologically managed; 68% responded that 2 or more medications should be used. The treatments of first choice included haloperidol (76%), an atypical antipsychotic (14%), or a benzodiazepine (10%). Frequently used treatments were haloperidol (87%), quetiapine (59%), and lorazepam (47%). Haloperidol was perceived by many (42%) to have 1 or more randomized trials supporting its use for delirium and Food and Drug Administration approval for this indication (34%). Haloperidol was most often administered on a scheduled basis (62%), intravenously (92%), and at a daily dose of 5-10 mg (58%). While the QTc interval was frequently measured at least once per shift using an electrocardiogram strip (64%), it was not routinely measured in 20% of ICUs, and 60% continued haloperidol when the QTc exceeded 500 msec. Current practices and perceptions surrounding recognition and treatment of delirium in patients in the ICU by the critical care pharmacists surveyed are heterogeneous. Antipsychotics are frequently recommended by pharmacists for delirium treatment, despite a lack of rigorous evidence to support their use. While pharmacists are ideally suited to lead delirium recognition efforts and provide treatment recommendations in this area, these roles need further elucidation. The optimal pedagogical strategy to support these efforts remains unclear, and the potential impact of pharmacists' efforts on patients' outcomes is unknown.