DOI: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-60934/v1
Background: To address whether in intensive care unit (ICU) patients, which factors correlate with development of delirium (primary outcome), as well as more rapid delirium onset and recurrence (secondary outcomes).
Methods: A retrospective secondary analysis of 4,200 patients was collected from two academic medical centers. Delirium was assessed with the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) in all patients. Univariate and multivariate Cox models, logistic regression analysis, and Chi-square Automatic Interaction Detector (CHAID) decision tree modeling were used to explore delirium risk factors.
Results: Increased delirium risk as associated with exposed only to artificial light (AL) hazard ratio (HR) 1.84 (95% CI: 1.66-2.044, P<0.001), physical restraint application 1.11 (95% CI: 1.001-1.226, P=0.049), and high nursing care requirements (>8 hours per 8-hour shift) 1.18 (95% CI: 1.048-1.338, P=0.007). Delirium incidence was inversely associated with greater family engagement 0.092 (95% CI: 0.014-0.596, P=0.012), low staff burnout and anticipated turnover scores 0.093 (95% CI: 0.014-0.600, P=0.013), non-ICU length-of-stay (LOS)<15 days 0.725 (95% CI: 0.655-0.804, P<0.001), and ICU LOS ≤15 days 0.509 (95% CI: 0.456-0.567, P<0.001). CHAID modelling indicated that AL exposure and age <65 years conveyed a high risk of delirium incidence, whereas SOFA score ≤11, APACHE IV score >15 and natural light (NL) exposure were associated with moderate risk, and female sex were associated with low risk. More rapid time to delirium onset correlated with baseline sleep disturbance (P=0.049), high nursing care requirements (P=0.019), and prolonged ICU and non-ICU hospital LOS (P<0.001). Delirium recurrence correlated with age>65 years (HR 2.198; %95 CI: 1.101-4.388, P=0.026) and high nursing care requirements (HR 1.978, 95% CI: 1.096-3.569), with CHAID modeling identifying AL exposure (P<0.001) and age >65 years (P=0.032) as predictive variables.
Conclusion: Development of ICU delirium correlated with application of physical restraints, high nursing care requirements, prolonged ICU and non-ICU LOS, exposure exclusively to AL (rather than natural), less family engagement, and greater staff burnout and anticipated turnover scores. ICU delirium occurred more rapidly in patients with baseline sleep disturbance, and recurrence correlated with presence of delirium on ICU admission, exclusive AL exposure, and high nursing care requirements.
Delirium is a transient fluctuating global disorder of cognition associated with increased morbidity and mortality [1–4], whose prevalence amongst intensive care unit (ICU) patients may reach 80% [5], with a daily probability up to 14% [6]. ICU delirium may be a predictor of increased complications, prolonged ICU [7] and non-ICU hospital length-of-stay (LOS) [8], increased hospital costs [9, 10], long-term disability [11], long-term cognitive impairment [12, 13], and decreased odds of discharge home [14–16]. Moreover, ICU delirium has been associated with the development of incident neuropsychiatric disorders including depression, anxiety, trauma and stress-related, and neurocognitive disorders [17]. Therefore, delirium prevention, early diagnosis and treatment are important aspects of caring for the critically-ill patient [18, 19]. The mechanism(s) of delirium remains unclear, and no diagnostic laboratory or imaging test is available [20, 21]. The American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, 5th edition (DSM-V) defines delirium by: disturbances of (1) attention, (2) cognition, (3) that develops over a short period, (4) differs from baseline, (5) fluctuates, (5) is not otherwise explained by another neurocognitive disorder, and (6) with evidence suggesting a potential cause in the history, physical examination, or laboratory findings [22]. Risk factors are multifactorial and may be divided into patient-related and hospital-related [23]. Patient-related factors include: age, gender, underlying disease, baseline cognitive impairment, illness severity (measured as Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) IV score), and presence of deliriumatadmission. Hospital-related factors include medications (including sedatives), nursing care, staffburnout and turnover, mechanical ventilation (MV), non-ICU hospital or ICU LOS, isolation, physical restraint application, and artificial vs. natural light exposure [24–26].
This study aims to determine delirium incidence, recurrence rates, and associated risk factors in ICU patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) on MV using univariate and multivariate Cox models, logistic regression analysis, and Chi-square Automatic Interaction Detector (CHAID) decision tree.
A prospective longitudinal cohort study was conducted of 16,000 ICU patients with ARDS on MV from 21 ICUs (10 mixed, 5 surgical, 6 medical) at 6 academic medical centers [20, 21]. Herein is reported a retrospective secondary analysis of 4,200 patients from the mixed medical–surgical ICUs of two academic medical centers. The parent study wasapproved by the Investigative Review Board at Baqiyatallah University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran (IR.BMSU.REC.1394.451) [20] and Shariati Hospital of Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. Written informed consent from the patient or designated surrogate was required for participation in the parent study. The manuscript was prepared in accordance with the “Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement” [27].
All adult patients admitted to mixed medical-surgical ICUs of two academic teaching hospitals from June 1, 2007 to October 31, 2015 were eligible for this study. The inclusion criteria were: (1) age ≥ 18 years, (2) endotracheally intubated and on MV for ≥ 48 hours, (3) full-code status, and (4) informed consent obtained from the patient, legal guardian, or healthcare surrogate. Patients were excluded for: (1) if death occurred while on MV, (3) permanent ventilator dependence, (4) tracheostomy placement for long-term weaning, and (5) incomplete data.
Delirium was assessed during each shift (three times daily) by the bedside nurse and researcher (kappa agreement coefficient 0.801–0.902), using the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU (CAM-ICU) screening tool [28]. The CAM-ICU allows one to screen for delirium presence (not severity) in critically ill patients, including those on MV (sensitivity 75.5%, specificity 95.8%) [28–30]. If delirium occurred at any point during the 24-hour period, the day was considered as a day with delirium. Time to onset of ICU delirium was calculated from the patient’s physicial arrival in the ICU.
The impact of natural light (NL) and artificial light (AL) on delirium was also assessed. Both ICUs had the same geographic layout including 10 beds; 5 with adjacent windows allowing for NL (circadian pattern), and 5 positioned 13 m from the nearest window receiving only AL. Patients were categorized according to their original bed locations as NL and AL groups [26].
Baseline demographic data was recorded including age, gender, delirium present on admission, baseline cognitive impairment (CI)determined by thesix-item cognitive impairment test (6-CIT) which assess logical memory (5-items), attention (2 items) and orientation (3 items) [31]. 6-CIT scores range from 0 to 28, withhigher scores indicating greater CI. In accordance with prior studies, the threshold of 9/10 was used for delirium screening[32–34]. Scores of 0–7 are considered normal and 8 or more significant.
Comorbidities such as diabetes,hypertension, malignancy, congestive heart failure (CHF), and chronic kidney, liver and pulmonary diseases, which were assessed by the Charlson Comorbidity Index [35, 36].
Activity and mobility as measured by the Perme ICU mobility score (IMS), which reflects the patient’s mobility status at one particular moment in time [37, 38]. Data was collected by a trained physical therapist. The score is derived from 15 items grouped in 7 categories: mental status, potential mobility barriers, functional strength, bed mobility, transfers, gait, and endurance. The score uses a maximum range of 2 to 4 points for each item, with total scores ranging 0 to 32 and comprises 15 items grouped into 7 categories: mental status; potential mobility barriers; functional strength; bed mobility; transfers; gait (with or without assistive devices); and endurance. In this instrument, a high score indicates high mobility and a decreased need for assistance. In contrast, a low score indicates low mobility and an increased need for assistance [37, 38].
Hospital-related factors including family engagement (family bedside presence ≥ 2 hours daily) [39], staff burnout and anticipated turnover (measured by the anticipated turnover scale (ATS) questionnaire) [40–43], non-ICU hospital and ICU LOS, sedative dose (determined in accordance with published recommendations) [21, 44–46], and physical restraint application were collected for each patient. Illness severity was measured by the APACHEIVand Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores [47–49]. Additionally, baselinesleep disturbance was assessed on ICU day 1 using the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) [50].
Ambient noise level and use of an alarm silence strategy were assessed using the TES 1352A sound level meter (SLM) device (TES Electrical Electronic Corp.,Taiwan) with a range of 30–130 decibel (dB). It has a 1.27 cm electret condenser microphone and accuracy of ± 1.5 dB (ref 94 dB@1KHz) [51]. For the most accurate estimate of what a patient would hear, the sound meter was placed adjacent to the patient's head (or on their pillow if out of the room) for measurements. Measurements were made by the patient’s nurse three times daily (10 AM, 5 PM, and 10 PM).
As the World Health Organization (WHO) recommends noise levels in hospitals should be ≤ 40 dB during the day, and ≤ 35 dB during the night shift [52], days were categorized as noisy if ≥ 1 reading measured > 40 dB. Patients were then grouped according to environmental noise into more noise (≥ 50% days with measurements ≥ 40 dB) and less noise groups (< 50% dayswith measurements ≥ 40 dB).
At our center, we have a noise control policy to minimize sound by utilizing an alarm silence strategy which was accentuated during the study. The alarm load is minimized by setting alarms based on the patient’s condition and planned reduction of unnecessary alarms. For example, alarms are silenced proactively when performing bedside procedures such as endotracheal tube suctioning, phlebotomy, and when handeling invasive lines. Alarms are then reset upon task conclusion. Additionally, ambient noise is reducedby muting personal phones, limiting unnesessary staff conversation in patient care and common areas. After the alarm silence strategy, noise intensity was measured again in the same locations using a sound meter in dB. If the level of noise was reduced < 40 dB, this item would be considered as positive for patients.
All analyses were performed using IBM® SPSS® 23.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY) [53] and GraphPad Prism 5© (GraphPad Software Inc., La Jolla, CA). Descriptive statistics were calculated for all variables. Categorical variables were expressed as counts (percentage), and continuous variables as mean ± standard deviation (SD). Patients were stratefied by the occurance or absence of delirium during the ICU LOS, and demographic and clinical characteristics were assessed using t-test with continuous variable and Chi-Square, or Fisher's Exact test (as appropriate) with categorical variables.
Univariate and multivariate Cox models were separately used to assess predictors of delirium incidenceas the time to delirium onset. In the Cox model, the time to delirium onset was the main predictor. In the multivariate analyses, the significant variables in a backward selection modeling (considering Pentry = 0.05 and Premoval = 0.10) were reported as hazard ratio (HR) with 95% CI, also; a multivariate linear regression was used to predict theoccurance of delirium. In addition, multivariate logistic regression was used to identify those factors exerting a statistically significant effect on the incidence of delirium recurrence by using backward method and the significant variables were reported as odds ratio with 95% CI.
Chi-square Automatic Interaction Detector (CHAID) decision tree analysis is a data mining technique which can be demonstrate the relationship between split variables and related factors in homogeneous population subgroups [54]. Moreover, CHAID enables one to deal with whole variables, partition consecutive data effectively, and make decision trees by using a forward stopping or pruning rule [55, 56]. For CHAID decision tree analysis in this study, all parameters collected for delirium incidence and recurrence were used. The minimum parent and child nodes were determined as 100 and 50, respectively. “Nodes” are midpoints or terminal points after bifurcation according to each factor. The parent nodes are the nodes before bifurcation, and the child nodes are ones after bifurcation. Based on the result, a group of patients was divided into one of the terminal nodes (risk groups) with predictive probability calculated. Significance was determined as an alpha of 0.05.
A total of 4,200 subjects were included in the analysis. Demographic and clinical characteristics are presented in Table 1. The mean participant age was 67.25 ± 11.5 years, with more than half with age > 65 years (51.2%) with a female preponderance (58.1%). No significant differences were noted in thise variables between those who did and did not develop delerium. Delirium was identified in 1,540 (36.7%) of patients during the ICU stay. The mean time to delirium recognition was 7.55 ± 1.88 days. The majority of patients did not have documented comorbidities (n = 3,289, 78.3%, Table 1), and comorbidities did not differ between groups (P = 0.102). However, of those 911 with documented comorbidities based on Charlson comorbidty index which includes 217 (23.8%) CHF, 183 (20.1%) malignancy, 145 (15.9%) chronic kidney diseases, 129 (14.1%) chronic liver diseases, 121 (13.2%) diabetes mellitus, 84 (9.2%) chronic pulmonary diseases, 16 (1.7%) hypertensionand 16 (1.7%) artritis.
Variables |
Patients without delirium (n = 2660) |
Patients with delirium (n = 1540) |
Total patients (n = 4200) |
P-value |
---|---|---|---|---|
Age, mean ± SD (years) |
67.44 ± 11.9 |
66.92 ± 10.97 |
67.25 ± 11.57 |
0.160 |
Age > 65 years, yes, n (%) |
1320 (49.6) |
731 (47.5) |
2051 (48.8) |
0.178 |
Gender, female, n (%) |
1542 (58) |
897 (58.2) |
2439 (58.1) |
0.861 |
Family engagement, high, n (%) a |
645 (24.2) |
399 (25.9) |
1044 (24.9) |
0.230 |
Baseline cognitive impairment, yes, n (%) b |
520 (19.5) |
198 (12.9) |
718 (17.1) |
< 0.001* |
Baseline sleep disturbance, yes, n (%) c |
1737 (65.3) |
997 (64.7) |
2734 (65.1) |
0.713 |
Comorbidities, yes, n (%) d |
598 (22.5) |
313 (20.3) |
911 (21.7) |
0.102 |
Activity, high, n (%) e |
1006 (37.8) |
608 (39.5) |
1614 (38.4) |
0.286 |
Delirium present on admission, yes, n (%) |
217 (8.2) |
103 (6.7) |
320 (7.6) |
0.084 |
Natural light exposure group, yes, n (%) |
1546 (58.1) |
574 (37.3) |
2120 (50.5) |
< 0.001* |
Physician ATS, ≤ 35 (%) f |
1613 (60.6) |
911 (59.2) |
2524 (60.1) |
0.344 |
Nurse ATS, ≤ 35 (%) f |
644 (24.2) |
400 (26) |
1044 (24.9) |
0.203 |
Noise of invasive procedures, > 40 dB, n (%) |
238 (8.9) |
155 (10.1) |
393 (9.4) |
0.231 |
Noise related to others#, > 40 dB, n (%) g |
1149 (43.2) |
623 (40.5) |
1772 (42.2) |
0.083 |
Alarm silence strategy, < 40 dB, n (%) |
329 (12.4) |
160 (10.4) |
489 (11.6) |
0.054 |
Sedation, high dose, n (%) |
574 (21.6) |
317 (20.6) |
891 (21.2) |
0.446 |
Level of nursing care, high, n (%) h |
518 (19.5) |
336 (21.8) |
854 (20.3) |
0.069 |
APACHE IV score, mean ± SD |
15.57 ± 2.38 |
15.65 ± 2.47 |
15.60 ± 2.41 |
0.357 |
SOFA Score, ≤ 11, n (%) |
1934 (72.7) |
1097 (71.2) |
3031 (72.2) |
0.305 |
Duration of MV, mean ± SD (hours) |
254.78 ± 110.14 |
251.93 ± 110.89 |
253.75 ± 110.31 |
0.420 |
Application of physical restraint, yes, n (%) |
1107 (41.6) |
656 (42.6) |
1763 (42) |
0.535 |
Non-ICU LOS, mean ± SD (day) |
16.91 ± 10.85 |
16.72 ± 10.89 |
16.84 ± 10.87 |
0.584 |
ICU LOS, mean ± SD (day) |
16.98 ± 10.83 |
17.19 ± 11.97 |
17.08 ± 11.26 |
0.552 |
Outcome, mortality, n (%) |
715 (26.9) |
454 (29.5) |
11.69 (27.8) |
0.070 |
Abbreviations: APACHE IV means Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation IV; SOFA means Sequential Organ Failure Assessment; MV means mechanical ventilator; LOS means length of stay; # noise related to the nursing stations, staff conversation in patients' bedside and medical devices; * statistically significant. a As determined by having family at bedside for ≥ 2 hours daily; b As determined by the six-item cognitive impairment test (6-CIT) and > 8 score significant as cognitive impairment; c As determined by the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) and PSQI score > 5 indicate worse sleep quality ; d As determined by the Charlson Comorbidity Index based on the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) that a score of zero indicates that no comorbidities were found and the higher the score shows comorbidity; e As determined by the ICU mobility score (IMS) is scored from 0 to 10, with a score of 0 to 4 meaning low mobility, 4 to 8 moderate mobility and a score between 8 and 10 meaning high mobility; f As determined by the anticipated turnover scale (ATS); g Noise related to the nursing stations, staff conversation in patients' bedside and medical devices, h As determined by requiring > 8 hours nursing care in an 8 hour shift. |
Non-ICU hospital LOS (P = 0.584) and ICU LOS (P = 0.552) was similar between groups. Illness severity as measured by the APACHE IV and SOFA score was similar between groups (P = 0.357) and (P = 0.305), respectively.
Patients with and without delirium differed significantly in terms of cognitive impairment at the time of admission. Baseline cognitive impairment significantly was higher in patients with delirium (33.7% vs. 7.4%, P < 0.001). Additionally, a greater portion of delirium patients (62.7%) were observed in the AL group (P < 0.001).Other characteristics did not differ significantly between groups (P > 0.05) Table 1.
The results of the univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses to predict the risk of developing delirium are presented in Figs. 1 and Table 2. On multivariate analysis, patients were at increased risk of developing delirium if: (1) categorized in the AL cohort (hazard ratio (HR)1.84, 95% CI: 1.66–2.044, P < 0.001), (2) had physical restraints applied (HR 1.11, 95% CI: 1.001–1.226, P = 0.049), and (3) required more nursing care (> 8 hours per 8 hour shift; HR 1.18, 95% CI: 1.048–1.338, P = 0.007). Notably, the application of physical restraints was associated with a 10% increased risk of delirium, whereas greater nursing care requirements were associated with an 18% increased risk.
Variables |
Univariate |
Multivariate |
||
---|---|---|---|---|
HR (95% CI) |
P-value |
HR (95% CI) |
P-value |
|
Category (NL vs. AL) |
1.877 (1.693–2.082) |
< 0.001* |
1.842 (1.660–2.044) |
< 0.001* |
Age (> 65 V s. ≤65 years) |
0.972 (0.879–1.074) |
0.571 |
||
Gender (female vs. male) |
0.961 (0.868–1.064) |
0.444 |
||
Family engagement (yes vs. no) |
1.057 (0.943–1.185) |
0.339 |
0.092 (0.014–0.596) |
0.012* |
Baseline cognitive impairment (yes vs. no) |
0.724 (0.623–0.840) |
< 0.001* |
||
Baseline sleep disturbance (yes vs. no) |
1.008 (0.908–1.119) |
0.881 |
||
Comorbidities (yes vs. no) |
0.864 (0.763–0.978) |
0.021* |
||
Activity (high vs. low) |
0.982 (0.887–1.088) |
0.733 |
||
Delirium present on admission (yes vs. no) |
0.865 (0.709–1.057) |
0.157 |
||
Physician ATS (≤ 35 vs. >35) a |
0.964 (0.871–1.067) |
0.479 |
||
Nurse ATS (≤ 35 vs. >35) a |
0.942 (0.840–1.055) |
0.301 |
0.093 (0.014-0.600) |
0.013* |
Noise of invasive procedures (> 40 vs.<40 dB) |
0.911 (0.772–1.076) |
0.273 |
||
Noise related others b (> 40 vs.<40 dB) |
0.890 (0.804–0.986) |
0.025* |
||
Alarm silence strategy (< 40 vs.>40 dB) |
0.887 (0.753–1.045) |
0.153 |
0.852 (0.732–1.004) |
0.056 |
Dose of sedation (high vs. mild to moderate) |
1.041 (0.920–1.178) |
0.523 |
||
Nursing care (high vs. mild to moderate) |
1.310 (1.160–1.479) |
< 0.001* |
1.184 (1.048–1.338) |
0.007* |
APACHE IV score (≤ 15 vs. >15) |
0.980 (0.886–1.085) |
0.700 |
||
SOFA score (≤ 11 vs. >11) |
0.831 (0.744–0.928) |
< 0.001* |
||
Duration of MV (≥ 250 vs. <250 hours) |
0.992 (0.898–1.097) |
0.882 |
||
Application of physical restraint (yes vs. no) |
1.119 (1.001–1.238) |
0.030* |
1.108 (1.001–1.226) |
0.049* |
Non-ICU LOS (≥ 15 vs. <15 days) |
0.755 (0.682–0.836) |
< 0.001* |
0.725 (0.655–0.804) |
< 0.001* |
ICU LOS (> 15 vs. ≤15 days) |
0.494 (0.444–0.551) |
< 0.001* |
0.509 (0.456–0.567) |
< 0.001* |
Abbreviations: HR means hazard ratio; ATS means anticipated turnover scale; APACHE IV means Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation IV; SOFA means Sequential Organ Failure Assessment; MV means mechanical ventilator; LOS means length of stay, * statistically significant, p < 0.005, a Determined by the anticipated turnover scale (ATS), b Noise related to the nursing stations, staff conversation in patients' bedside and medical devices |
Conversely, lower delirium rates were associated with: (1) greater family engagement (HR 0.092, 95% CI: 0.014–0.596, P = 0.012), (2) low staff burnout and anticipated turnover (ATS ≤ 3.5; HR 0.093, 95% CI: 0.014-0.600, P = 0.013), (3) non-ICU hospital LOS < 15 days (HR 0.725, 95% CI: 0.655–0.804, P < 0.001), and (4) ICU LOS ≤ 15 days (HR 0.509,95% CI: 0.456–0.567, P < 0.001).
Figure 2 depicts the CHAID decision tree analysis for predicting delirium incidence among all participants (n = 4,200). Five variables were used for grouping in the decision tree model: type of light exposure, age, SOFA score, APACHE IVscore, and gender. The model includes the total of 11 nodes, 3 intermediate nodes and 6 terminal nodes. Each node contains three statistical values; category, percentage (%) and the number (n) of patients in this particular category. First, subjects were compared according to type of light exposure. If in the AL group, age was assessed. If in the NL group, SOFA score was assessed. If SOFA score was > 11, then APACHE IV score was checked. If SOFA score was ≤ 11, then patient sex was assessed. Subjects were then stratified according risk of delirium incidence into low (< 20%), moderate (20–30%), high (30–40%), and very high (> 40%) risk groups. The findings suggest that AL and age < 65 years conveyed a high risk of delirium incidence, whereas SOFA score ≤ 11 and female sex were associated with low risk, and APACHE IV score (> 15) score and NL were associated with moderate risk.
Multivariate linear regression analysis was conducted to identify those variables predictive of time to delirium onset. As shown in Table 3, sleep disturbance, high nursing care requirements (> 8 h per 8 h shift) and non-ICU hospital LOS > 15 days correlated with shorter time to delirium onset. Notably, delirium occurred 1.12 days earlier in patients with baseline sleep disturbance (P = 0.049). In terms hours of nursing care required per 8 hours shift, delirium occurred 1.55 days later in patients requiring mild (< 4hours) to moderate (4-8hours) nursing care than in those requiring a high level (> 8hours) of nursing care (P = 0.019). Lastly, delirium occurred 10.48 days earlier in patients with a non-ICU hospital LOS > 15 days prior to ICU admission (P < 0.001).
Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify those factors exerting a statistically significant effect on the incidence of delirium recurrence by using backward method and the significant variables were reported as odds ratio (OR) in 320 patients (7.6%) with delirium at the time of admission. The results, as shown in (Table 4), indicate that AL (HR; 3.239, 95% CI: 1.881–5.577, P < 0.001), high nursing care (> 8 hoursper shift; HR1.978, 95% CI: 1.096–3.569, P = 0.024), and age > 65 years (HR; 2.198, %95 CI: 1.101–4.388, P = 0.026) were associated with increased rates of delirium recurrence.
Variables |
B |
SE |
P-value |
t-Statistic |
95% CI |
|
Sleep disturbance (yes vs. no) a |
1.127 |
0.572 |
0.049 |
1.969 |
0.004-2.250 |
|
Non-ICU LOS (≥15 vs. <15 days) |
10.48 |
0.556 |
<0.001 |
18.848 |
9.390-11.57 |
|
Nursing care (high vs. mild to moderate) b |
1.554 |
0.662 |
0.019 |
2.346 |
0.255-2.853 |
Abbreviations: B means coefficient; SE means standard error; CI means confidence interval; LOS means length-of-stay. a Determined by the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI). PSQI score > 5 indicates worse sleep quality b Categorized as mild (<4 hours), moderate (4-8 hours), or high (>8 hours) of nursing care in an 8-hour shift.
Variables |
B |
SE |
P-value |
OR |
95% CI |
Category (AL vs. NL ) |
1.175 |
0.277 |
<0.001 |
3.239 |
1.881-5.577 |
Age (>65 Vs. ≤65 years) |
0.788 |
0.353 |
0.026 |
2.198 |
1.101-4.388 |
Nursing care (high vs. mild to moderate) a |
0.682 |
0.301 |
0.024 |
1.978 |
1.096-3.569 |
Abbreviations: B means coefficient; SE means standard error; OR means odd ratio, which equals to the exponentiation of B coefficient; CI means confidence interval, a Categorized as mild (<4 hours), moderate (4-8 hours), or high (>8 hours) of nursing care in an 8-hour shift |
Figure 3depictsthe CHAID decision tree analysis for predictingdelirium recurrence in patients with delirium present on ICU admission (n = 320). This decision tree has a depth of 2 levels from the root node, with one intermediate node, and three terminal nodes. Each node contains three statistical values, category, percentage (%) and the number (n) of patients in this particular category. As shown in Fig. 3, the main variables associated with delirium recurrence were AL exposure (P < 0.001) and age > 65 years (P = 0.032).
Delirium is a common and serious clinical syndrome characterized by fluctuating cognitive dysfunction that affects 20–80% of ICU patients [57, 58]. The risk of delirium relies on the interaction between predisposing and precipitating risk factors [23, 29]. It is associated with increased short- and long-term morbidity and mortality [1–5, 7–9, 11–17]. Thus, a thorough understanding of mitigating and contributing factors is necessary to development of an accurate delirium prediction model for critically ill patients.
The incidence of delirium in this study (36.7%) was consistent with that of some published studies [59, 60], but lower than some other cohorts [2, 15]. The median time to ICU delirium onset was similar to other published studies [61, 62]. Moreover, the seven variables identified on Cox regression analysis were similar to other published reports [60, 63, 64] including: light category (artificial vs. natural), low level of family engagement (< 2 hours at bedside per day), high nurse burnout and anticipated turnover (ATS > 35), application of physical restraints, high nursing carerequirements (> 8 hours in 8 hours shift), ICU LOS > 15 days, and hospital LOS > 15 days. The five varibles noted to be most predictive of developing delirium on CHAID decision tree modeling were AL group and age > 65 years (high risk), APACHE IV score > 15 (moderate risk), and SOFA score ≤ 11 and female sex (low risk). As it pertains to light exposure, loss of NL exposure is associated with circadian rhythm disturbances that may affect delirium incidence and outcomes in the critically ill [26, 65–67]. The connection of NL vs. AL light exposure and delirium incidence has been variably reported [26, 68–70]. This discrepancy may be related to differences in delirium definition, screening method, NL category criteria, and sample size [26].
Beyond grouping by light exposure type, CHAID analysis further identified the female gender, SOFA > 11, and APACHE IV > 15 as a risk factors in the second and third layer of the decision tree model. These factors werelikely not detected in Cox regression analysis because of higher proportion of females in participants and the similar median score of APACHE IV and SOFA in two groups. In fact, one advantage of the CHAID decision tree is thatit can divide the population into subgroups with different characteristics and estimate the prevalence in each subgroup. While, regression analysis examines risk factors throughout the whole population and treats different factors equally [71]. However, we believed both models were clinically reasonable.
According to the Cox regression analysis, high nursing care and use of the physical restraint predisposed patients to 18% and 10% greater risk of delirium, respectively, and it is consistent with the other studies in this field [72, 73]. Physical restraints are often used for critically ill patients to ensure patient safety, ensure safety and prevent the removal of medical equipment (e.g., tracheal tubes) [74]. However, the use of physical restraints in different countries varies considerably. For example, the use of physical restraints in European general ICU populations ranges from 10–50%, 76% in Canada, and up to 87% in American surgical ICUs [75–77]. According to one meta-analysis, the prevalence of physical restraint use in Iranian medical-surgical ICUs was 47.6%, in keeping with the findings of this analysis[78]. Similarly, physical restraint applications havepreviously been identified as an independent risk factor for development of ICU delirium [75, 79]. As restraint use increased two- and three-fold, observed incidence of ICU delirium increased 2.38- and 3.62-fold respectively.
Additionally, the presence of family at bedside for > 2 hours per day (reported as family engagement) was identified as a potential mitigating factor for ICU delirium this study, similar to other published reports [80, 81]. This raises questions about the role that family may play in the care of a critically-ill loved one and presents an opportunity for inquiry as ICU visitation policies have been restricted in many cases during the current COVID-19 pandemic. Current evidence suggests that this may potentially be accomplished in the confines of traditional visiting hours, rather more flexible visitation policies that may contribute to staff burnout [82, 83].
Healthcare provider turnover is an important indicator for care qualityand is widelyused as a measure for health-care system analysis. Burnout and provider turnover may disrupt patient care quality and continuity [41–43, 84]. However, whether provider burnout is linked to patient development of ICU delirium remains unclear. In the current study, provider burnout and intent for job turnover was assessed as regards to its correlation to development of ICU delirium. This study found that delirium risk was higher in patients whose providers had higher rates of burnout and anticipated turnover as measured by ATS scores (HR 0.093, 95% CI: 0.014-0.600, P = 0.013).
To identify factors predictive of delirium recurrence amongst those patients with delirium present on ICU admission, backward logistic regression analysis and CHAID decision tree modeling identified exclusive AL light exposure and age > 65 years as major risk factors in the present study.Similar to prior studies, hospitalization in a room without NL exposure was associated with a 3.24-fold increase in delirium recurrence [26], whereas age > 65 years increased delirium recurrence by 2.19-fold [62]. This may not be entirely surprising, as the elderly may be more susceptible to the effects of metabolic disturbances, hypoxemia, and other stresses imposed by the critically ill state [62]. It remains unclear whether the high levels of nursing requirements associated with increased delirium recurrence are merely a reflection of patients with more severe illness or delirium, or whether it correlates with an as-yet unmeasured risk factor.
This report details the largest study of its type on ICU delirium. More than twenty related factors were analyzed using two different prediction model methods. Nevertheless, this study is not without limitations. First, our prediction model method requires knowledge of the patient’s medical history. In some cases, this may be limited by recall bias, or non-availability of information. Second, it’s related to the inherent limitations of an observational study design.
Development of ICU delirium correlated with application of physical restraints, high nursing care requirements, prolonged ICU and non-ICU hospital length-of-stay, exposure exclusively to artificial (rather than natural) lighting, less family engagement, and greater staff burnout and anticipated turnover scores. ICU delirium occurred more rapidly in patients with baseline sleep disturbance, and recurrence correlated with presence of delirium on ICU admission, exclusive artificial light exposure, and high nursing care requirements. Several of these factors are suitable for further study and intervention including natural light exposure, minimizing physical restraint application, and most notably the potential impacts of provider burnout and intent to turnover on patient development of ICU delirium.
ICU: Intensive care unit, CAM-ICU: Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit, APACHE: Acute physiology and chronic health evaluation, SOFA: Sequential organ failure assessment, LOS: Length of stay, SD: Standard deviation, OR: Odds ratio, HR: Hazard ratio, CHAID: Chi-square Automatic Interaction Detector. MV: Mechanical ventilation, PSQI: Pittsburgh sleep quality index.
The study was approved by the Investigative Review Board at the participating academic medical centers. Study participation was optional for respondents. Informed consent was obtained from the patient, legal guardian or healthcare surrogate or designated healthcare proxy.
Informed consent was obtained from the patient, legal guardian or healthcare surrogate and allowed for both study participation and publication of de-identified aggregate results. There is no data contained within the manuscript from which individual patients or participants may be identified.
The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
The project was conceptualized and designed by A.VA, F.RB and KMG. Data collection was performed by A.VA and F.RB and K.GM. Data analysis was performed by A.VA, MS, AC.M and SA. Manuscript writing and revision was performed by all authors.
The authors have no specific acknowledgements to disclose.