Background and purpose Patients with acquired brain injury and acute or prolonged disorders of consciousness (DoC) are challenging. Evidence to support diagnostic decisions on coma and other DoC is limited but accumulating. This guideline provides the state-of-the-art evidence regarding the diagnosis of DoC, summarizing data from bedside examination techniques, functional neuroimaging and electroencephalography (EEG). Methods Sixteen members of the European Academy of Neurology (EAN) Scientific Panel on Coma and Chronic Disorders of Consciousness, representing 10 European countries, reviewed the scientific evidence for the evaluation of coma and other DoC using standard bibliographic measures. Recommendations followed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. The guideline was endorsed by the EAN. Results Besides a comprehensive neurological examination, the following suggestions are made: probe for voluntary eye movements using a mirror; repeat clinical assessments in the subacute and chronic setting, using the Coma Recovery Scale - Revised; use the Full Outline of Unresponsiveness score instead of the Glasgow Coma Scale in the acute setting; obtain clinical standard EEG; search for sleep patterns on EEG, particularly rapid eye movement sleep and slow-wave sleep; and, whenever feasible, consider positron emission tomography, resting state functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), active fMRI or EEG paradigms and quantitative analysis of high-density EEG to complement behavioral assessment in patients without command following at the bedside. Conclusions Standardized clinical evaluation, EEG-based techniques and functional neuroimaging should be integrated for multimodal evaluation of patients with DoC. The state of consciousness should be classified according to the highest level revealed by any of these three approaches.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ene.14151

European Academy of Neurology guideline on the diagnosis of coma and other disorders of consciousness

Diagnostic accuracy of the CAM-ICU and ICDSC in detecting intensive care unit delirium: A bivariate meta-analysis.

Delirium occurs frequently in critically ill patients and is associated with adverse outcomes in both the short and long term. In this review, we aim to highlight recent study findings on the prevention and treatment of delirium, provide additional recommendations based on expert guidelines, and indicate knowledge gaps deserving of future study. Multicomponent non-pharmacologic interventions have been shown to be efficacious in non-ICU populations, and multicomponent strategies such as the ABCDEF bundle have been adopted in the ICU with several studies showing a potential benefit in delirium outcomes. Meanwhile, two negative randomized clinical trials of antipsychotics in ICU patients (REDUCE and MIND-USA) have provided strong evidence that such medications neither prevent nor shorten the duration of delirium. Other potential pharmacologic treatments with promising results include dexmedetomidine and, to a lesser extent, ramelteon, but more data is needed before they may be more definitively recommended. Effective and proven delirium management strategies are still largely lacking, though there is evidence to support the use of some non-pharmacologic interventions. Future studies of novel non-pharmacologic interventions and pharmacologic agents other than antipsychotics are warranted.

/pdf/delirium-management-in-the-icu-3t89xo0yxu.pdf

Delirium Management in the ICU.

Delirium is a common complication in critically ill patients with a negative impact on hospital length of stay, morbidity, and mortality. Little is known on how neurological deficits affect the outcome of commonly used delirium screening tools such as the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) and the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC) in neurocritical care patients. Over a period of 1 month, all patients admitted to a neurocritical care and stroke unit at a single academic center were prospectively screened for delirium using both CAM-ICU and ICDSC. Tool-based delirium screening was compared with delirium evaluation by the treating clinical team. Additionally, ICD-10 delirium criteria were assessed. One hundred twenty-three patients with a total of 644 daily screenings were included. Twenty-three patients (18.7%) were diagnosed with delirium according to the clinical evaluation. Delirium incidence amounted to 23.6% (CAM-ICU) and 26.8% (ICDSC). Sensitivity and specificity of both screening tools were 66.9% and 93.3% for CAM-ICU and 69.9% and 93.9% for ICDSC, respectively. Patients identified with delirium by either CAM-ICU or ICDSC presented a higher proportion of neurological deficits such as impaired consciousness, expressive aphasia, impaired language comprehension, and hemineglect. Subsequently, generalized estimating equations identified a significant association between impaired consciousness (as indexed by Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale) and a positive delirium assessment with both CAM-ICU and ICDSC, while impaired language comprehension and hemineglect were only associated with a positive CAM-ICU result. A positive delirium screening with both CAM-ICU and ICDSC in neurocritical care and stroke unit patients was found to be significantly associated with the presence of neurological deficits. These findings underline the need for a more specific delirium screening tool in neurocritical care patients.

/pdf/delirium-screening-in-neurocritical-care-and-stroke-unit-43131cjjbe.pdf

Delirium Screening in Neurocritical Care and Stroke Unit Patients: A Pilot Study on the Influence of Neurological Deficits on CAM-ICU and ICDSC Outcome.

Delirium prevalence and prevention in patients with acute brain injury: A prospective before-and-after intervention study.

Background Delirium is underinvestigated in the neuro-critically ill, although the harmful effect of delirium is well established in patients in medical and surgical intensive care units (ICU).To detect delirium, a valid tool is needed. We hypothesized that delirium screening would be feasible in patients with acute brain injury and we aimed to validate and compare the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU and the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist against clinical International Classification of Diseases-10 criteria as reference. Methods Nurses assessed delirium using the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU and Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist in adult patients with acute brain injury admitted to the Neurointensive care unit (Neuro-ICU), Copenhagen University Hospital, if their Richmond agitation-sedation scale score was -2 or above. As the reference, a team of psychiatrist assessed patients using the International Classification of Diseases-10 criteria. Results We enrolled 74 patients, of whom 25 (34%) were deemed unable to assess by the psychiatrists, leaving 49 (66%) for final analysis. Sensitivity and specificity for the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU was 59% (95% CI: 41-75) and 56% (95% CI: 32-78), respectively, and 85% (95% CI: 70-94) and 75% (95% CI: 51-92), respectively, for the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist. Conclusions Our findings suggest that the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist may be a valid tool and the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU is less suitable for delirium detection for patients in the Neuro-ICU. In the neuro-critically ill, delirium screening is challenged by limited feasibility.

/pdf/delirium-assessment-in-neuro-critically-ill-patients-a-19pbzskw0g.pdf

Yvonne Winkler

Papers

Delirium assessment in neuro-critically ill patients: A validation study