BACKGROUND: Inattention is a core clinical feature of delirium and yet the particular aspects of attentional impairment associated with this feature are poorly understood. Objective methods for assessing inattention are also lacking. A new set of computerised tests of attentional deficits designed for use in patients with delirium have been developed. Test performances in patients with delirium, dementia and cognitively normal controls are compared. METHODS: Eight novel tasks measuring sustained visual attention were administered to 20 older patients with delirium using the Edinburgh Delirium Test Box, a purpose built, computerised neuropsychological testing device. Comparison groups of 18 patients with Alzheimer's dementia and 20 cognitively normal patients of similar age were also assessed. Delirium was diagnosed using the Confusion Assessment Method. General cognitive impairment was measured using the Mini-Mental State Examination. RESULTS: Patients with delirium had significantly lower scores than both comparison groups on all sustained attention tasks (p values from 0.003 to <0.001). Performance of the dementia patients generally did not differ from the cognitively normal group. Receiver operating characteristic analyses indicated that all tasks showed good or excellent accuracy for discriminating between delirium and dementia (AUC values 0.80-0.94), and between delirium and cognitively normal (AUC values 0.89-0.99) patients. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with delirium showed marked deficits in sustained visual attention, as measured by objective neuropsychological testing. These attentional deficits were mainly mild or absent in patients with dementia and in cognitively normal controls. Objective testing of sustained visual attention has promising utility in detecting delirium, and in discriminating delirium from dementia.
BACKGROUND: Inattention is a core clinical feature of delirium and yet the particular aspects of attentional impairment associated with this feature are poorly understood. Objective methods for assessing inattention are also lacking. A new set of computerised tests of attentional deficits designed for use in patients with delirium have been developed. Test performances in patients with delirium, dementia and cognitively normal controls are compared. METHODS: Eight novel tasks measuring sustained visual attention were administered to 20 older patients with delirium using the Edinburgh Delirium Test Box, a purpose built, computerised neuropsychological testing device. Comparison groups of 18 patients with Alzheimer's dementia and 20 cognitively normal patients of similar age were also assessed. Delirium was diagnosed using the Confusion Assessment Method. General cognitive impairment was measured using the Mini-Mental State Examination. RESULTS:Patients with delirium had significantly lower scores than both comparison groups on all sustained attention tasks (p values from 0.003 to <0.001). Performance of the dementiapatients generally did not differ from the cognitively normal group. Receiver operating characteristic analyses indicated that all tasks showed good or excellent accuracy for discriminating between delirium and dementia (AUC values 0.80-0.94), and between delirium and cognitively normal (AUC values 0.89-0.99) patients. CONCLUSIONS:Patients with delirium showed marked deficits in sustained visual attention, as measured by objective neuropsychological testing. These attentional deficits were mainly mild or absent in patients with dementia and in cognitively normal controls. Objective testing of sustained visual attention has promising utility in detecting delirium, and in discriminating delirium from dementia.
Authors: Cameron Green; Kirsty Hendry; Elizabeth S Wilson; Timothy Walsh; Mike Allerhand; Alasdair M J MacLullich; Zoë Tieges Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2017-07 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Ann M Kolanowski; Donna M Fick; Andrea M Yevchak; Nikki L Hill; Paula M Mulhall; Jane A McDowell Journal: J Gerontol Nurs Date: 2012-10-15 Impact factor: 1.254
Authors: Daniel H J Davis; Stefan H Kreisel; Graciela Muniz Terrera; Andrew J Hall; Alessandro Morandi; Malaz Boustani; Karin J Neufeld; Hochang Benjamin Lee; Alasdair M J Maclullich; Carol Brayne Journal: Am J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2013-07-30 Impact factor: 4.105
Authors: Atsushi Yoshimura; Carrie Goodson; Jordan T Johns; Maxwell M Towe; Esme S Irvine; Nada A Rendradjaja; Laura K Max; Andrew LaFlam; Emily C Ledford; Julia Probert; Zoë Tieges; David H Edwin; Alasdair M J MacLullich; Charles W Hogue; Martin A Lindquist; Ahmet Gurakar; Karin J Neufeld; Atsushi Kamiya Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2017-08-23 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Alessandro Morandi; Daniel Davis; Giuseppe Bellelli; Rakesh C Arora; Gideon A Caplan; Barbara Kamholz; Ann Kolanowski; Donna Marie Fick; Stefan Kreisel; Alasdair MacLullich; David Meagher; Karen Neufeld; Pratik P Pandharipande; Sarah Richardson; Arjen J C Slooter; John P Taylor; Christine Thomas; Zoë Tieges; Andrew Teodorczuk; Philippe Voyer; James L Rudolph Journal: J Am Med Dir Assoc Date: 2016-09-16 Impact factor: 4.669
Authors: Alessandro Morandi; Jessica McCurley; Eduard E Vasilevskis; Donna M Fick; Giuseppe Bellelli; Patricia Lee; James C Jackson; Susan D Shenkin; John Schnelle; Sharon K Inouye; E Wesley Ely; Wesley E Ely; Alasdair MacLullich Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2012-10-05 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Giuseppe Bellelli; Alessandro Morandi; Daniel H J Davis; Paolo Mazzola; Renato Turco; Simona Gentile; Tracy Ryan; Helen Cash; Fabio Guerini; Tiziana Torpilliesi; Francesco Del Santo; Marco Trabucchi; Giorgio Annoni; Alasdair M J MacLullich Journal: Age Ageing Date: 2014-03-02 Impact factor: 10.668
Authors: Maeve Leonard; Shane McInerney; John McFarland; Candice Condon; Fahad Awan; Margaret O'Connor; Paul Reynolds; Anna Maria Meaney; Dimitrios Adamis; Colum Dunne; Walter Cullen; Paula T Trzepacz; David J Meagher Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2016-03-08 Impact factor: 2.692