Aleksandra Kuczmarska1, Long H Ngo2,3, Jamey Guess2, Margaret A O'Connor3,4, Laura Branford-White5, Kerry Palihnich2, Jacqueline Gallagher2, Edward R Marcantonio6,7,8. 1. The Commonwealth Medical College, Scranton, PA, USA. 2. Division of General Medicine and Primary Care, Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA. 3. Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 4. Department of Neurology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA. 5. Fenway Community Health Center, Boston, MA, USA. 6. Division of General Medicine and Primary Care, Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA. emarcant@bidmc.harvard.edu. 7. Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. emarcant@bidmc.harvard.edu. 8. Division of Gerontology, Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA. emarcant@bidmc.harvard.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Delirium is common in older hospitalized patients and is associated with poor outcomes, yet most cases go undetected. The best approach for systematic delirium identification outside the intensive care unit remains unknown. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a comparative effectiveness study of the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU (CAM-ICU) and the newly developed 3-minute diagnostic assessment for delirium using the Confusion Assessment Method (3D-CAM) in general medicine inpatients. DESIGN: Cross-sectional comparative effectiveness study. SETTING: Two non-intensive care general medicine units at a single academic medical center. PARTICIPANTS: Hospitalized general medicine patients aged ≥75 years. MEASUREMENTS: Clinicians performed a reference standard assessment for delirium that included patient interviews, family interviews, and review of the medical record. An expert panel determined the presence or absence of delirium using DSM-IV criteria. Two blinded research assistants administered the CAM-ICU and the 3D-CAM in random order, and we determined their diagnostic test characteristics compared to the reference standard. RESULTS: Among the 101 participants (mean age 84 ± 5.5 years, 61 % women, 25 % with dementia), 19 % were classified as delirious based on the reference standard. Evaluation times for the 3D-CAM and CAM-ICU were similar. The sensitivity [95 % confidence interval (CI)] of delirium detection for the 3D-CAM was 95 % [74 %, 100 %] and for the CAM-ICU was 53 % [29 %, 76 %], while specificity was >90 % for both instruments. Subgroup analyses showed that the CAM-ICU had sensitivity of 30 % in patients with mild delirium vs. 100 % for the 3D-CAM. CONCLUSIONS: In this comparative effectiveness study, we found that the 3D-CAM had substantially higher sensitivity than the CAM-ICU in hospitalized older general medicine patients, and similar administration time. Therefore, the 3D-CAM may be a superior screening tool for delirium in this patient population.
BACKGROUND:Delirium is common in older hospitalized patients and is associated with poor outcomes, yet most cases go undetected. The best approach for systematic delirium identification outside the intensive care unit remains unknown. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a comparative effectiveness study of the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU (CAM-ICU) and the newly developed 3-minute diagnostic assessment for delirium using the Confusion Assessment Method (3D-CAM) in general medicine inpatients. DESIGN: Cross-sectional comparative effectiveness study. SETTING: Two non-intensive care general medicine units at a single academic medical center. PARTICIPANTS: Hospitalized general medicine patients aged ≥75 years. MEASUREMENTS: Clinicians performed a reference standard assessment for delirium that included patient interviews, family interviews, and review of the medical record. An expert panel determined the presence or absence of delirium using DSM-IV criteria. Two blinded research assistants administered the CAM-ICU and the 3D-CAM in random order, and we determined their diagnostic test characteristics compared to the reference standard. RESULTS: Among the 101 participants (mean age 84 ± 5.5 years, 61 % women, 25 % with dementia), 19 % were classified as delirious based on the reference standard. Evaluation times for the 3D-CAM and CAM-ICU were similar. The sensitivity [95 % confidence interval (CI)] of delirium detection for the 3D-CAM was 95 % [74 %, 100 %] and for the CAM-ICU was 53 % [29 %, 76 %], while specificity was >90 % for both instruments. Subgroup analyses showed that the CAM-ICU had sensitivity of 30 % in patients with mild delirium vs. 100 % for the 3D-CAM. CONCLUSIONS: In this comparative effectiveness study, we found that the 3D-CAM had substantially higher sensitivity than the CAM-ICU in hospitalized older general medicine patients, and similar administration time. Therefore, the 3D-CAM may be a superior screening tool for delirium in this patient population.
Authors: E W Ely; R Margolin; J Francis; L May; B Truman; R Dittus; T Speroff; S Gautam; G R Bernard; S K Inouye Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2001-07 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Jin H Han; Amanda Wilson; Amy J Graves; Ayumi Shintani; John F Schnelle; Robert S Dittus; James S Powers; John Vernon; Alan B Storrow; E Wesley Ely Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: E W Ely; S K Inouye; G R Bernard; S Gordon; J Francis; L May; B Truman; T Speroff; S Gautam; R Margolin; R P Hart; R Dittus Journal: JAMA Date: 2001-12-05 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Edward R Marcantonio; Long H Ngo; Margaret O'Connor; Richard N Jones; Paul K Crane; Eran D Metzger; Sharon K Inouye Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2014-10-21 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Jane S Saczynski; Cyrus M Kosar; Guoquan Xu; Margaret R Puelle; Eva Schmitt; Richard N Jones; Edward R Marcantonio; Bonnie Wong; Ilean Isaza; Sharon K Inouye Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2014-02-10 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Miles Berger; Deborah Oyeyemi; Mobolaji O Olurinde; Heather E Whitson; Kent J Weinhold; Marty G Woldorff; Lewis A Lipsitz; Eugene Moretti; Charles M Giattino; Kenneth C Roberts; Junhong Zhou; Thomas Bunning; Michael Ferrandino; Randall P Scheri; Mary Cooter; Cliburn Chan; Roberto Cabeza; Jeffrey N Browndyke; David M Murdoch; Michael J Devinney; Leslie M Shaw; Harvey Jay Cohen; Joseph P Mathew Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2019-01-23 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Miles Berger; Niccolò Terrando; S Kendall Smith; Jeffrey N Browndyke; Mark F Newman; Joseph P Mathew Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2018-10 Impact factor: 7.892
Authors: Donna M Fick; Sharon K Inouye; Caroline McDermott; Wenxiao Zhou; Long Ngo; Jackie Gallagher; Jane McDowell; Janice Penrod; Jonathan Siuta; Thomas Covaleski; Edward R Marcantonio Journal: J Gerontol Nurs Date: 2018-04-02 Impact factor: 1.254
Authors: Kasra Zarei; Nicholas A Sparr; Nicholas T Trapp; Elena D Neuhaus; John W Cromwell; Aaron D Boes; Gen Shinozaki Journal: Psychiatry Res Date: 2020-01-25 Impact factor: 3.222
Authors: Stuti J Jaiswal; Thomas J McCarthy; Nathan E Wineinger; Dae Y Kang; Janet Song; Solana Garcia; Christoffel J van Niekerk; Cathy Y Lu; Melissa Loeks; Robert L Owens Journal: Am J Med Date: 2018-05-03 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Keith W VanDusen; Sarada Eleswarpu; Eugene W Moretti; Michael J Devinney; Donna M Crabtree; Daniel T Laskowitz; Marty G Woldorff; Kenneth C Roberts; John Whittle; Jeffrey N Browndyke; Mary Cooter; Frank W Rockhold; Oke Anakwenze; Michael P Bolognesi; Mark E Easley; Michael N Ferrandino; William A Jiranek; Miles Berger Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2020 Impact factor: 4.472
Authors: Victoria Cui; Catherine M Tedeschi; Vanessa L Kronzer; Sherry L McKinnon; Michael S Avidan Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-07-10 Impact factor: 2.692