Tamara G Fong1,2,3, Sarinnapha M Vasunilashorn4,5, Edward R Marcantonio4,6, Sharon K Inouye2,3,6, Long Ngo4,7, Towia A Libermann8,9, Simon T Dillon8,9, Eva M Schmitt2,3, Alvaro Pascual-Leone3,10,11, Steven E Arnold12, Richard N Jones13. 1. Department of Neurology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 2. Aging Brain Center, Hebrew SeniorLife, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 3. Hinda and Arthur Marcus Institute for Aging Research, Hebrew SeniorLife, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 4. Division of General Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 5. Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 6. Division of Gerontology, Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 7. Department of Biostatistics, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 8. Division of Interdisciplinary Medicine and Biotechnology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 9. Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center Genomics, Proteomics, Bioinformatics, and Systems Biology Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 10. Department of Neurology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 11. Guttmann Brain Health Institute, Guttmann Institute, Autonomous University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. 12. Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 13. Departments of Psychiatry and Human Behavior and Neurology, Warren Alpert Medical School, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the association of the plasma neuroaxonal injury markers neurofilament light (NfL), total tau, glial fibrillary acid protein, and ubiquitin carboxyl-terminal hydrolase L1 with delirium, delirium severity, and cognitive performance. METHODS: Delirium case-no delirium control (n = 108) pairs were matched by age, sex, surgery type, cognition, and vascular comorbidities. Biomarkers were measured in plasma collected preoperatively (PREOP), and 2 days (POD2) and 30 days postoperatively (PO1MO) using Simoa technology (Quanterix, Lexington, MA). The Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) and CAM-S (Severity) were used to measure delirium and delirium severity, respectively. Cognitive function was measured with General Cognitive Performance (GCP) scores. RESULTS: Delirium cases had higher NfL on POD2 and PO1MO (median matched pair difference = 16.2pg/ml and 13.6pg/ml, respectively; p < 0.05). Patients with PREOP and POD2 NfL in the highest quartile (Q4) had increased risk for incident delirium (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 3.7 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.1-12.6] and 4.6 [95% CI = 1.2-18.2], respectively) and experienced more severe delirium, with sum CAM-S scores 7.8 points (95% CI = 1.6-14.0) and 9.3 points higher (95% CI = 3.2-15.5). At PO1MO, delirium cases had continued high NfL (adjusted OR = 9.7, 95% CI = 2.3-41.4), and those with Q4 NfL values showed a -2.3 point decline in GCP score (-2.3 points, 95% CI = -4.7 to -0.9). INTERPRETATION: Patients with the highest PREOP or POD2 NfL levels were more likely to develop delirium. Elevated NfL at PO1MO was associated with delirium and greater cognitive decline. These findings suggest NfL may be useful as a predictive biomarker for delirium risk and long-term cognitive decline, and once confirmed would provide pathophysiological evidence for neuroaxonal injury following delirium. ANN NEUROL 2020;88:984-994.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the association of the plasma neuroaxonal injury markers neurofilament light (NfL), total tau, glial fibrillary acid protein, and ubiquitin carboxyl-terminal hydrolase L1 with delirium, delirium severity, and cognitive performance. METHODS:Delirium case-no delirium control (n = 108) pairs were matched by age, sex, surgery type, cognition, and vascular comorbidities. Biomarkers were measured in plasma collected preoperatively (PREOP), and 2 days (POD2) and 30 days postoperatively (PO1MO) using Simoa technology (Quanterix, Lexington, MA). The Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) and CAM-S (Severity) were used to measure delirium and delirium severity, respectively. Cognitive function was measured with General Cognitive Performance (GCP) scores. RESULTS:Delirium cases had higher NfL on POD2 and PO1MO (median matched pair difference = 16.2pg/ml and 13.6pg/ml, respectively; p < 0.05). Patients with PREOP and POD2 NfL in the highest quartile (Q4) had increased risk for incident delirium (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 3.7 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.1-12.6] and 4.6 [95% CI = 1.2-18.2], respectively) and experienced more severe delirium, with sum CAM-S scores 7.8 points (95% CI = 1.6-14.0) and 9.3 points higher (95% CI = 3.2-15.5). At PO1MO, delirium cases had continued high NfL (adjusted OR = 9.7, 95% CI = 2.3-41.4), and those with Q4 NfL values showed a -2.3 point decline in GCP score (-2.3 points, 95% CI = -4.7 to -0.9). INTERPRETATION:Patients with the highest PREOP or POD2 NfL levels were more likely to develop delirium. Elevated NfL at PO1MO was associated with delirium and greater cognitive decline. These findings suggest NfL may be useful as a predictive biomarker for delirium risk and long-term cognitive decline, and once confirmed would provide pathophysiological evidence for neuroaxonal injury following delirium. ANN NEUROL 2020;88:984-994.
Authors: Thomas Saller; Axel Petzold; Henrik Zetterberg; Jens Kuhle; Daniel Chappell; Vera von Dossow; Felix Klawitter; Tobias Schurholz; Christian Hagl; Daniel A Reuter; Bernhard Zwissler; Johannes Ehler Journal: Biomed Pap Med Fac Univ Palacky Olomouc Czech Repub Date: 2019-09-16 Impact factor: 1.245
Authors: Christopher G Hughes; Pratik P Pandharipande; Jennifer L Thompson; Rameela Chandrasekhar; Lorraine B Ware; E Wesley Ely; Timothy D Girard Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2016-09 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Richard N Jones; James L Rudolph; Sharon K Inouye; Frances M Yang; Tamara G Fong; William P Milberg; Douglas Tommet; Eran D Metzger; L Adrienne Cupples; Edward R Marcantonio Journal: J Clin Exp Neuropsychol Date: 2010-12 Impact factor: 2.475
Authors: S J T van Montfort; E van Dellen; C J Stam; A H Ahmad; L J Mentink; C W Kraan; A Zalesky; A J C Slooter Journal: Neuroimage Clin Date: 2019-04-03 Impact factor: 4.881
Authors: Barbara C van Munster; Catharina M Korse; Sophia E de Rooij; Johannes M Bonfrer; Aeilko H Zwinderman; Johanna C Korevaar Journal: BMC Neurol Date: 2009-05-27 Impact factor: 2.474
Authors: Sophia Wang; Ryan Greene; Yiqing Song; Carol Chan; Heidi Lindroth; Sikandar Khan; Gabriel Rios; Robert D Sanders; Babar Khan Journal: Int Psychogeriatr Date: 2022-01-17 Impact factor: 7.191
Authors: Valerie J Page; Leiv Otto Watne; Amanda Heslegrave; Allan Clark; Daniel F McAuley; Robert D Sanders; Henrik Zetterberg Journal: EBioMedicine Date: 2022-05-06 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Mitsunori Nakano; Yohei Nomura; Glenn Whitman; Marc Sussman; Stefano Schena; Ahmet Kilic; Chun W Choi; Kei Akiyoshi; Karin J Neufeld; Jennifer Lawton; Elizabeth Colantuoni; Atsushi Yamaguchi; Matthew Wen; Peter Smielewski; Ken Brady; Brian Bush; Charles W Hogue; Charles H Brown Journal: Br J Anaesth Date: 2021-03-23 Impact factor: 9.166
Authors: Franchesca Arias; Margarita Alegria; Amy J Kind; Richard N Jones; Thomas G Travison; Edward R Marcantonio; Eva M Schmitt; Tamara G Fong; Sharon K Inouye Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2021-10-25 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Jennifer A Frontera; Allal Boutajangout; Arjun V Masurkar; Rebecca A Betensky; Yulin Ge; Alok Vedvyas; Ludovic Debure; Andre Moreira; Ariane Lewis; Joshua Huang; Sujata Thawani; Laura Balcer; Steven Galetta; Thomas Wisniewski Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2022-01-13 Impact factor: 16.655
Authors: Patrick J Smeele; Lisa Vermunt; Siebe Blok; Jan Willem Duitman; Esther J Nossent; Michiel A van Agtmael; Leo M A Heunks; Janneke Horn; Harm Jan Bogaard; Charlotte E Teunissen Journal: Brain Commun Date: 2022-07-26