Explore the vast range of titles available.

ObjectivesDelirium is a serious complication following neurosurgical procedures. We hypothesise that the beneficial effect of music on a combination of delirium-eliciting factors might reduce delirium incidence following neurosurgery and subsequently improve clinical outcomes.DesignProspective randomised controlled trial.SettingSingle centre, conducted at the neurosurgical department of the Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.ParticipantsAdult patients undergoing craniotomy were eligible.InterventionsPatients in the intervention group received preferred recorded music before, during and after the operation until day 3 after surgery. Patients in the control group were treated according to standard of clinical care.Primary and secondary outcome measuresPrimary outcome was presence or absence of postoperative delirium within the first 5 postoperative days measured with the Delirium Observation Screening Scale (DOSS) and, in case of a daily mean score of 3 or higher, a psychiatric evaluation with the latest Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) criteria. Secondary outcomes included anxiety, heart rate variability (HRV), depth of anaesthesia, delirium severity and duration, postoperative complications, length of stay and location of discharge.ResultsWe enrolled 189 patients (music=95, control=94) from July 2020 through September 2021. Delirium, as assessed by the DOSS, was less common in the music (n=11, 11.6%) than in the control group (n=21, 22.3%, OR:0.49, p=0.048). However, after DSM-5 confirmation, differences in delirium were not significant (4.2% vs 7.4%, OR:0.47, p=0.342). Moreover, music increased the HRV (root mean square of successive differences between normal heartbeats, p=0.012). All other secondary outcomes were not different between groups.ConclusionOur results support the efficacy of music in reducing the incidence of delirium after craniotomy, as found with DOSS but not after DSM-5 confirmation, substantiated by the effect of music on preoperative autonomic tone. Delirium screening tools should be validated and the long-term implications should be evaluated after craniotomy.Trial registration numberTrialregister.nl: NL8503 and ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04649450.

IntroductionDelirium is a neurocognitive disorder characterised by an acute and temporary decline of mental status affecting attention, awareness, cognition, language and visuospatial ability. The underlying pathophysiology is driven by neuroinflammation and cellular oxidative stress.Delirium is a serious complication following neurosurgical procedures with a reported incidence varying between 4% and 44% and has been associated with increased length of hospital stay, increased amount of reoperations, increased costs and mortality.Perioperative music has been reported to reduce preoperative anxiety, postoperative pain and opioid usage, and attenuates stress response caused by surgery. We hypothesize that this beneficial effect of music on a combination of delirium eliciting factors might reduce delirium incidence following neurosurgery and subsequently improve clinical outcomes.MethodsThis protocol concerns a single-centred prospective randomised controlled trial with 6 months follow-up. All adult patients undergoing a craniotomy at the Erasmus Medical Center in Rotterdam are eligible. The music group will receive recorded music through an overear headphone before, during and after surgery until postoperative day 3. Patients can choose from music playlists, offered based on music importance questionnaires administered at baseline. The control group will receive standard of clinical careDelirium is assessed by the Delirium Observation Scale and confirmed by a delirium-expert psychiatrist according to the DSM-5 criteria. Risk factors correlated with the onset of delirium, such as cognitive function at baseline, preoperative anxiety, perioperative medication use, depth of anaesthesia and postoperative pain, and delirium-related health outcomes such as length of stay, daily function, quality of life (ie, EQ-5D, EORTC questionnaires), costs and cost-effectiveness are collected.Ethics and disseminationThis study is being conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. The Medical Ethics Review Board of Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam, The Netherlands, approved this protocol. Results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed scientific journals and conference presentations.Trial registration numbersNL8503 and NCT04649450.

Delirium is often unrecognized in ICU patients and associated with poor outcome. Screening for ICU delirium is recommended by several medical organizations to improve early diagnosis and treatment. The Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU (CAM-ICU) has high sensitivity and specificity for delirium when administered by research nurses. However, test characteristics of the CAM-ICU as performed in routine practice are unclear. To investigate the diagnostic value of the CAM-ICU in daily practice. Teams of three delirium experts including psychiatrists, geriatricians, and neurologists visited 10 ICUs twice. Based on cognitive examination, inspection of medical files, and Diagnostic and Statistic Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition, Text Revision criteria for delirium, the expert teams classified patients as awake and not delirious, delirious, or comatose. This served as a gold standard to which the CAM-ICU as performed by the bedside ICU-nurses was compared. Assessors were unaware of each other's conclusions. Fifteen delirium experts assessed 282 patients of whom 101 (36%) were comatose and excluded. In the remaining 181 (64%) patients, the CAM-ICU had a sensitivity of 47% (95% confidence interval [CI], 35%-58%); specificity of 98% (95% CI, 93%-100%); positive predictive value of 95% (95% CI, 80%-99%); and negative predictive value of 72% (95% CI, 64%-79%). The positive likelihood ratio was 24.7 (95% CI, 6.1-100) and the negative likelihood ratio was 0.5 (95% CI, 0.4-0.8). Specificity of the CAM-ICU as performed in routine practice seems to be high but sensitivity is low. This hampers early detection of delirium by the CAM-ICU.

IntroductionDelirium in critically ill adults is associated with prolonged hospital stay, increased mortality and greater cognitive and functional decline. Current practice guideline recommendations advocate the use of non-pharmacological strategies to reduce delirium. The routine use of scheduled haloperidol to treat delirium is not recommended given a lack of evidence regarding its ability to resolve delirium nor improve relevant short-term and longer-term outcomes. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of haloperidol for the treatment of delirium in adult critically ill patients to reduce days spent with coma or delirium.Methods and analysisEuRIDICE is a prospective, multi-centre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Study population consists of adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients without acute neurological injury who have delirium based on a positive Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC) or Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU (CAM-ICU) assessment. Intervention is intravenous haloperidol 2.5 mg (or matching placebo) every 8 hours, titrated daily based on ICDSC or CAM-ICU positivity to a maximum of 5 mg every 8 hours, until delirium resolution or ICU discharge. Main study endpoint is delirium and coma-free days (DCFD) up to 14 days after randomisation. Secondary endpoints include (1) 28-day and 1-year mortality, (2) cognitive and functional performance at 3 and 12 months, (3) patient and family delirium and ICU experience, (4) psychological sequelae during and after ICU stay, (4) safety concerns associated with haloperidol use and (5) cost-effectiveness. Differences in DCFDs between haloperidol and placebo group will be analysed using Poisson regression analysis. Study recruitment started in February 2018 and continues.Ethics and disseminationThe study has been approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of the Erasmus University Medical Centre Rotterdam (MEC2017-511) and by the Institutional Review Boards of the participating sites. Its results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publication and conference presentations.Trial registrationNCT03628391

Background The role of haloperidol as treatment for ICU delirium and related symptoms remains controversial despite two recent large controlled trials evaluating its efficacy and safety. We sought to determine whether haloperidol when compared to placebo in critically ill adults with delirium reduces days with delirium and coma and improves delirium-related sequelae. Methods This multi-center double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial at eight mixed medical-surgical Dutch ICUs included critically ill adults with delirium (Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist ≥ 4 or a positive Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU) admitted between February 2018 and January 2020. Patients were randomized to intravenous haloperidol 2.5 mg or placebo every 8 h, titrated up to 5 mg every 8 h if delirium persisted until ICU discharge or up to 14 days. The primary outcome was ICU delirium- and coma-free days (DCFDs) within 14 days after randomization. Predefined secondary outcomes included the protocolized use of sedatives for agitation and related behaviors, patient-initiated extubation and invasive device removal, adverse drug associated events, mechanical ventilation, ICU length of stay, 28-day mortality, and long-term outcomes up to 1-year after randomization. Results The trial was terminated prematurely for primary endpoint futility on DSMB advice after enrolment of 132 (65 haloperidol; 67 placebo) patients [mean age 64 (15) years, APACHE IV score 73.1 (33.9), male 68%]. Haloperidol did not increase DCFDs (adjusted RR 0.98 [95% CI 0.73–1.31], p  = 0.87). Patients treated with haloperidol (vs. placebo) were less likely to receive benzodiazepines (adjusted OR 0.41 [95% CI 0.18–0.89], p  = 0.02). Effect measures of other secondary outcomes related to agitation (use of open label haloperidol [OR 0.43 (95% CI 0.12–1.56)] and other antipsychotics [OR 0.63 (95% CI 0.29–1.32)], self-extubation or invasive device removal [OR 0.70 (95% CI 0.22–2.18)]) appeared consistently more favorable with haloperidol, but the confidence interval also included harm. Adverse drug events were not different. Long-term secondary outcomes (e.g., ICU recall and quality of life) warrant further study. Conclusions Haloperidol does not reduce delirium in critically ill delirious adults. However, it may reduce rescue medication requirements and agitation-related events in delirious ICU patients warranting further evaluation. Trial registration : ClinicalTrials.gov (#NCT03628391), October 9, 2017.

Background Delirium in critically ill patients has a strong adverse impact on prognosis. In spite of its recognized importance, however, delirium screening and treatment procedures are often not in accordance with current guidelines. This implementation study is designed to assess barriers and facilitators for guideline adherence and next to develop a multifaceted tailored implementation strategy. Effects of this strategy on guideline adherence as well as important clinical outcomes will be described. Methods Current practices and guideline deviations will be assessed in a prospective baseline measurement. Barriers and facilitators will be identified from a survey among intensive care health care professionals (intensivists and nurses) and focus group interviews with selected health care professionals ( n ?=?60). Findings will serve as a foundation for a tailored guideline implementation strategy. Adherence to the guideline and effects of the implementation strategies on relevant clinical outcomes will be piloted in a before-after study in six intensive care units (ICUs) in the southwest Netherlands. The primary outcomes are adherence to screening and treatment in line with the Dutch ICU delirium guideline. Secondary outcomes are process measures (e.g. attendance to training and knowledge) and clinical outcomes (e.g. incidence of delirium, hospital-mortality changes, and length of stay). Primary and secondary outcome data will be collected at four time points including at least 924 patients. Furthermore, a process evaluation will be done, including an economical evaluation. Discussion Little is known on effective implementation of delirium management in the critically ill. The proposed multifaceted implementation strategy is expected to improve process measures such as screening adherence in line with the guideline and may improve clinical outcomes, such as mortality and length of stay. This ICU Delirium in Clinical Practice Implementation Evaluation study (iDECePTIvE-study) will generate important knowledge for ICU health care providers on how to improve their clinical practice to establish optimum care for delirious patients. Trials registration Clinical Trials NCT01952899

To characterize the pharmacogenomic response of low-dose haloperidol for delirium treatment in critically ill adults. Single-center, pilot study of a convenience sample of ICU adults with delirium treated with low-dose IV haloperidol. Patients were evaluated for delirium with the ICDSC every 8 h. Serum haloperidol concentrations were collected on ICU days 2–6, CYP2D6 and CYP3A4 genotypes were characterized and patients were categorized as extensive (EM), intermediate (IM) or poor metabolizers (PM). The 22 patients (median age 67 [IQR 48,77] years; median APACHE III 81[IQR 54,181]; CYP2D6 [EM = 12, IM = 7, PM = 3], CYP3A [EM = 18, IM = 4]) received a median [IQR] daily haloperidol dose of 3.0 [2.4, 4.5] mg. After adjusting for age, SOFA, and ICU day, neither an association between CYP2D6 (IM p = .67/PM p = .25) or CYP3A4 (IM p = .44) metabolizer status and serum haloperidol concentrations was found. After adjusting for age, SOFA, and ICU day, neither an association between daily haloperidol dose (p = .77) or ICDSC score (p = .13) and serum haloperidol concentrations was found. No patient experienced QTc interval prolongation (≥500 ms). This pilot study, the first to evaluate the pharmacogenomic response of low-dose haloperidol when used to treat delirium in the ICU, suggests CYP2D6/CYP3A4 metabolizer status does not affect the serum haloperidol concentrations. •No association was observed between serum haloperidol concentration and CYP2D6/3A4.•Low dose haloperidol does not seem to decrease delirium symptoms at the ICU.•Future therapeutic haloperidol studies should consider pharmacogenomics and dose.