4.2 Article

Functional and cognitive outcomes after COVID-19 delirium

Journal

EUROPEAN GERIATRIC MEDICINE
Volume 11, Issue 5, Pages 857-862

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s41999-020-00353-8

Keywords

COVID-19; Delirium; Telephone interview for cognitive status; Barthel Index; Nottingham extended activities of daily living

Funding

  1. Wellcome Intermediate Clinical Fellowship [WT107467]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Key summary pointsAim To investigate functional and cognitive outcomes among patients with delirium in COVID-19. Findings Delirium in COVID-19 was prevalent (42%), but only a minority had been recognised by the clinical team. At 4-week follow-up, delirium was significantly associated with worse functional outcomes, independent of pre-morbid frailty. Cognitive outcomes were not appreciably worse. Message The presence of delirium is a significant factor in predicting worse functional outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Purpose To ascertain delirium prevalence and outcomes in COVID-19. Methods We conducted a point-prevalence study in a cohort of COVID-19 inpatients at University College Hospital. Delirium was defined by DSM-IV criteria. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 4 weeks; secondary outcomes were physical and cognitive function. Results In 71 patients (mean age 61, 75% men), 31 (42%) had delirium, of which only 12 (39%) had been recognised by the clinical team. At 4 weeks, 20 (28%) had died, 26 (36%) were interviewed by telephone and 21 (30%) remained as inpatients. Physical function was substantially worse in people after delirium - 50 out of 166 points (95% CI - 83 to - 17,p = 0.01). Mean cognitive scores at follow-up were similar and delirium was not associated with mortality in this sample. Conclusions Our findings indicate that delirium is common, yet under-recognised. Delirium is associated with functional impairments in the medium term.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available