4.5 Article

Risk factors for the development of early-onset delirium and the subsequent clinical outcome in mechanically ventilated patients

期刊

JOURNAL OF CRITICAL CARE
卷 23, 期 3, 页码 372-379

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2006.09.001

关键词

delirium; ventilator; mortality; risk factors; sepsis; albumin

资金

  1. National Science Council, Taiwan, ROC [NSC-92-2314-B-182A-158]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: The aim of the study was to investigate the risk factors of developing early-onset delirium in mechanically ventilated patients and determine the subsequent clinical outcomes. Methods: Confusion assessment method for the intensive care unit (ICU) was used to assess the enrolled mechanically ventilated patients for delirium. The risk factors of developing delirium and Clinical outcomes were determined in these subjects. Results: Delirium was present in 31 (21.7%) of 143 patients in the first 5 days. In multivariable analysis, hypoalbuminemia (odds ratio, 5.94; 95% confidence interval, 1.23-28.77) and sepsis (odds ratio, 3.65; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-12.9) increased the risk of developing delirium in mechanically ventilated patients. The patients with delirium had a higher in-hospital mortality (67.7% vs 33.9%, respectively; P = .001) and longer duration of mechanical ventilation (19.5 +/- 15.8 vs 9.3 +/- 8.8 days, respectively; P = .003) than patients without delirium. The incidence of nosocomial pneumonia was increased in delirious patients (64.5% vs 38.4%, P = .01) compared with nondelirious patients, whereas the lengths of ICU or hospital stay were similar between both groups. Conclusions: Mechanically ventilated patients with sepsis or hypoalbuminemia were more vulnerable to develop delirium in their early stay in the ICU. Early-onset delirium is associated with prolonged duration of mechanical ventilation and higher incidence of nosocomial pneumonia, leading to a higher mortality, (c) 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据