4.5 Article

Clinical Features Associated with Delirium Motor Subtypes in Older Inpatients: Results of a Multicenter Study

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF GERIATRIC PSYCHIATRY
卷 25, 期 10, 页码 1064-1071

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jagp.2017.05.003

关键词

Motor subtypes of delirium; DMSS; 4AT; delirium

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To date motor subtypes of delirium have been evaluated in single-center studies with a limited examination of the relationship between predisposing factors and motor profile of delirium. We sought to report the prevalence and clinical profile of subtypes of delirium in a multicenter study. Methods: This is a point prevalence study nested in the Delirium Day 2015, which included 108 acute and 12 rehabilitation wards in Italy. Delirium was detected using the 4-AT and motor subtypes were measured with the Delirium Motor Subtype Scale (DMSS). A multinomial logistic regression was used to determine the factors associated with delirium subtypes. Results: Of 429 patients with delirium, the DMSS was completed in 275 (64%), classifying 21.5% of the patients with hyperactive delirium, 38.5% with hypoactive, 27.3% with mixed and 12.7% with the non-motor subtype. The 4-AT score was higher in the hyperactive subtype, similar in the hypoactive, mixed subtypes, while it was lowest in the nonmotor subtype. Dementia was associated with all three delirium motor subtypes (hyperactive, OR 3.3, 95% CI: 1.2-8.7; hypoactive, OR 2.8, 95% CI: 1.2-6.5; mixed OR 2.6, 95% CI: 1.1-6.2). Atypical antipsychotics were associated with hypoactive delirium (OR 0.23, 95% CI: 0.1-0.7), while intravenous lines were associated with mixed delirium (OR 2.9, 95% CI: 1.2-6.9). Conclusions: The study shows that hypoactive delirium is the most common subtype among hospitalized older patients. Specific clinical features were associated with different delirium subtypes. The use of standardized instruments can help to characterize the phenomenology of different motor subtypes of delirium.

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