4.2 Article

Fluctuations in sedation levels may contribute to delirium in ICU patients

期刊

ACTA ANAESTHESIOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA
卷 57, 期 3, 页码 288-293

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/aas.12048

关键词

-

资金

  1. Novo Nordic Foundation
  2. Foundation for Psychiatry, Risskov
  3. Health Science Research Fund of the Central Region of Denmark
  4. Foundation of Research in Mental Disorders, Aarhus University
  5. Danish Society for Nursing Research
  6. Directors' Research Foundation at Hillerod Hospital
  7. Foundation of Psychiatry promotion and Lippmann Foundation, Denmark
  8. Familien Hede Nielsen Foundation, Denmark

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Delirium in patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) is a serious complication potentially increasing morbidity and mortality. The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of fluctuating sedation levels on the incidence of delirium in ICU. Methods A prospective cohort study of adult patients at three multidisciplinary ICUs. The Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale (RASS) and the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU were used at least twice a day. Results Delirium was detected at least once in 65% of the patients (n=640). Delirious patients were significantly older, more critically ill, more often intubated, had longer ICU stays, and had higher ICU mortality than non-delirious patients. The median duration of delirium was 3 days (interquartile range: 1;10), and RASS was less than or equal to 0 (alert and calm) 91% of the time. The odds ratio (OR) for development of delirium if RASS changed more than two levels was 5.19 when adjusted for gender, age, severity of illness, and ICU site and setting. Continuous infusion of midazolam was associated with a decrease in delirium incidence (OR: 0.38; P=0.002). Conclusions Fluctuations in sedation levels may contribute to development of delirium in ICU patients. The risk of developing delirium might be reduced by maintaining a stable sedation level or by non-sedation.

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

4.2
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