4.7 Review

Occurrence and outcome of delirium in medical in-patients: a systematic literature review

期刊

AGE AND AGEING
卷 35, 期 4, 页码 350-364

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ageing/afl005

关键词

delirium; systematic review; prevalence; incidence; prognosis; elderly

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Despite the acknowledged clinical importance of delirium, research evidence for measures to improve its management is sparse. A necessary first step to devising appropriate strategies is to understand how common it is and what its outcomes are in any particular setting. Objective: To determine the occurrence of delirium and its outcomes in medical in-patients, through a systematic review of the literature. Method: We searched electronic medical databases, the Consultation-Liaison Literature Database and reference lists and bibliographies for potentially relevant studies. Studies were selected, quality assessed and data extracted according to preset protocols. Results: Results for the occurrence of delirium in medical in-patients were available for 42 cohorts. Prevalence of delirium at admission ranged from 10 to 31%, incidence of new delirium per admission ranged from 3 to 29% and occurrence rate per admission varied between 11 and 42%. Results for outcomes were available for 19 study cohorts. Delirium was associated with increased mortality at discharge and at 12 months, increased length of hospital stay ( LOS) and institutionalisation. A significant proportion of patients had persistent symptoms of delirium at discharge and at 6 and 12 months. Conclusion: Delirium is common in medical in- patients and has serious adverse effects on mortality, functional outcomes, LOS and institutionalisation. The development of appropriate strategies to improve its management should be a clinical and research priority. As delirium prevalent at hospital admission is a significant problem, research is also needed into preventative measures that could be applied in community settings.

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

4.7
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