4.5 Article

Differential effects of delirium on fluid and crystallized cognitive abilities

期刊

ARCHIVES OF GERONTOLOGY AND GERIATRICS
卷 52, 期 2, 页码 153-158

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.archger.2010.03.005

关键词

Delirium; Dementia; Cognition; Attention; Reading; Psychogeriatrics; Neuropsychological tests

资金

  1. MRC
  2. BBSRC
  3. EPSRC
  4. ESRC
  5. MRC [G0700704, G108/646] Funding Source: UKRI
  6. British Heart Foundation [FS/10/024/28266] Funding Source: researchfish
  7. Medical Research Council [G0700704B, G0700704, G108/646] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Patients with delirium (acute confusional state) show extensive cognitive deficits. These deficits have typically been measured using tests of fluid cognition, which involve the active processing of mental representations. However, the effects of delirium on stored, crystallized dimensions of cognition, such as well-learnt word pronunciation knowledge, are not known. In this study 37 patients (aged 60-85 years) without delirium were recruited before undergoing cardiac surgery. Cognitive assessments were performed 0-8 days before surgery and again 2-9 days after surgery in order to determine the effects of post-operative delirium (POD) on fluid and crystallized aspects of cognition. Crystallized cognition was tested with the National Adult Reading Test (NART). Fluid cognition was tested with digit span, verbal fluency and Stroop tests. Nine patients (24%) developed delirium post-operatively. Patients with delirium showed significant post-operative deficits on most tests of fluid cognition, but no change in the NART measure of crystallized cognition (p = 0.95). These results parallel recent findings in Alzheimer's dementia and suggest that, despite showing extensive deficits of fluid cognitive processing, crystallized cognition is preserved in delirium. The results also suggest that the NART may be a useful tool for assessing premorbid ability in patients with delirium. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. 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