4.5 Article

Preoperative risk factors for postoperative delirium

期刊

GENERAL HOSPITAL PSYCHIATRY
卷 23, 期 2, 页码 84-87

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0163-8343(01)00117-7

关键词

delirium; postoperative complications; risk assessment

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The objective of this article was to estimate the incidence of delirium in a sample of patients undergoing elective surgery and to identify the preoperative factors most closely associated with developing this complication. Consecutive patients (n=500) underwent a full preoperative medical evaluation including assessment of cognitive and functional status, Daily evaluation on postoperative days 1 through 4 included medical record review and direct standardized patient interviews. logistic regression was used to explore the associations between preoperative factors and postoperative delirium. Delirium was detected in 57 (11.4%) patients. Univariate factors associated with delirium included age greater than or equal to 70 years (RR=3.1 [1.75,5.55]), preexisting cognitive impairment (RR=3.1 [1.73, 5.43]). greater preoperative functional limitations (RR 1.57 [1.27, 1.94]), and a history of prior delirium (RR 4.1 [1.98 to 8.27]. Adjusting for other factors, previous delirium (OR=4.08 [1.85, 9.0]). age greater than or equal to 70 years (OR=3.2 [1.6, 6.0], and preexisting cognitive impairment [OR=2.16 [1,15, 4.0] remained predictive of delirium. Patients' perceptions that alcohol had affected their health (OR=6.53 [1.58 to 28.1]) and use of narcotic analgesics just prior to admission (OR=2.7 [1.37 to 5.3]) were also significantly associated with delirium postoperatively. Several easily obtained preoperative clinical factors can be used to identify patients at risk for postoperative delirium, This approach, when combined with specialized delirium teams using established guidelines, may be more. effective in targeting patients tit risk, thus reducing the number of episodes and days of delirium. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science 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