4.4 Article

Risk factors and incidence of postoperative delirium in elderly Chinese patients

期刊

GERONTOLOGY
卷 46, 期 1, 页码 28-35

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000022130

关键词

postoperative delirium; risk factor; psychoactive drugs; delirium

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: To investigate the incidence of postoperative delirium among elderly patients and to examine the interrelationship between basic vulnerability and precipitating factors for delirium. Design and Methods: This was a prospective cohort study. Data were collected in a tertiary medical center in Taipei, Taiwan, From the ist to the 5th postoperative day, nurses assessed patients using a confusion-screening tool. Patients with signs of delirium were closely examined for changes in behavior and cognitive status and vital signs, and laboratory data were collected to further validate the organic etiology of delirium, Patients were finally diagnosed according to the DSM-IV criteria in consensus meetings, Subjects: Seven hundred and one elderly patients, that were admitted consecutively for elective orthopedic or urologic surgery, were enrolled in this study. All subjects met the following criteria: (1) 65 years of age or older; (2) able to communicate orally in Chinese, and (3) not unconscious, delirious, deaf, or aphasic upon admission. Results: The overall incidence of delirium among these subjects was 5.1%. Logistic regression analysis identified that older age and preexisting cognitive impairment were vulnerability factors, and that the use of psychoactive drugs was a precipitating factor for delirium. Patients with both basic vulnerability and the precipitating factor had a 56-fold increased probability of delirium (0.28 vs. 0.005 in comparison with those who did not exhibit these factors). Conclusion: Few risk factors of postoperative delirium in the older Chinese sample were identified. The only modifiable risk factor appears to be the use of psychoactive drugs. Copyright (C) 2000 S. Karger AG, Basel.

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

4.4
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