4.5 Article

Impact of delirium on clinical outcome in critically ill patients: a meta-analysis

期刊

GENERAL HOSPITAL PSYCHIATRY
卷 35, 期 2, 页码 105-111

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2012.11.003

关键词

Meta-analysis; Delirium; Critical care medicine; Outcome; Length of stay; Mechanical ventilation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Context: Delirium is prevalent in the intensive care unit (ICU) and has been associated with negative clinical outcomes. However, a quantitative and systematic assessment of published studies has not been conducted. Objective: Meta-analysis of clinical observational studies was performed to investigate the association between delirium and clinical outcomes. Data sources and study selection: Relevant studies were identified by investigators from databases including Medline, Embase, OVID and EBSCO from inception to May 2012. Studies that reported the association of delirium with clinical outcomes in critical care setting were included. Data extraction: Data were extracted independently by reviewers and summary effects were obtained using random effects model. Data synthesis: Of the 16 studies included, 14 studies involving 5891 patients reported data on mortality, and delirious patients had higher mortality rate than non-delirious patients (odds ratio [OR]: 3.22; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.30-4.52). Delirious patients had higher rate of complications (OR: 6.5; 95% CI: 2.7-15.6), and were more likely to be discharged to skilled placement (OR: 2.59; 95% CI: 1.59-4.21). Furthermore, patients with delirium had longer length of stay in both ICU (weighted mean difference [WMD]: 7.32 days; 95% CI: 4.63-10.01) and hospital (WMD: 6.53 days; 95% CI: 3.03-10.03), and they spent more time on mechanical ventilation (WMD: 7.22 days; 95% CI: 5.15-9.29). Conclusion: Delirium in critically ill patients is associated with higher mortality rate, more complications, longer duration of mechanical ventilation, and longer length of stay in ICU and hospital. (C) 2013 Elsevier 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