Nicotine replacement therapy for agitation and delirium management in the intensive care unit: a systematic review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: Active smokers are prevalent within the intensive care setting and place a significant burden on healthcare systems. Nicotine withdrawal due to forced abstinence on admission may contribute to increased agitation and delirium in this patient group. The aim of this systematic review was to determine whether management of nicotine withdrawal, with nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), reduces agitation and delirium in critically ill patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: The following sources were used in this review: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL Plus databases. Included studies reported delirium or agitation outcomes in current smokers, where NRT was used as management of nicotine withdrawal, in the intensive care setting. Studies were included regardless of design or number of participants. Data were extracted on ICU classification; study design; population baseline characteristics; allocation and dose of NRT; agitation and delirium assessment methods; and the frequency of agitation, delirium, and psychotropic medication use. RESULTS: Six studies were included. NRT was mostly prescribed for smokers with heavier smoking histories. Three studies reported an association between increased agitation or delirium and NRT use; one study could not find any significant benefit or harm from NRT use; and two described a reduction of symptomatic nicotine withdrawal. A lack of consistent and validated assessment measures, combined with limitations in the quality of reported data, contribute to conflicting results. CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence for the use of NRT in agitation and delirium management in the ICU is inconclusive. An evaluation of risk versus benefit on an individual patient basis should be considered when prescribing NRT. Further studies that consider prognostic balance, adjust for confounders, and employ validated assessment tools are urgently needed

Orthopaedic health status of horses from 8 riding schools - a pilot study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Orthopaedic injury is the most common reason for lameness and wastage in sport and leisure horses. Studies on racehorses have shown differences in injury risk between trainers and training strategies. The aim was to study between riding school variation in orthopaedic health status by clinical examination and horses age, and control for change of examiner, in schools with previous high (n = 4) and low (n = 4) insurance utilisation.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Horses (n = 99) at 8 riding schools were examined for conformation, movement in all gaits, standing flexion tests and palpation by two veterinary surgeons (in some schools only one). Indexes of findings were created for total health, movements, limbs, conformation and back palpation.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Logistic regression analyses showed that findings increased with age (walk, trot, canter, conformation left hind limb, palpation fore limbs, hooves and flexion tests) or decreased with age (conformation right fore limb). Significant differences in findings were found between riding schools and examiner for seven and eight criteria each (partly overlapping). Increasing indexes were significantly associated with one examiner (total health, movements, back palpation), increasing age (total health, movements) or more time at the school (limbs). The back palpation index was highest at 5 < 8 years since acquisition.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The age distribution differed markedly between riding schools and age affected several types of findings. This, combined with the two opposite groups of insurance use, shows that schools with low insurance utilisation had previously been able to "avoid" using the insurance, maybe even on similar types of cases if these were more promptly/differently handled indicating differential coverage of disease data in the insurance database. The examiner effect was clearly demonstrated. For some findings, the amount of clinical observations differed by school, even when examiner and age was adjusted for. Most findings were of minor importance, including slight movement irregularities. Orthopaedic status varies between riding schools. We hypothesize that this is associated with management factors that warrant further study.</p

Recalibration of the delirium prediction model for ICU patients (PRE-DELIRIC): a multinational observational study

Purpose Recalibration and determining discriminative power, internationally, of the existing delirium prediction model (PRE-DELIRIC) for intensive care patients. Methods A prospective multicenter cohort study was performed in eight intensive care units (ICUs) in six countries. The ten predictors (age, APACHE-II, urgent and admission category, infection, coma, sedation, morphine use, urea level, metabolic acidosis) were collected within 24 h after ICU admission. The confusion assessment method for the intensive care unit (CAM-ICU) was used to identify ICU delirium. CAM-ICU screening compliance and inter-rater reliability measurements were used to secure the quality of the data. Results A total of 2,852 adult ICU patients were screened of which 1,824 (64 %) were eligible for the study. Main reasons for exclusion were length of stay <1 day (19.1 %) and sustained coma (4.1 %). CAM-ICU compliance was mean (SD) 82 ± 16 % and inter-rater reliability 0.87 ± 0.17. The median delirium incidence was 22.5 % (IQR 12.8–36.6 %). Although the incidence of all ten predictors differed significantly between centers, the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve of the eight participating centers remained good: 0.77 (95 % CI 0.74–0.79). The linear predictor and intercept of the prediction rule were adjusted and resulted in improved re-calibration of the PRE-DELIRIC model. Conclusions In this multinational study, we recalibrated the PRE-DELIRIC model. Despite differences in the incidence of predictors between the centers in the different countries, the performance of the PRE-DELIRIC-model remained good. Following validation of the PRE-DELIRIC model, it may facilitate implementation of strategies to prevent delirium and aid improvements in delirium management of ICU patients

“Excellence R Us”: university research and the fetishisation of excellence

The rhetoric of “excellence” is pervasive across the academy. It is used to refer to research outputs as well as researchers, theory and education, individuals and organisations, from art history to zoology. But does “excellence” actually mean anything? Does this pervasive narrative of “excellence” do any good? Drawing on a range of sources we interrogate “excellence” as a concept and find that it has no intrinsic meaning in academia. Rather it functions as a linguistic interchange mechanism. To investigate whether this linguistic function is useful we examine how the rhetoric of excellence combines with narratives of scarcity and competition to show that the hypercompetition that arises from the performance of “excellence” is completely at odds with the qualities of good research. We trace the roots of issues in reproducibility, fraud, and homophily to this rhetoric. But we also show that this rhetoric is an internal, and not primarily an external, imposition. We conclude by proposing an alternative rhetoric based on soundness and capacity-building. In the final analysis, it turns out that that “excellence” is not excellent. Used in its current unqualified form it is a pernicious and dangerous rhetoric that undermines the very foundations of good research and scholarship

Evaluating early administration of the hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA reductase inhibitor simvastatin in the prevention and treatment of delirium in critically ill ventilated patients (MoDUS trial): Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.Abstract Background The incidence of delirium in ventilated patients is estimated at up to 82%, and it is associated with longer intensive care and hospital stays, and long-term cognitive impairment and mortality. The pathophysiology of delirium has been linked with inflammation and neuronal apoptosis. Simvastatin has pleiotropic properties; it penetrates the brain and, as well as reducing cholesterol, reduces inflammation when used at clinically relevant doses over the short term. This is a single centre randomised, controlled trial which aims to test the hypothesis that treatment with simvastatin will modify delirium incidence and outcomes. Methods/Design The ongoing study will include 142 adults admitted to the Watford General Hospital Intensive Care Unit who require mechanical ventilation in the first 72 hours of admission. The primary outcome is the number of delirium- and coma-free days in the first 14 days. Secondary outcomes include incidence of delirium, delirium- and coma-free days in the first 28 days, days in delirium and in coma at 14 and 28 days, number of ventilator-free days at 28 days, length of critical care and hospital stay, mortality, cognitive decline and healthcare resource use. Informed consent will be taken from patient’s consultee before randomisation to receive either simvastatin (80 mg) or placebo once daily. Daily data will be recorded until day 28 after randomisation or until discharge from the ICU if sooner. Surviving patients will be followed up on at six months from discharge. Plasma and urine samples will be taken to investigate the biological effect of simvastatin on systemic markers of inflammation, as related to the number of delirium- and coma-free days, and the potential of cholinesterase activity and beta-amyloid as predictors of the risk of delirium and long-term cognitive impairment. Discussion This trial will test the efficacy of simvastatin on reducing delirium in the critically ill. If patients receiving the statin show a reduced number of days in delirium compared with the placebo group, the inflammatory theory implicated in the pathogenesis of delirium will be strengthened. Trial registration The trial was registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Registry (ISRCTN89079989) on 26 March 2013.Peer reviewe

Worldwide Survey of the "Assessing Pain, Both Spontaneous Awakening and Breathing Trials, Choice of Drugs, Delirium Monitoring/Management, Early Exercise/Mobility, and Family Empowerment" (ABCDEF) Bundle

OBJECTIVES: To assess the knowledge and use of the Assessment, prevention, and management of pain; spontaneous awakening and breathing trials; Choice of analgesia and sedation; Delirium assessment; Early mobility and exercise; and Family engagement and empowerment (ABCDEF) bundle to implement the Pain, Agitation, Delirium guidelines. DESIGN: Worldwide online survey. SETTING: Intensive care. INTERVENTION: A cross-sectional online survey using the Delphi method was administered to intensivists worldwide, to assess the knowledge and use of all aspects of the ABCDEF bundle. MEASUREMENT AND MAIN RESULTS: There were 1,521 respondents from 47 countries, 57% had implemented the ABCDEF bundle, with varying degrees of compliance across continents. Most of the respondents (83%) used a scale to evaluate pain. Spontaneous awakening trials and spontaneous breathing trials are performed in 66% and 67% of the responder ICUs, respectively. Sedation scale was used in 89% of ICUs. Delirium monitoring was implemented in 70% of ICUs, but only 42% used a validated delirium tool. Likewise, early mobilization was "prescribed" by most, but 69% had no mobility team and 79% used no formal mobility scale. Only 36% of the respondents assessed ICU-acquired weakness. Family members were actively involved in 67% of ICUs; however, only 33% used dedicated staff to support families and only 35% reported that their unit was open 24 hr/d for family visits. CONCLUSIONS: The current implementation of the ABCDEF bundle varies across individual components and regions. We identified specific targets for quality improvement and adoption of the ABCDEF bundle. Our data reflect a significant but incomplete shift toward patient- and family-centered ICU care in accordance with the Pain, Agitation, Delirium guidelines

Information resource preferences by general pediatricians in office settings: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND: Information needs and resource preferences of office-based general pediatricians have not been well characterized. METHODS: Data collected from a sample of twenty office-based urban/suburban general pediatricians consisted of: (a) a demographic survey about participants' practice and computer use, (b) semi-structured interviews on their use of different types of information resources and (c) semi-structured interviews on perceptions of information needs and resource preferences in response to clinical vignettes representing cases in Genetics and Infectious Diseases. Content analysis of interviews provided participants' perceived use of resources and their perceived questions and preferred resources in response to vignettes. RESULTS: Participants' average time in practice was 15.4 years (2–28 years). All had in-office online access. Participants identified specialist/generalist colleagues, general/specialty pediatric texts, drug formularies, federal government/professional organization Websites and medical portals (when available) as preferred information sources. They did not identify decision-making texts, evidence-based reviews, journal abstracts, medical librarians or consumer health information for routine office use. In response to clinical vignettes in Genetics and Infectious Diseases, participants identified Question Types about patient-specific (diagnosis, history and findings) and general medical (diagnostic, therapeutic and referral guidelines) information. They identified specialists and specialty textbooks, history and physical examination, colleagues and general pediatric textbooks, and federal and professional organizational Websites as information sources. Participants with access to portals identified them as information resources in lieu of texts. For Genetics vignettes, participants identified questions about prenatal history, disease etiology and treatment guidelines. For Genetics vignettes, they identified patient history, specialists, general pediatric texts, Web search engines and colleagues as information sources. For Infectious Diseases (ID) vignettes, participants identified questions about patients' clinical status at presentation and questions about disease classification, diagnosis/therapy/referral guidelines and sources of patient education. For ID vignettes, they identified history, laboratory results, colleagues, specialists and personal experience as information sources. CONCLUSION: Content analysis of office-based general pediatricians' responses to clinical vignettes provided a qualitative description of their perceptions of information needs and preferences for information resource for cases in Genetics and Infectious Diseases. This approach may provide complementary information for discovering practitioner's information needs and resource preferences in different contexts