Suppr超能文献

不同的重症监护病房谵妄评估工具:应该使用哪个评分量表?

Different assessment tools for intensive care unit delirium: which score to use?

机构信息

Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Charité-Universitaetsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.

出版信息

Crit Care Med. 2010 Feb;38(2):409-18. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181cabb42.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To compare validity and reliability of three instruments for detection and assessment of delirium in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Delirium in critically ill patients is associated with higher mortality, prolonged duration of ICU stay, and greater healthcare costs. Currently, there are several assessment tools available for detection of delirium, but only a few of these assessment systems are developed specifically to screen for delirium in ICU patients.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

SETTING

ICU at a university hospital.

PATIENTS

A total of 156 surgical patients aged > or = 60 yrs consecutively admitted to the ICU, with a length of stay of at least 24 hrs.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

This study was approved by the institutional ethics committee. Trained staff members performed daily and independently the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU (CAM-ICU), the Nursing Delirium Screening Scale (Nu-DESC), and the Delirium Detection Score (DDS). These evaluations were compared against the reference standard conducted by a delirium expert (blinded to the study), who used delirium criteria from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV). Of 156 patients, 63 (40%) were identified as delirious by the reference standard during the study. Using the CAM-ICU and the Nu-DESC, we measured comparable sensitivities (CAM-ICU, 81%; Nu-DESC, 83%). The specificity of the CAM-ICU was significantly higher than that of the Nu-DESC (96% vs. 81%, p < .01). In contrast, the DDS showed poor sensitivity (30%), whereas the specificity was significantly higher compared with the Nu-DESC (DDS, 91%; Nu-DESC, 81%, p < .05). The interrater reliability was "almost perfect" for the CAM-ICU (kappa = 0.89) and "substantial" for DDS and Nu-DESC (kappa = 0.79, 0.68).

CONCLUSION

The CAM-ICU showed the best validity of the evaluated scales to identify delirium in ICU patients. The Nu-DESC might be an alternative tool for detection of ICU delirium. The DDS should not be used as a screening tool.

摘要

目的

比较三种用于检测和评估 ICU 患者谵妄的工具的有效性和可靠性。危重病患者的谵妄与更高的死亡率、更长的 ICU 住院时间和更高的医疗保健成本有关。目前,有几种评估工具可用于检测谵妄,但只有少数这些评估系统是专门为筛查 ICU 患者的谵妄而开发的。

设计

前瞻性队列研究。

地点

大学医院的 ICU。

患者

总共连续收治了 156 名年龄≥60 岁的外科患者,入住 ICU 的时间至少为 24 小时。

测量和主要结果

本研究得到了机构伦理委员会的批准。经过培训的工作人员每天独立地进行 ICU 意识混乱评估法(CAM-ICU)、护理谵妄筛查量表(Nu-DESC)和谵妄检测评分(DDS)。这些评估结果与使用精神障碍诊断与统计手册第四版(DSM-IV)的谵妄标准进行的参考标准进行了比较(对研究结果不知情)。在研究期间,156 名患者中有 63 名(40%)被参考标准确认为谵妄。使用 CAM-ICU 和 Nu-DESC,我们测量了相似的敏感性(CAM-ICU,81%;Nu-DESC,83%)。CAM-ICU 的特异性明显高于 Nu-DESC(96%比 81%,p<.01)。相比之下,DDS 的敏感性较低(30%),但特异性明显高于 Nu-DESC(DDS,91%;Nu-DESC,81%,p<.05)。CAM-ICU 的观察者间可靠性为“几乎完美”(kappa=0.89),DDS 和 Nu-DESC 的可靠性为“强”(kappa=0.79,0.68)。

结论

在评估的量表中,CAM-ICU 对识别 ICU 患者的谵妄显示出最佳的有效性。Nu-DESC 可能是检测 ICU 谵妄的替代工具。DDS 不应用作筛查工具。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验