Vater Vanessa, Olm Heinz-Peter, Nydahl Peter
Pflegeentwicklung/Nursing Research, Klinik für Neurologie und Neurochirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Frankfurt , Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt am Main, Deutschland.
Fakultät für Gesundheit und Pflege, Evangelische Hochschule Nürnberg, Nürnberg, Deutschland.
Med Klin Intensivmed Notfmed. 2024 Feb;119(1):49-55. doi: 10.1007/s00063-023-01013-y. Epub 2023 May 11.
Due to the complexity of the symptoms, delirium detection poses a challenge in stroke patients. A large body of literature has established that neurospecific challenges can have a considerable impact on diagnosis and are underrepresented in screening.
An analysis of current scientific literature on delirium screening tests and their applicability in stroke patients, acknowledging neurospecific challenges and evaluating diagnostic test accuracy.
A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library databases. Studies published between 2018 and 2021 were evaluated and the study quality was assessed according to the Institute for Clinical Systems Improvement. Furthermore, the specificity and sensitivity of delirium screening tests were pooled RESULTS: The systematic literature review found a total of 2636 articles, following a review of the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Thus, 18 moderate-quality studies with a total of 3320 patients and 9 distinct delirium screenings were identified. Within those 18 studies, the prevalence of delirium was 34.2%. However, the delirium prevalence was significantly lower in 6 studies that included patients with neurologic impairments (26.5 vs. 32.1%, p = 0.0004). Pooled sensitivity and specificity for the 4AT (Rapid assessment test for delirium ) were 82 and 77%, while these values were 72 and 93% for the CAM-ICU (Confusion Assessment Method for Intensive Care Units) and 79 and 72% for the ICDSC (Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist).
Neurological impairments may influence the test quality of delirium screening in stroke patients. The CAM-ICU can be recommended for nonaphasic patients. The ICDSC can be used in all stroke patients on stoke units with an adjusted cut-off value of > 5 points.
由于症状的复杂性,谵妄检测对中风患者来说是一项挑战。大量文献表明,神经特异性挑战会对诊断产生重大影响,且在筛查中未得到充分体现。
分析当前关于谵妄筛查测试及其在中风患者中适用性的科学文献,认识到神经特异性挑战并评估诊断测试的准确性。
在PubMed、CINAHL和Cochrane图书馆数据库中进行系统的文献检索。对2018年至2021年发表的研究进行评估,并根据临床系统改进研究所评估研究质量。此外,汇总谵妄筛查测试的特异性和敏感性。
经过对纳入和排除标准的审查,系统文献综述共找到2636篇文章。因此,确定了18项中等质量的研究,共3320名患者和9种不同的谵妄筛查方法。在这18项研究中,谵妄的患病率为34.2%。然而,在6项纳入神经功能障碍患者的研究中,谵妄患病率显著较低(26.5%对32.1%,p = 0.0004)。4AT(谵妄快速评估测试)的汇总敏感性和特异性分别为82%和77%,而CAM-ICU(重症监护病房谵妄评估方法)的这些值分别为72%和93%,ICDSC(重症监护谵妄筛查清单)的这些值分别为79%和72%。
神经功能障碍可能会影响中风患者谵妄筛查的测试质量。对于非失语患者,可推荐使用CAM-ICU。ICDSC可用于中风单元的所有中风患者,调整后的临界值>5分。