Reznik Michael E, Margolis Seth A, Andrews Nicholas, Basso Colin, Mintz Noa, Varga Sean, Snitz Beth E, Girard Timothy D, Shutter Lori A, Ely E Wesley, Jones Richard N
Center for Research, Investigation, and Systems Modeling of Acute Illness (CRISMA), University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA.
Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA.
Crit Care Med. 2024 Dec 1;52(12):1918-1927. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000006437. Epub 2024 Oct 4.
Neurocritically ill patients are at high risk for developing delirium, which can worsen the long-term outcomes of this vulnerable population. However, existing delirium assessment tools do not account for neurologic deficits that often interfere with conventional testing and are therefore unreliable in neurocritically ill patients. We aimed to determine the accuracy and predictive validity of the Fluctuating Mental Status Evaluation (FMSE), a novel delirium screening tool developed specifically for neurocritically ill patients.
Prospective validation study.
Neurocritical care unit at an academic medical center.
One hundred thirty-nine neurocritically ill stroke patients (mean age, 63.9 [ sd , 15.9], median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score 11 [interquartile range, 2-17]).
None.
Expert raters performed daily Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition-based delirium assessments, while paired FMSE assessments were performed by trained clinicians. We analyzed 717 total noncomatose days of paired assessments, of which 52% ( n = 373) were rated by experts as days with delirium; 53% of subjects were delirious during one or more days. Compared with expert ratings, the overall accuracy of the FMSE was high (area under the curve [AUC], 0.85; 95% CI, 0.82-0.87). FMSE scores greater than or equal to 1 had 86% sensitivity and 74% specificity on a per-assessment basis, while scores greater than or equal to 2 had 70% sensitivity and 88% specificity. Accuracy remained high in patients with aphasia (FMSE ≥ 1: 82% sensitivity, 64% specificity; FMSE ≥ 2: 64% sensitivity, 84% specificity) and those with decreased arousal (FMSE ≥ 1: 87% sensitivity, 77% specificity; FMSE ≥ 2: 71% sensitivity, 90% specificity). Positive FMSE assessments also had excellent accuracy when predicting functional outcomes at discharge (AUC, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.79-0.93]) and 3 months (AUC, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.78-0.92]).
In this validation study, we found that the FMSE was an accurate delirium screening tool in neurocritically ill stroke patients. FMSE scores greater than or equal to 1 indicate "possible" delirium and should be used when prioritizing sensitivity, whereas scores greater than or equal to 2 indicate "probable" delirium and should be used when prioritizing specificity.
神经重症患者发生谵妄的风险很高,这可能会使这一脆弱人群的长期预后恶化。然而,现有的谵妄评估工具未考虑经常干扰传统测试的神经功能缺损,因此在神经重症患者中不可靠。我们旨在确定波动精神状态评估(FMSE)的准确性和预测效度,这是一种专门为神经重症患者开发的新型谵妄筛查工具。
前瞻性验证研究。
一所学术医疗中心的神经重症监护病房。
139例神经重症中风患者(平均年龄63.9岁[标准差15.9],美国国立卫生研究院卒中量表评分中位数为11分[四分位间距,2 - 17])。
无。
专家评估人员每天根据《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第五版进行谵妄评估,同时由经过培训的临床医生进行配对FMSE评估。我们分析了717个配对评估的非昏迷日,其中52%(n = 373)被专家评定为谵妄日;53%的受试者在一个或多个日子出现谵妄。与专家评定相比,FMSE的总体准确性较高(曲线下面积[AUC]为0.85;95%置信区间,0.82 - 0.87)。每次评估时,FMSE评分大于或等于1分的敏感度为86%,特异度为74%,而评分大于或等于2分的敏感度为70%,特异度为88%。在失语患者(FMSE≥1:敏感度82%,特异度64%;FMSE≥2:敏感度64%,特异度84%)和觉醒降低的患者(FMSE≥1:敏感度87%,特异度77%;FMSE≥2:敏感度71%,特异度90%)中,准确性仍然很高。FMSE阳性评估在预测出院时(AUC为0.86[95%置信区间,从0.79至0.93])和3个月时(AUC为0.85[95%置信区间,0.78 - 0.92])的功能结局方面也具有出色的准确性。
在这项验证研究中,我们发现FMSE是神经重症中风患者准确的谵妄筛查工具。FMSE评分大于或等于1分表示“可能”谵妄,在优先考虑敏感度时应使用,而评分大于或等于2分表示“很可能”谵妄,在优先考虑特异度时应使用。