MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2087204091 · doi:10.1097/ccm.0000000000000727

Prevalence, Risk Factors, and Outcomes of Delirium in Mechanically Ventilated Adults*

2014· article· en· W2087204091 on OpenAlexafffund
Sangeeta Mehta, John W. Devlin, Yoanna Skrobik, Maureen O. Meade, Dean Fergusson, Margaret S. Herridge, Marilyn Steinberg, John Granton, Niall D. Ferguson, Maged Tanios, Peter Dodek, Robert Fowler, Karen E. A. Burns, Michael J. Jacka, Kendiss Olafson, Ranjeeta Mallick, Steven Reynolds, Sean Keenan, Lisa Burry

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Medicine · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalSunnybrook HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Alberta HospitalUniversity Health NetworkOttawa HospitalUniversity of OttawaMcMaster UniversityToronto General HospitalHamilton Health SciencesRoyal Columbian HospitalUniversité de MontréalSurrey Memorial HospitalAlberta Hospital EdmontonUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of ManitobaSt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonSt. Paul's HospitalHôpital Maisonneuve-RosemontInstitute for Work & HealthMount Sinai Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineDeliriumInterquartile rangeSedationMechanical ventilationAnesthesiaIntensive careAdverse effectIntensive care medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Delirium is common during critical illness and associated with adverse outcomes. We compared characteristics and outcomes of delirious and nondelirious patients enrolled in a multicenter trial comparing protocolized sedation with protocolized sedation plus daily sedation interruption. DESIGN: Randomized trial. SETTING: Sixteen North American medical and surgical ICUs. PATIENTS: Four hundred thirty critically ill, mechanically ventilated adults. INTERVENTIONS: All patients had hourly titration of opioid and benzodiazepine infusions using a validated sedation scale. For patients in the interruption group, infusions were resumed, if indicated, at half of previous doses. Delirium screening occurred daily; positive screening was defined as an Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist score of 4 or more at any time. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Delirium was diagnosed in 226 of 420 assessed patients (53.8%). Coma was identified in 32.7% of delirious compared with 22.7% of nondelirious patients (p = 0.03). The median time to onset of delirium was 3.5 days (interquartile range, 2-7), and the median duration of delirium was 2 days (interquartile range, 1-4). Delirious patients were more likely to be male (61.1% vs 46.6%; p = 0.005), have a surgical/trauma diagnosis (21.2% vs 11.0%; p = 0.030), and history of tobacco (31.5% vs 16.2%; p = 0.002) or alcohol use (34.6% vs 20.9%; p = 0.009). Patients with positive delirium screening had longer duration of ventilation (13 vs 7 d; p < 0.001), ICU stay (12 vs 8 d; p < 0.0001), and hospital stay (24 vs 15 d; p < 0.0001). Delirious patients were more likely to be physically restrained (86.3% vs 76.7%; p = 0.014) and undergo tracheostomy (34.6% vs 15.5%; p < 0.0001). Antecedent factors independently associated with delirium onset were restraint use (hazard ratio, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.33-2.63; p = 0.0003), antipsychotic administration (hazard ratio, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.005-2.767; p = 0.047), and midazolam dose (hazard ratio, 0.998; 95% CI, 0.997-1.0; p = 0.049). There was no difference in delirium prevalence or duration between the interruption and control groups. CONCLUSION: In mechanically ventilated adults, delirium was common and associated with longer duration of ventilation and hospitalization. Physical restraint was most strongly associated with delirium.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.289 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations342
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Care MedicineSame topicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive DisordersFrench-language works237,207