Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Validation of The Proxy Test for Delirium (PTD) Among delirious patients in King Khalid University Hospital (KKUH) in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Principle Investigator: Dr. Fahad Alosaimi. Co-Investigator(s): Dr. Bandar Althomali, Dr. Ayedh Alghamdi, Dr. Fadi Aljamaan, Amjad Albatili, Ghadah Alhammad, Latifah Albatly, Raya Alsuhaibani. Collage of Medicine - King Saud University. Introduction "Delirium is a serious neuropsychiatric syndrome characterized by acute and fluctuating in attention, other cognitive deficits and alternation in level of consciousness”. Delirium is being misdiagnosed and undetected in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) sittings. To overcome this problem validated highly sensitive tools are needed. The Proxy Test for Delirium (PTD) is a new tool to detect delirium in patients admitted to the ICU. Research Question Is the Proxy Test for Delirium (PTD) more sensitive and specific than the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) in screening for delirium? Objective and Hypothesis To validate PTD as a screening tool to detect delirium in patients admitted to the ICU by comparing it with Confusion assessment method (CAM) and clinical neuropsychiatric evaluation based on DSM-5 criteria performed by psychosomatic medicine specialist. Null hypothesis: PTD is as sensitive and specific in screening of delirium as CAM. Alternative hypothesis: PTD is superior to CAM in practicability and easy to use by nurse. Methodology (I) Study design: A cross-sectional approach. Study setting: Intensive care unit at King Khalid University Hospital. (KKUH) Sampling (size, type): 288 patients – 50 were collected in convenient sample. Sample Inclusion criteria: ICU Patients who are 18 years and above. Exclusion criteria: Patients unwilling to participate. Patient cannot communicate in Arabic or English. Patients “too sick” to participate. Methodology (II) Data collection tools: Three different delirium scales. PTD CAM Doctor’s assessment Score (6-24)= delirium Delirium Delirium 5 and less is not delirium Not Delirium Not Delirium All enrolled patients were separately and blindly screened for symptoms of delirium within 24 hours time limit: 1. The patient's primary nurse performed the PTD at the end of their shift (were trained in advance of the start of the study). 2. A trained research assistant (one of the medical students, the coinvestigators) performed CAM (were trained in advance of the start of the study). 3. A clinical neuropsychiatric evaluation based on DSM-5 criteria performed by Psychosomatic Medicine specialist. Methodology (III) Data management: The data was analyzed using SPSS and MedCalc programs. Descriptive statistic. Sensitivity, Specificity, PPV, NPV. ROC curve analysis. Ethical considerations: 1. IRB committee approval. 2. Written informed consent. Result (I) Table 1 (The relation between The Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) and the doctor’s assessment) CAM Disease + Disease - Total Sensitivity 53.33% CAM+ 8 0 8 Specificity 100.00% CAM- 7 35 42 PPV 1 Total 15 35 50 NPV 0.833 ROC curve analysis PTD Cut-off Score 100 Criterion 80 60 Sensitivity: 60.0 Specificity: 94.3 Criterion : >5 40 20 0 0 20 40 60 100-Specificity 80 100 Area under the ROC curve (AUC) = 0.776 95% confident interval = 0.636 to 0.882 Significance level P (area = 0.5) = 0.0010 Sensitivity 95% CI Specificity 95% CI +LR -LR >=0 100.00 78.2 - 100.0 0.00 0.0 - 10.0 1.00 >0 73.33 44.9 - 92.2 57.14 39.4 - 73.7 1.71 0.47 >0.5 73.33 44.9 - 92.2 60.00 42.1 - 76.1 1.83 0.44 >1 66.67 38.4 - 88.2 77.14 59.9 - 89.6 2.92 0.43 >2 66.67 38.4 - 88.2 82.86 66.4 - 93.4 3.89 0.40 >3 60.00 32.3 - 83.7 88.57 73.3 - 96.8 5.25 0.45 >5 * 60.00 32.3 - 83.7 94.29 80.8 - 99.3 10.50 0.42 >6 53.33 26.6 - 78.7 97.14 85.1 - 99.9 18.67 0.48 >7 53.33 26.6 - 78.7 100.00 90.0 - 100.0 0.47 >22 0.00 0.0 - 21.8 100.00 90.0 - 100.0 1.00 * Criterion corresponding with highest Youden index Result (II) Table 2 (The relation between The Proxy Test for Delirium (PTD) and the doctor’s assessment) Cut off 5 Disease + Disease - Total Sensitivity 60.00% PTD + 9 2 11 Specificity 94.29% PTD - 6 33 39 PPV 0.818 Total 15 35 50 NPV 0.846 Result (III) The result shows that the sensitivity of CAM was 53.33% and the specificity was 100.00%. The positive predictive value and the negative predictive value were 1 and 0.833, respectively. (table 1) Using a cutoff score more than 5, the PTD has sensitivity of 60.00%, specificity of 94.29%, positive predictive value of 0.818 and negative predictive value of 0.846. (table 2) Result (IV) Thus using PTD in detecting delirium cases in ICU patients is more sensitive and clinically significant in minimizing the misdiagnosed and undetected cases. In the other hand, CAM shown to be more specific and reliable in detecting delirium in ICU sittings which might help in confirming the diagnosis. The basic socio-demographic and clinical data were collected from patient’s chart, patient himself and/or family member if available. Gender Age Height and weight Marital Status Education level Type of ICU Place of Residence Smoking and other substance Reason of Admission Medications Vital signs and Lab results Medical and psychiatric illnesses Age Gender Mean Std. deviation 56.32 17.325 Marital Status Single 18% Females 30% Males 70% Married 82% Place of Residence Tabuk Almozahmya Alkharj 2% Albahah 2% 2% Najran 2% Alhotah 2% 2% Abqaiq Level of Education 2% Alqassim 4% Elementary 10% University 12% Secondary 30% Intermediate 14% Riyadh 82% illiterate 18% Other 16% Conclusion The PDT tool is a comprehensive, based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders-5 (DSM-5), yet easy to use. It eliminates the problem of a patient's lack or inability to cooperate with the examination. Using an observation based tools, such as the PTD, may help in early detection and diagnosis of delirium. Limitations: The shortage of ICU patients at King Khalid University Hospital (KKUH). This is could be due to shortage of beds and long hospitalization stay. We are planning to continue sampling until 2017, aiming to reach 288 participants. Recommendations: We recommend that future studies be carried out in multi-centers ICU settings to get more generalizable data. Acknowledgements Dr. Fahad Alosaimi, Associate professor, Psychiatry & Psychosomatic medicine consultant, department of Psychiatry. Dr. Fadi Aljamaan, Assistant Professor in Critical Care Department, ICU consultant, Mr. Zakria Almasri, Nurse educator, nursing department. ICU Nurse staff. References 1. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 4th ed. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association; 2000. 2. Leigh H, Streltzer J. Handbook of consultation-liaison psychiatry. New York: Springer; 2007. 3. Van Rompaey B, Schuurmans M, Shortridge-Baggett L, Truijen S, Elseviers M, Bossaert L. A comparison of the CAM-ICU and the NEECHAM Confusion Scale in intensive care delirium assessment: an observational study in non-intubated patients. Critical Care. 2008;12(1):R16. 4. Tomasi C, Grandi C, Salluh J, Soares M, Giombelli V, Cascaes S et al. Comparison of CAM-ICU and ICDSC for the detection of delirium in critically ill patients focusing on relevant clinical outcomes. Journal of Critical Care. 2012;27(2):212-217. 5. Adamis D. Concurrent validity of two instruments (the Confusion Assessment Method and the Delirium Rating Scale) in the detection of delirium among older medical inpatients. Age and Ageing. 2005;34(1):7275. 6. Luetz A, Heymann A, Radtke F, Chenitir C, Neuhaus U, Nachtigall I et al. Different assessment tools for intensive care unit delirium: Which score to use?*. Critical Care Medicine. 2010;38(2):409-418.