Abstract
Purpose
A systematic review of the literature was conducted to determine the effects of early cognitive interventions on delirium outcomes in critically ill patients.
Source
Search strategies were developed for MEDLINE, EMBASE, Joanna Briggs Institute, Cochrane, Scopus, and CINAHL databases. Eligible studies described the application of early cognitive interventions for delirium prevention or treatment within any intensive care setting. Study designs included randomized-controlled trials, quasi-experimental trials, and pre/post interventional trials. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias using Cochrane methodology.
Principal findings
Four hundred and four citations were found. Seven full-text articles were included in the final review. Six of the included studies had an overall serious, high, or critical risk of bias. After application of cognitive intervention protocols, a significant reduction in delirium incidence, duration, occurrence, and development was found in four studies. Feasibility of cognitive interventions was measured in three studies. Cognitive stimulation techniques were described in the majority of studies.
Conclusion
The study of early cognitive interventions in critically ill patients was identified in a small number of studies with limited sample sizes. An overall high risk of bias and variability within protocols limit the utility of the findings for widespread practice implications. This review may help to promote future large, multi-centre trials studying the addition of cognitive interventions to current delirium prevention practices. The need for robust data is essential to support the implementation of early cognitive interventions protocols.
Résumé
Objectif
Une revue systématique de la littérature a été réalisée afin de déterminer les effets des interventions cognitives précoces sur l’évolution du delirium chez les patients en état critique.
Source
Des stratégies de recherche ont été mises au point pour explorer les bases de données MEDLINE, EMBASE, Joanna Briggs Institute, Cochrane, Scopus et CINAHL. Les études éligibles devaient décrire l’application d’interventions cognitives précoces pour la prévention ou le traitement du delirium dans un contexte de soins intensifs. Les types d’études retenues incluaient des études randomisées contrôlées, des études quasi expérimentales et des études pré-/post-interventionnelles. En se fondant sur la méthodologie Cochrane, deux réviseurs ont extrait les données et évalué le risque de biais de manière indépendante.
Constatations principales
Quatre cent quatre citations ont été extraites. Sept articles ont été retenus pour le compte rendu final. Six des études incluses présentaient un risque global de biais majeur, élevé ou critique. Après l’application des protocoles d’interventions cognitives, quatre études ont noté une réduction significative de l’incidence, de la durée, de la survenue et de l’apparition de delirium. Trois études ont mesuré la faisabilité des interventions cognitives. La majorité des études décrivaient les techniques de stimulation cognitive.
Conclusion
Nous sommes parvenus à identifier quelques études ayant des tailles d’échantillon limitées décrivant des interventions cognitives précoces chez les patients en état critique. Un risque global élevé de biais et de variabilité au sein des protocoles limite toutefois l’utilité de ces observations pour leurs applications dans la pratique. Ce compte rendu pourrait susciter l’intérêt de chercheurs pour réaliser des études d’envergure et multicentriques examinant l’ajout d’interventions cognitives aux pratiques actuelles de prévention du delirium. Le besoin de données robustes est crucial pour soutenir la mise en œuvre de protocoles précoces d’interventions cognitives.
Similar content being viewed by others
Delirium is an acute neurologic disorder marked by inattention and a fluctuating course of altered level of consciousness that can occur as a result of medical illness, medical treatment (e.g., pharmacotherapy), and withdrawal of substances (e.g., alcohol).1,2 Delirium rates in the intensive care unit (ICU) vary widely (20–80%).1,3,4 Intensive care unit delirium is associated with increased morbidity, mortality, healthcare costs, and a longer duration of mechanical ventilation.1,2,3,5,6,7 Prolonged delirium in the ICU is a risk factor for the development of post-intensive care syndrome characterized by new or worsened impairments in physical, cognitive, and mental health.8,9,10 In addition, delirium is an independent predictor of cognitive impairment and is associated with poor functional and cognitive recovery following critical illness.3,6 Best practice guidelines place emphasis on detection and severity measurement of ICU delirium using validated tools such as the Confusion Method Assessment for the ICU (CAM-ICU) or the Intensive Care Delirium Scoring Checklist (ICDSC).11 Such tools underpin research endeavors, and more importantly, the diagnosis and potential treatment of delirium.
In general, pharmacologic management has not been proven to prevent or shorten the duration of delirium in critically ill patients; in fact, evidence shows certain medication classes should be avoided because of the risk of potentiating delirium (e.g., benzodiazepines, anticholinergics, tricyclic antidepressants, and first generation antihistamines).11,12 While antipsychotic medications have no proven efficacy, dexmedetomidine may decrease the duration of delirium when compared with placebo in mechanically ventilated patients with agitated delirium.12,13
Emerging evidence points towards the benefits of non-pharmacologic interventions for the prevention and management of delirium.11,14 Cognitive interventions are evidenced-based strategies targeting cognitive domains impacted by delirium such as orientation, memory, abstract thinking, and executive function.15,16 Traditionally used in Alzheimer’s disease, dementia, stroke and traumatic brain injury, cognitive interventions encompass the clinically distinct concepts of cognitive training, cognitive stimulation, and cognitive rehabilitation (Table 1).17,18,19 Cognitive training involves guidance with standardized tasks that focus on specific domains (i.e., memory or executive function) and can occur in individual- or group settings.16 Cognitive stimulation improves general cognitive and social functioning by engaging patients in a range of group activities (i.e., reality orientation, word searches, or board games).16,17,18 In practice, cognitive training and stimulation exercises may overlap, and include memory training using visual imagery and metacognitive training using self-awareness and self-regulation approaches to recover executive functioning.17,19,20 Finally, cognitive rehabilitation is an individualized approach to improve functional ability and autonomy with a focus on optimizing residual cognitive abilities.17,18 The Cognitive Reserve Theory—interventions targeting remaining cognitive reserve to stimulate activity-dependent neuroplasticity—underlies the use of cognitive interventions in elderly dementia patients with delirium.21,22 Similarly, cognitive interventions in critically ill patients with delirium, or those at risk of developing delirium, may stimulate neuronal plasticity thereby enhancing cognitive function.15,22
Recent clinical studies assessed various non-pharmacological interventions combined with physical rehabilitation for delirium prevention.23,24,25 This systematic review will focus on the elements of early cognitive interventions and their effects on delirium outcomes such as incidence, duration, and severity in critically ill patients.
Methods
Types of articles included in the study
Methodology for this review conformed to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines (Figure 1).26 The populations of interest were critically ill or intensive care patients. We defined the intervention as any therapies, strategies, or rehabilitation exercises directed at improving patient cognition or the domains of cognition. Examples of interventions included repeated tasks, games, skills, or questions such as orientation exercises in both writing and/or verbal exercises. We sought to find studies comparing patients who received the intervention and those that did not, and reported on our primary outcome of interest—delirium. This review included original research articles such as randomized-controlled trials (RCT), quasi-experimental trials (i.e., non-RCT), observational trials, and pre/post intervention trials describing the application of cognitive interventions early in the ICU stay, as well as reporting on the burden (i.e., incidence, prevalence, severity) of delirium according to validated tools such as the CAM-ICU or ICDSC.11 English language publications studying either pediatric or adult critically ill populations were chosen.
Exclusion criteria
Editorials, commentaries, review articles, case studies, non-interventional study designs, and grey literature were excluded. Non-English articles were excluded. Articles focusing only on cognitive interventions following hospital discharge (i.e., outpatients) were excluded as we sought to assess interventions applied early during critical illness.
Search strategy
Search strategies were developed by K.D. and reviewed by a health sciences librarian. The search was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Joanna Briggs Institute, Cochrane, Scopus, and CINAHL databases. Medical subject heading (MeSH) terms and key words were used including three key concepts: cognitive interventions, delirium prevention, and critical care. Limitations included English language articles. There were no date restrictions. Search terms were detailed according to database MeSH terms (Appendix A). The initial search was conducted by the primary investigator (K.D.). Search results were managed using Endnote.
Screening methods and data extraction
Two reviewers (K.D. and J.P.) manually screened in duplicate titles and abstracts for predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Titles and abstracts lacking sufficient information for inclusion were reviewed in full-text form. Disagreements were resolved by a third-party reviewer (K.Z.). Articles were chosen for full-text review after assessment of inclusion criteria for study population, study comparison, and study outcomes. Subsequently, two investigators (K.D. and J.P.) independently reviewed full-text articles for final data extraction and analysis. Interrater reliability was measured using Cohen’s Kappa (κ) where ≤ 0 indicates no agreement and 1 indicates perfect agreement.27
Data extraction
Data extraction was conducted independently and in duplicate by two reviewers (K.D. and K.Z.) using a data extraction table that included study methodology, population, objectives, country of origin, specific cognitive interventions conducted, the healthcare professionals conducting interventions, outcomes measured (e.g., delirium incidence, severity and duration), study limitations, and key findings.
Risk of bias assessment
Two authors (K.D. and K.Z.) independently assessed all RCTs using the Cochrane Collaboration’s Risk of Bias Tool as described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.28 The following six domains were analyzed: random sequence generation; allocation concealment; blinding of participants; personnel and outcome assessors; how incomplete outcome data were addressed; selective outcome reporting; and other sources of bias (such as baseline imbalances). Each domain was judged as “low”, “high”, or “unclear” risk by a using a specific set of criteria outlined in the handbook. Conclusions regarding the overall risk of bias were derived from the individual domain judgements and the effect on the primary outcome.28 Randomized-controlled trials judged to be at high risk of bias were deemed to have high risk for one or more key domain.
Similarly, all three non- RCTs were independently assessed using the Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool by K.D. and K.Z.29 The ROBINS-I is the preferred tool of the Cochrane Scientific Committee and uses seven domains to assess risk: bias due to confounding; bias in selection of participants into the study; bias in classification of interventions; bias due to deviations from intended interventions; bias due to missing data; bias in measurement of outcomes; and bias in selection of the reported result.29 Individual domains are graded as “low-“, “moderate-“, “serious-“ or “critical-“ risk of bias or “no information”. An overall risk of bias judgement (low, moderate, serious, or critical) is ascertained after each domain is addressed. Non-randomized-controlled trials with serious or critical risk of bias in a key domain were judged overall as having a serious or critical risk of bias. Disagreements in risk of bias results for both RCTs and non-RCTs were reviewed by a third author (S.O.) and final consensus was reached after discussion. Results are presented in both synthesized (Tables 2 and 3) and descriptive formats (Appendix B).
Data synthesis
A narrative format was chosen for the presentation of findings. A meta-analysis was not pursued because of heterogeneity of interventions, outcomes, and study designs.
Results
The search yielded 404 articles; 138 duplicate articles were eliminated leaving 266 for further consideration (Figure 1). Of these, two hundred and thirty-three articles were removed after title and abstract review for failure to meet inclusion criteria (good agreement was met after title and abstract review; κ = 0.68), leaving 33 publications. Following full-text review, 26 articles were excluded as they did not meet criteria for study design, article type, or lacked a study focus of cognitive interventions applied early during a period of critical illness (full agreement was met after full-text review; κ = 1.0). Our literature search yielded seven articles for in-depth analysis (Table 4). No articles were excluded from the final review and data extraction based on risk of bias judgement.
Article characteristics
All articles were published between 2014 and 2018, included patients over 16 yr of age, and were conducted in single-centre mixed medical/surgical ICUs. Four articles were RCTs,30,31,32,33 one was a pre-post intervention trial,34 and two were multi-phase prospective observational studies.35,36 Three studies were conducted in the United States31,33,34; with the remainder in Chile,30 Australia,32 Italy,35 and the Netherlands.36
Risk of bias in individual studies
Six of seven studies included in this review were deemed to have either a critical, serious, or high risk of bias.31,32,33,34,35,36 Only one article was assessed as low risk in all domains (Tables 2 and 3).30 We chose to include one study which had an overall critical risk of bias because it focused on the individual elements of cognitive interventions.36 One RCT did not include enough information to determine if patient allocation was properly concealed or if there was blinding of personnel, participants, or outcome evaluators. Therefore, performance bias was possible and the overall judgement of bias was deemed unclear.33 Of the studies that reported delirium outcomes, two were judged as having serious bias and one as having an unclear risk of bias (Tables 2 and 3).33,34,35 Notably, moderate to serious bias was detected in all three non-RCTs within the domain of outcome measurements.34,35,36 Two studies did not adequately describe a difference in personnel assessing outcomes and those delivering the intervention (Appendix B).35,36
Delirium outcomes
Four of the seven studies reported results on delirium outcomes after cognitive interventions (Table 4).30,33,34,35 There was wide variation in the types of outcomes reported (i.e., delirium incidence, duration, occurrence and development; delirium-free days; delirium severity; and time to develop delirium). Alverez et al.30 conducted an RCT of 140 elderly ICU patients and reported a reduced delirium incidence (20% in the control group vs 3% in experimental group) after implementation of an occupational therapy led cognitive intervention protocol that included stimulation, rehabilitation, and training exercises (P = 0.001). Rivosecchi et al.34 included cognitive stimulation in a non-pharmacological delirium prevention bundle, and reported a reduced incidence of delirium between phase I (15.7%) and phase II (9.4%) of the study (P = 0.04). Additionally, a reduction in delirium duration was reported by Alverez et al.30 [incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.15, P < 0.001; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.12 to 0.19) vs IRR 6.7 (P < 0.001; 95% CI, 5.23 to 8.3) in the treatment group]; and by Rivosecchi et al.34 who reported a 51% reduction in delirium hours (P < 0.001). Colombo et al.35 showed a significant reduction in the occurrence of delirium (36% phase I vs 22% in phase II) after introducing a cognitive simulation protocol that included orientation, environmental, acoustic, and visual interventions (P = 0.020). While controlling for dementia, APACHE II, and mechanical ventilation, Rivosecchi et al.34 concluded patients were less likely to develop delirium after administration of a non-pharmacologic bundle that included music, exposure to daylight, orientation, and visual and hearing aids (P = 0.005). Munro et al.33 conducted a three-arm RCT of 30 patients testing a family led intervention via voice recordings and found an increase in mean delirium-free days in the family voice recording group (1.9 days) vs the control group (1.6 days; P = 0.04). Alvarez et al.30 also measured delirium severity using a delirium rating scale and there was no significant difference in mean delirium scores (10 points in control group vs 9 points in experimental group, P = 0.7). There was no significant difference in the mean time until development of delirium as reported by Rivosecchi et al. between phase I (58.5 hr) and phase II (53.8 hr) (P = 0.7).34
The remaining three studies, although underpowered to assess delirium outcomes, assessed the feasibility of interventions or estimated an appropriate sample size for future studies (Table 4).28,29,33 For example, Brummel et al.31 showed that early cognitive therapy in critically ill patients is not only feasible but also safe and appropriate for both mechanically and non-mechanically ventilated patients (95% of patients received early cognitive therapy on at least one study day; 78% of possible cognitive therapy sessions were completed). Mitchell et al.32 showed that a family-oriented cognitive intervention is feasible and acceptable but a low family recruitment rate was reported (28%). Finally, Wassenaar et al.36 showed the feasibility of nursing-led cognitive training exercises that are practical and non-burdensome (nursing median Likert scale: 3.5–5.0; patient median Likert scale range: 3.3–5.0).
Cognitive interventions
Cognitive intervention protocols consisted of either training, stimulation, rehabilitation, or a combination of all three (Table 5). Two studies utilized all three categories of cognitive interventions, which accounted for more varied protocols targeting several cognitive domains.30,31 The majority of studies (six) included cognitive stimulation (i.e., orientation activities and environmental stimulation).32,33,34,35 Cognitive training exercises were employed in three studies and included memory and visuospatial construction games and games targeting enhancement of attention.30,31,36 Specific cognitive domains were targeted because of common impairments seen in delirium. These domains were identified in five studies and included orientation, memory, visual perception, problem solving, executive function, attention, and processing speed (Table 5).30,31,33,34,36 Two studies titrated their cognitive intervention protocol according to the level of sedation of the patient (as assessed by the Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale [RASS], Appendix C)37 that permitted staged advancement of task difficulty.31,36 Neither study mentioned cognitive interventions that were attempted in patients showing the deepest levels of sedation (i.e., RASS -3 to -5).
Delivering cognitive interventions
Healthcare professionals (physicians, occupational therapists, nurses) were involved in delivering cognitive interventions in a majority of studies (Table 5).31,32,33,34,35,36 Nevertheless, Mitchell et al.32 studied interventions conducted by family members in the form of orientation, cognitive, and sensory stimulation. The participation of family in cognitive interventions was considered in three studies and included direct patient interactions such as participating in activities of daily living, voice-recorded messages, and orientation exercises (Table 5).30,32,33
Discussion
Impact of cognitive intervention on delirium outcomes
We found insufficient evidence to support the use of early cognitive interventions in the prevention or management of delirium in critically ill patients. Only seven small studies were identified examining early cognitive interventions in critically ill patients. Four articles variably reported a reduction in delirium incidence, duration, occurrence, severity, and an increase in delirium-free days.30,33,34,35 The remaining three studies only considered the feasibility of implementing a prevention program and did not report on delirium outcomes.31,32,36 Furthermore, six of seven studies identified in our review had a serious, high, or critical risk of bias, which impacts conclusions on delirium outcomes. The implementation of cognitive interventions in critically ill patients is relatively new; there were no publications prior to 2014 that met our inclusion criteria.
Delirium can have serious negative consequences in ICU patients, and as of yet there are no specific interventions—pharmacologic or non-pharmacologic—that reliably prevent its development.38,39 Nevertheless, there is an emerging body of evidence that suggests the utility of multimodal delirium prevention programs that includes the incorporation of a non-pharmacologic, multidisciplinary team approach.14,23,24,40 For example, early rehabilitation reduces the number of patients who develop delirium and shortens duration of delirium when it manifests.23,24 Incorporating early rehabilitation using a multimodal, multidisciplinary approach improves the management of delirium.11,40,41 The “ABCDEF” bundle consists of Assessment, prevention and management of pain; Both spontaneous awakening and Breathing trials; Choice of sedation/analgesia; Delirium monitoring and management; Early mobility; and Family engagement and empowerment.40 Higher bundle compliance is associated with improved survival and more delirium-free days.40 Specific interventions such as minimizing restraint use, reducing noise, increasing daylight exposure, and promoting orientation and sleep are non-pharmacologic options for delirium prevention as part of a multimodal bundle.12 The application of individual components of delirium prevention bundles in critically ill patients (specifically early physical and occupational therapy with a focus on functional mobility and activities of daily living) have shortened the duration of delirium.23 Notably, it has been deemed safe and feasible to conduct physiotherapy even on patients receiving advanced life support treatments such as extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.42 Nevertheless, studies of other non-pharmacologic therapies such as early cognitive interventions are lacking.
Types of cognitive interventions
Among the studies we identified, there was wide variation in the specific components of cognitive intervention protocols, which limits generalizability of their findings and comparison of their effects. Only two articles contained protocols that included cognitive stimulation, training and rehabilitation strategies based on the rationale that several cognitive domains are affected by delirium and should be targeted for therapy.30,31 This review found a limited number of studies with small sample sizes and overall high risk of bias. Therefore, it is not reasonable to draw conclusions regarding the specific type, dose, or component of cognitive interventions or if they would be efficacious in delirium prevention and management. This is especially true given the heterogeneity of populations reported across studies. Further study is necessary to test a standardized cognitive intervention protocol that may encompass cognitive stimulation, cognitive training, and cognitive rehabilitation exercises. Additionally, appreciation of the patient’s baseline cognitive and pre-morbid status is necessary to tailor cognitive interventions appropriately in diverse critically ill populations.
Two studies discussed titration of cognitive interventions according to a standardized agitation-sedation scale.31,36 Nevertheless, neither study mentions cognitive interventions at the deepest levels of sedation. Not uncommonly, ICU patients require various medications for sedation and analgesia, and it is not clear whether cognitive interventions at various levels of sedation can be of benefit with regard to delirium outcomes.11 In a systematic review of adult critical care survivors diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, post-traumatic responses were strongly linked to the development of delusional memories, which are more likely to develop in patients who are deeply sedated.43,44 Future research may reveal whether delusional memories can be ameliorated using cognitive interventions, and whether these interventions should be considered at all levels of sedation.
Professionals and family members delivering cognitive interventions
A variety of healthcare professionals were identified in the delivery of cognitive interventions in the majority of studies; however, direct family involvement with cognitive interventions was considered in three studies.30,32,33 Such involvement dovetails nicely with changing attitudes regarding family participation in patients treated in a critical care setting. Our review indicates that family participation in delirium prevention strategies can complement those performed by nurses and other healthcare professionals.45 Family member participation may be particularly beneficial because of the personalized nature of cognitive stimulation, knowledge of the patient, and familiarity of voice.32,46 Additionally, family members may personally benefit from being able to directly participate in patient care and so gain a sense of purpose and control. Family involvement in the care of critically ill patients is an underutilized resource that certainly merits further consideration and study. While one identified study deemed cognitive interactions feasible and non-burdensome to nursing,36 future methodologically-robust research may determine if these interventions are indeed feasible for a variety of patient populations, sedation levels, nursing workloads, and severity of illnesses. Assessment of the combination of input from healthcare providers and family members is essential before providing recommendations that could be tailored to resources available within individual ICUs. Feasibility studies included in this review may assist with protocol development of future RCTs, such as the study by Mitchell et al.32 who provided a sample size estimate of 596 (80% power; P = 0.05). Additional studies are needed to elucidate the value of a standardized, multimodal cognitive intervention protocol combined with pharmacologic delirium prevention measures to determine the effect on delirium in critically ill patients.
Limitations
This systematic review has several limitations. The studies included in this review were deemed to have critical, serious, or high risk of bias, limiting overarching conclusions on the effects of cognitive interventions. Additionally, the majority of articles were pilot or feasibility studies; therefore, it would be premature to form conclusions on delirium outcomes. Cross study conclusions regarding cognitive interventions were not possible because of the large variation in populations of critically ill patients included in the studies (e.g., ventilation status, ages, and severity of illness). There was considerable variation in the types of cognitive interventions used; therefore, it is not possible to compare these and recommend any single intervention or protocol. This review studied only English articles so there may be additional evidence available that we did not include. Finally, our review may be further limited by the databases we interrogated; while we searched six major databases, additional relevant studies may be available from sources not indexed in these chosen databases.
Conclusion
Early cognitive intervention for delirium prevention and management is a relatively new focus of research and insufficient evidence is available supporting its use critically ill patients. Larger, multi-centre trials that study standardized cognitive intervention protocols are needed to examine the effects on delirium outcomes in a range of ICU populations, levels of sedation, and healthcare professionals. It is anticipated that a considerable level of resources, training, and support would be required to implement additional non-pharmacologic interventions into current delirium prevention bundles.
References
Jackson P, Khan A. Delirium in critically ill patients. Crit Care Clin 2015; 31: 589-603.
Girard TD, Pandharipande PP, Ely EW. Delirium in the intensive care unit. Crit Care 2008. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/cc6149.
Bulic D, Bennett M, Shehabi Y. Delirium in the intensive care unit and long-term cognitive and psychosocial functioning: literature review. Austr J Adv Nurs 2015; 33: 44-52.
Pandharipande P, Cotton BA, Shintani A, et al. Prevalence and risk factors for development of delirium in surgical and trauma intensive care unit patients. J Trauma 2008; 65: 34-41.
Ely EW, Shintani A, Truman B, et al. Delirium as a predictor of mortality in mechanically ventilated patients in the intensive care unit. JAMA 2004; 291: 1753-62.
Salluh JI, Wang H, Schneider EB, et al. Outcome of delirium in critically ill patients: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 2015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h2538.
Shehabi Y, Riker RR, Bokesch PM, et al. Delirium duration and mortality in lightly sedated, mechanically ventilated intensive care patients. Crit Care Med 2010; 38: 2311-8.
Girard TD, Jackson JC, Pandharipande PP, et al. Delirium as a predictor of long-term cognitive impairment in survivors of critical illness. Crit Care Med 2010; 38: 1513-20.
Morandi A, Jackson JC, Ely EW. Delirium in the intensive care unit. Int Rev Psychiatry 2009; 21: 43-58.
Davidson JE, Harvey MA, Bemis-Dougherty A, Smith JM, Hopkins RO. Implementation of the pain, agitation, and delirium clinical practice guidelines and promoting patient mobility to prevent post-intensive care syndrome. Crit Care Med 2013: 41:(9 Suppl 1): S136-45.
Devlin JW, Skrobik Y, Gelinas C, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for the prevention and management of pain, agitation/sedation, delirium, immobility, and sleep disruption in adult patients in the ICU. Crit Care Med 2018; 46: e825-73.
Reznik ME, Slooter AJ. Delirium management in the ICU. Curr Treat Options Neurol 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11940-019-0599-5.
Reade MC, Eastwood GM, Bellomo R, et al. Effect of dexmedetomidine added to standard care on ventilator-free time in patients with agitated delirium: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2016; 315: 1460-8.
Barr J, Fraser GL, Puntillo K, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for the management of pain, agitation, and delirium in adult patients in the intensive care unit. Crit Care Med 2013; 41: 263-306.
Kolanowski AM, Hill N, Clare L, Marx P. Practical protocol for implementing cognitive stimulation in persons with delirium superimposed on dementia. Nonpharmacol Ther Dement 2012; 2: 101-10.
Clare L, Woods RT. Cognitive training and cognitive rehabilitation for people with early-stage Alzheimer’s disease: a review. Neuropsychol Rehabil 2004; 14: 385-401.
Bahar-Fuchs A, Clare L, Woods B. Cognitive training and cognitive rehabilitation for persons with mild to moderate dementia of the Alzheimer’s or vascular type: a review. Alzheimers Res Ther 2013. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/alzrt189.
Germain S, Wojtasik V, Lekeu F, et al. Efficacy of cognitive rehabilitation in Alzheimer disease: a 1-year follow-up study. J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol 2019; 32: 16-23.
Cicerone KD, Langenbahn DM, Braden C, et al. Evidence-based cognitive rehabilitation: updated review of the literature from 2003 through 2008. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2011; 92: 519-30.
Robert A, Gelinas I, Mazer B. Occupational therapists use of cognitive interventions for clients with Alzheimer’s disease. Occup Ther Int 2010; 17: 10-9.
McDougall GJ Jr. A framework for cognitive interventions targeting everyday memory performance and memory self-efficacy. Fam Community Health 2009; 32(1 Suppl): S15-26.
Kolanowski AM, Fick DM, Clare L, Therrien B, Gill DJ. An intervention for delirium superimposed on dementia based on cognitive reserve theory. Aging Ment Health 2010; 14: 232-42.
Schweickert WD, Pohlman MC, Pohlman AS, et al. Early physical and occupational therapy in mechanically ventilated, critically ill patients: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2009; 373: 1874-82.
Needham DM, Korupolu R, Zanni JM, et al. Early physical medicine and rehabilitation for patients with acute respiratory failure: a quality improvement project. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2010; 91: 536-42.
Patel J, Baldwin J, Bunting P, Laha S. The effect of a multicomponent multidisciplinary bundle of interventions on sleep and delirium in medical and surgical intensive care patients. Anaesthesia 2014; 69: 540-9.
Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol 2009; 62: e1-34.
McHugh ML. Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochem Med (Zagreb) 2012; 22: 276-82.
Higgins JP. Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JP, Altman DG, Sterne JA, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Chinchester (UK): John Wiley & Sons; 2008. p. 188-236.
Sterne JA, Hernan MA, Reeves BC, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ 2016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i4919.
Alvarez EA, Garrido MA, Tobar EA, et al. Occupational therapy for delirium management in elderly patients without mechanical ventilation in an intensive care unit: a pilot randomized clinical trial. J Crit Care 2017; 37: 85-90.
Brummel NE, Girard TD, Ely EW, et al. Feasibility and safety of early combined cognitive and physical therapy for critically ill medical and surgical patients: the Activity and Cognitive Therapy in ICU (ACT-ICU) trial. Intensive Care Med 2014; 40: 370-9.
Mitchell ML, Kean S, Rattray JE, et al. A family intervention to reduce delirium in hospitalised ICU patients: a feasibility randomised controlled trial. Intensive Crit Care Nurs 2017; 40: 77-84.
Munro CL, Cairns P, Ji M, Calero K, Anderson WM, Liang Z. Delirium prevention in critically ill adults through an automated reorientation intervention - a pilot randomized controlled trial. Heart Lung 2017; 46: 234-8.
Rivosecchi RM, Kane-Gill SL, Svec S, Campbell S, Smithburger PL. The implementation of a nonpharmacologic protocol to prevent intensive care delirium. J Crit Care 2016; 31: 206-11.
Colombo R, Corona A, Praga F, et al. A reorientation strategy for reducing delirium in the critically ill. Results of an interventional study. Minerva Anestesiol 2012; 78: 1026-33.
Wassenaar A, Rood P, Boelen D, Schoonhoven L, Pickkers P, van den Boogaard M. Feasibility of cognitive training in critically ill patients: a pilot study. Am J Crit Care 2018; 27: 124-35.
Sessler CN, Gosnell MS, Grap MJ, et al. The Richmond agitation-sedation scale: validity and reliability in adult intensive care unit patients. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2002; 166: 1338-44.
Korenoski A, Li A, Kane-Gill SL, Seybert AL, Smithburger PL. Pharmacologic management of delirium in the ICU: a review of the literature. J Intensive Care Med 2018; 35: 107-17.
Burry L, Hutton B, Williamson DR, et al. Pharmacological interventions for the treatment of delirium in critically ill adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011749.pub2.
Barnes-Daly MA, Phillips G, Ely EW. Improving hospital survival and reducing brain dysfunction at seven California community hospitals: implementing PAD guidelines via the ABCDEF bundle in 6,064 patients. Crit Care Med 2017; 45: 171-8.
Balas MC, Vasilevskis EE, Olsen KM, et al. Effectiveness and safety of the awakening and breathing coordination, delirium monitoring/management, and early exercise/mobility (ABCDE) bundle. Crit Care Med 2014; 42: 1024-36.
Wells CL, Forrester J, Vogel J, Rector R, Tabatabai A, Herr D. Safety and feasibility of early physical therapy for patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenator: University of Maryland Medical Center experience. Crit Care Med 2018; 46: 53-9.
Morrissey M, Collier E. Literature review of post-traumatic stress disorder in the critical care population. J Clin Nurs 2016; 25: 1501-4.
Rattray J, Crocker C, Jones M, Connaghan J. Patients’ perceptions of and emotional outcome after intensive care: results from a multicentre study. Nurs Crit Care 2010; 15: 86-93.
Smithburger PL, Korenoski AS, Kane-Gill SL, Alexander SA. Perceptions of family members, nurses, and physicians on involving patients’ families in delirium prevention. Crit Care Nurse 2017; 37: 48-57.
Marra A, Ely EW, Pandharipande PP, Patel MB. The ABCDEF bundle in critical care. Crit Care Clin 2017; 33: 225-43.
Liang JH, Li JY, Jia RX, et al. Comparison of cognitive intervention strategies for older adults with mild to moderate Alzheimer’s disease: a Bayesian meta-analytic review. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2019; 20: 347-55.
Acknowledgements
We would like to acknowledge Helen Lee Robertson, MLIS, Liaison Librarian, Clinical Medicine Health Sciences Library, University of Calgary for her guidance in our search strategies.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Brittany Myhre, Michelle Parsons, Stephanie Oviatt, Kirsten Deemer, and Juan Posadas contributed to all aspects of this manuscript, including study conception and design; acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of data; and drafting the article. Kirsten Fiest contributed to the conception and design of the study in addition to editing. Karolina Zjadewicz contributed to the analysis of data and contributed to the conception and design of the study.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
None.
Funding statement
:None.
Editorial responsibility
iThis submission was handled by Dr. Steven Backman, Associate Editor, Canadian Journal of Anesthesia.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendices
Appendix A Search strategy for effect of early cognitive interventions on delirium in critically ill patients
MEDLINE | EMBASE | Joanna Briggs Institute | Cochrane | Scopus | CINAHL | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Critical Care/ | Critical Care/ | Intensive care unit.mp. | Intensive care unit.mp. | (“critical care”) | critical* n1 care |
2 | Critical Illness/ | Critical Illness/ | ICU*.mp. | ICU*.mp. | (“critical illness”) | critical* n1 ill* |
3 | exp Intensive Care Units | exp Intensive Care Units | Intensive Care Units.mp. | Intensive Care Units.mp. | (“Intensive Care Unit”) | ICU* |
4 | ((critical* or Intensive) adj (care or ill*)).mp | ((critical* or Intensive) adj (care or ill*)).mp | critical illness.mp. | critical illness.mp. | (“ICU”) | intensive N1 Care |
5 | icu*.mp | icu*.mp | ((critical* or intensive) adj (care or ill*)).mp. | ((critical* or intensive) adj (care or ill*)).mp. | ((critical or intensive) W/2 (care or ill)) | (MH “Intensive Care Units+”) |
6 | or/1-5 | or/1-5 | or/1-5 | or/1-5 | or/1-5 | (MH “Critically Ill Patients”) |
7 | Delirium/ | Delirium/ | delirium.mp. | delirium.mp. | (Delirium) | (MH “Critical Illness”) |
8 | Confusion/ | Confusion/ | delirious*.mp. | delirious*.mp. | (confusion) | (MH “Critical Care+”) |
9 | Delirium.mp | Delirium.mp | (delirium adj2 (prevent* or prophyla*)).mp. | (delirium adj2 (prevent* or prophyla*)).mp. | (delirious) | or/1-8 |
10 | delirious.mp | delirious.mp | confusion.mp. | confusion.mp. | ((delirium W/2 prevent OR prophylaxis)) | disorientation |
11 | (delirium adj2 (prevent* or prophyla*)).mp | (delirium adj2 (prevent* or prophyla*)).mp | (confusion or confused).mp. | (confusion or confused).mp. | (“icu psychosis”) | disorient* |
12 | confusion.mp | confusion.mp | ICU psychosis.mp. | icu psychosis.mp. | (“intensive care unit w/2 psychosis) | “inattenti*” |
13 | (confusion or confused).mp | (confusion or confused).mp | ICU psychos?s.mp. | icu psychos?s.mp. | (“psychomotor agitation”) | (MH “Agitation”) |
14 | icu psychosis.mp | icu psychosis.mp | (intensive care adj2 psychos?s).mp. | (intensive care adj2 psychos?s).mp. | (agitation) | (MH “Psychomotor Agitation+”) |
15 | ICU psychos?s.mp | ICU psychos?s.mp | psychomotor agitation.mp. | psychomotor agitation.mp. | (inattentiveness) | intensive care N2 psychosis |
16 | (intensive care adj2 psychos?s).mp | (intensive care adj2 psychos?s).mp | agitation.mp. | agitation.mp. | (disorientation) | confused |
17 | Psychomotor Agitation/ | Psychomotor Agitation/ | inattentiveness.mp. | inattentiveness.mp. | (restlessness) | (MH “Confusion+”) |
18 | agitation.mp | agitation.mp | disorientation.mp. | disorientation.mp. | or/7-17 | delirious |
19 | inattentiveness.mp | inattentiveness.mp | restlessness.mp. | restlessness.mp. | “cognitive therapy”) | (MH “Delirium Management (Iowa NIC)”) |
20 | disorientation.mp | disorientation.mp | or/8-20 | or/8-20 | (“cognitive stimulation”) | (MH “ICU Psychosis”) |
21 | restlessness.mp | restlessness.mp | cogniti* therap*.mp. | cogniti* therap*.mp. | (“cognitive intervention”) | (MH “Delirium”) |
22 | or/7-21 | or/7-21 | cogniti* stimulation*.mp. | cogniti* stimulation*.mp. | (“cognitive rehabilitation”) | or/10-21 |
23 | Cognitive Therapy/ | Cognitive Therapy/ | cogniti* intervention*.mp. | cogniti* intervention*.mp. | (“reorientation”) | (MH “Problem Solving+”) |
24 | cogniti* therap*.mp | cogniti* therap*.mp | cogniti* rehabilitation*.mp. | cogniti* rehabilitation*.mp. | (“occupational therapy”) | “problem solving exercise” |
25 | cogniti* stimulation*.mp | cogniti* stimulation*.mp | (reorientat* or re-orientat*).mp. | (reorientat* or re-orientat*).mp. | (“occupational therapist”) | (MH “Sensory Stimulation+”) |
26 | cogniti* intervention*.mp | cogniti* intervention*.mp | occupational therap*.mp. | occupational therap*.mp. | (“memory exercises”) | ((multi-sensory or multisensory) N2 stimulate* |
27 | cogniti* rehabilitat*.mp | cogniti* rehabilitat*.mp | brain exercise*.mp. | brain exercise*.mp. | ((multisensory or Multi-sensory) w/2 stimulation) | “memory exercise*” |
28 | (reorient* or re-orientat*).mp | (reorient* or re-orientat*).mp | cogniti* exercise*.mp. | cogniti* exercise*.mp. | (“problem solving exercise”)) | brain exercises |
29 | Occupational Therapy/ | Occupational Therapy/ | memory exercise*.mp. | memory exercise*.mp. | or/19-28 | (MH “Rehabilitation, Cognitive”) |
30 | occupational therp*.mp | occupational therp*.mp | ((multi sensory or multi-sensory) adj2 stimulat*).mp. | ((multi sensory or multi-sensory) adj2 stimulat*).mp. | 6 and 18 and 29 | “cogniti* rehabilitat*” |
31 | brain exercise*.mp | brain exercise*.mp | problem solving exercise*.mp. | problem solving exercise*.mp. | cogniti* intervention | |
32 | cogniti* exercise*.mp | cogniti* exercise*.mp | or/22-32 | or/22-32 | cogniti* stimulation | |
33 | memory exercise*.mp | memory exercise*.mp | 7 and 21 and 33 | 7 and 21 and 33 | (MH “Cognitive Stimulation (Iowa NIC)”) | |
34 | ((multisensory or multi-sensory) adj2 stimulat*.mp | ((multisensory or multi-sensory) adj2 stimulat*.mp | (MH “Cognitive Therapy+”) | |||
35 | problem solving exercise*.mp | problem solving exercise*.mp | or/23-34 | |||
36 | or/23-35 | or/23-35 | 35 and 22 and 9 | |||
37 | 6 and 22 and 36 | 6 and 22 and 36 |
Appendix B Risk of bias in studies
Domain | Risk | Rationale |
---|---|---|
Alvarez et al.32 | ||
Adequate random sequence generation | Low | Random component in the sequence generation process described. |
Allocation concealment | Low | Participants and investigators could not foresee patient assignment. |
Blinding of participants and personnel | Low | Knowledge of allocated intervention adequately prevented. |
Blinding of outcome assessors | Low | Knowledge of allocated intervention adequately prevented. |
Incomplete outcome data addressed | Low | Missing outcome data equally weighted between groups with similar reasons. |
Free of selective outcome reporting | Low | Pre-specified primary and secondary outcomes reported in pre-specified way. |
Free of other bias | Low | The study appears to be free of other sources of bias. |
Overall judgement | Low | Low risk of bias in all key domains. |
Brummel et al.33 | ||
Adequate random sequence generation | Low | Random component in the sequence generation process described. |
Allocation concealment | Low | Participants and investigators could not foresee patient assignment. |
Blinding of participants | Low | Knowledge of allocated intervention adequately prevented. |
Blinding of outcome assessors | Low | Knowledge of allocated intervention adequately prevented. |
Incomplete outcome data addressed | High | Missing outcome data are not reported as proportional and may introduce bias. Statement of intention to treat analysis, but no description of how lost outcome data were treated. |
Free of selective outcome reporting | Low | Pre-specified primary and secondary outcomes reported in pre-specified way. |
Free of other bias | Low | The study appears to be free of other sources of bias. |
Overall judgement | High | High risk of bias in one or more key domain. |
Mitchell et al.34 | ||
Adequate random sequence generation | Low | Random component in the sequence generation process described. |
Allocation concealment | Unclear | Insufficient information to determine if patient allocation was concealed from participants and investigators. |
Blinding of participants | High | Family members filled out their own data slips to track whether intervention was conducted or not. |
Blinding of outcome assessors | High | Not possible to blind outcome assessors. |
Incomplete outcome data addressed | Unclear | Authors did not adequately address how data set was completed when only 28% of data slips were completed by family members. |
Free of selective outcome reporting | Low | Pre-specified primary and secondary outcomes reported in pre-specified way. |
Free of other bias | High | Low family compliance in data slip completion; skewed detection of intervention. |
Overall judgement | High | High risk of bias in one or more key domain. |
Munro et al.35 | ||
Adequate random sequence generation | Low | Random component in the sequence generation process described. |
Allocation concealment | Unclear | Insufficient information to determine if patient allocation was concealed from participants and investigators. |
Blinding of participants | Unclear | Insufficient information on who delivered interventions or if personnel were blinded. |
Blinding of outcome assessors | Unclear | Insufficient information on the blinding of outcome assessors. |
Incomplete outcome data addressed | Low | No missing outcome data. |
Free of selective outcome reporting | Low | A priori determined primary and secondary outcomes appropriately reported. |
Free of other bias | Low | The study appears to be free of other sources of bias. |
Overall judgement | Unclear | Unclear risk of bias in one or more key domain. |
Colombo et al.37 | ||
Confounding | Moderate | All known important confounding domains appropriately measured and controlled for; serious residual confounding not expected. |
Selection of participants | Low | All eligible participants for the trial were included. |
Classification of intervention | Low | Intervention status well-defined and intervention definition is based solely on information collected at the time of intervention. |
Deviation from intended intervention | Low | Any deviations from intended intervention reflected usual practice. |
Missing data | NI | No flow chart. Insufficient information regarding potential for missing data. |
Measurement of outcomes | Serious | Nursing provided both the interventions and the outcome measures. |
Selection of the reported result | Moderate | Congruence between outcome measures and analyses specified in protocol but cannot be compared with a well conducted randomized control trial. |
Overall judgement | Serious | Serious risk of bias in at least one key domain. |
Rivosecchi et al.36 | ||
Confounding | Serious | Lack of control for delirium-inducing medication use. Patient exposure was higher in phase II of study and was not considered in regression analysis. |
Selection of participants | Serious | 15% and 23% of patients were unable to be assessed upon admission into phase 1 and 2, respectively, because of illness severity. They may have been at higher risk for delirium. |
Classification of intervention | Low | Intervention status well-defined; intervention definition based solely on information collected at the time of intervention. |
Deviation from intended intervention | Low | Any deviations from intended intervention reflected usual practice. |
Missing data | Low | Data were reasonably complete. |
Measurement of outcomes | Serious | The outcome was assessed by assessors aware of the intervention received by study participants because of the study type (i.e., pre/post intervention trial). |
Selection of the reported result | Low | Reported results corresponded to intended outcomes, analysis, and sub-cohorts. |
Overall judgement | Serious | Serious risk of bias in at least one key domain. |
Wassenaar et al.38 | ||
Confounding | Serious | Enrollment of patients if the RASS was -2 to +1 and stable. Intervention feasibility not tested in sicker patients so questionable generalizability of findings. |
Selection of participants | Critical | Sampling of enrolled patients to test the intervention was based on the presence and absence of delirium diagnosis. |
Classification of intervention | Low | Intervention status well-defined and intervention definition is based solely on information collected at the time of intervention. |
Deviation from intended intervention | Low | No apparent deviations. Any deviations from intended intervention reflected usual practice. |
Missing data | Low | Data were reasonably complete. |
Measurement of outcomes | Serious | Authors do not distinguish that patient burdensome ratings (using a Likert scale) were conducted by a separate outcome assessor than those performing the cognitive intervention. |
Selection of the reported result | Low | Reported results corresponded to intended outcomes, analysis, and sub-cohorts. |
Overall judgement | Critical | Critical risk of bias in at least one key domain. |
Appendix C The Richmond agitation and sedation scale37
Terminology | Characteristics | Score |
---|---|---|
Combative | Overtly combative, violent, immediate danger to staff | +4 |
Very agitated | Pulls or removes tube(s) or catheter(s); aggressive | +3 |
Agitated | Frequent non-purposeful movement, fights ventilator | +2 |
Restless | Anxious but movements not aggressive or vigorous | +1 |
Alert and calm | 0 | |
Drowsy | Not fully alert, but has sustained awakening (eye opening/eye contact) to verbal stimuli (>10 sec) | −1 |
Light sedation | Briefly awakens with eye contact to verbal stimuli (<10 sec) | −2 |
Moderate sedation | Movement or eye opening to verbal stimuli but no eye contact | −3 |
Deep sedation | No response to voice, but movement or eye opening in response to physical stimulation | v4 |
Unarousable | No response to voice or to physical stimulation | −5 |
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Deemer, K., Zjadewicz, K., Fiest, K. et al. Effect of early cognitive interventions on delirium in critically ill patients: a systematic review. Can J Anesth/J Can Anesth 67, 1016–1034 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12630-020-01670-z
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12630-020-01670-z