TY - JOUR
T1 - Incidence and assessment of delirium following open cardiac surgery; A systematic review and meta-analysis
AU - Petersson, Nadja Buch
AU - Hansen, Malene Haugaard
AU - Hjelmborg, Jacob V B
AU - Instenes, Irene
AU - Christoffersen, Anne Sofie
AU - Larsen, Katrine Lawaetz
AU - Schmidt, Henrik
AU - Riber, Lars Peter Schødt
AU - Norekvål, Tone Merete
AU - Borregaard, Britt
N1 - © The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact [email protected] for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact [email protected].
PY - 2024/5/2
Y1 - 2024/5/2
N2 - AIM: This systematic review and meta-analysis sought i) to provide an overview of the incidence of delirium following open cardiac surgery and ii) to investigate how incidences of delirium are associated with different assessment tools.METHODS AND RESULTS: A systematic search of studies investigating delirium following open cardiac surgery were conducted in Medline (Ovid), EMBASE, PsycINFO, CiNAHL and the Cochrane Database. Only studies with patients diagnosed or screened with a validated tool were included. Studies published from 2005 to 2021 were included in the meta-analysis.Of 7,126 individual studies retrieved, 106 met the inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis, hereof 31% of high quality. The weighted pooled incidence of delirium following open cardiac surgery across all studies was 23% (95% CI 20-26%), however we found a considerable heterogeneity (I2 = 99%), which could not be explained by subgroups or further sensitivity analyses. The most commonly applied screening tool for delirium is CAM/CAM-ICU. The lowest estimates of delirium were found by applying the Delirium Observation Scale (incidence 14%, 95% CI 8-20%), and the highest estimates in studies using "other" screening tools (Organic Brain Symptom Scale, Delirium Symptom Interview) pooled incidence of 43%, (95% CI 19 - 66%), however, only two studies applied these.CONCLUSION: Delirium following open cardiac surgery remains a complication with a high incidence of overall 23%, when applying a validated tool for screening or diagnosis. Nevertheless, this systematic review and meta-analyses highlight the significant inconsistency in current evidence regarding assessment tools and regimens.REGISTRATION: Prospero CRD42020215519.
AB - AIM: This systematic review and meta-analysis sought i) to provide an overview of the incidence of delirium following open cardiac surgery and ii) to investigate how incidences of delirium are associated with different assessment tools.METHODS AND RESULTS: A systematic search of studies investigating delirium following open cardiac surgery were conducted in Medline (Ovid), EMBASE, PsycINFO, CiNAHL and the Cochrane Database. Only studies with patients diagnosed or screened with a validated tool were included. Studies published from 2005 to 2021 were included in the meta-analysis.Of 7,126 individual studies retrieved, 106 met the inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis, hereof 31% of high quality. The weighted pooled incidence of delirium following open cardiac surgery across all studies was 23% (95% CI 20-26%), however we found a considerable heterogeneity (I2 = 99%), which could not be explained by subgroups or further sensitivity analyses. The most commonly applied screening tool for delirium is CAM/CAM-ICU. The lowest estimates of delirium were found by applying the Delirium Observation Scale (incidence 14%, 95% CI 8-20%), and the highest estimates in studies using "other" screening tools (Organic Brain Symptom Scale, Delirium Symptom Interview) pooled incidence of 43%, (95% CI 19 - 66%), however, only two studies applied these.CONCLUSION: Delirium following open cardiac surgery remains a complication with a high incidence of overall 23%, when applying a validated tool for screening or diagnosis. Nevertheless, this systematic review and meta-analyses highlight the significant inconsistency in current evidence regarding assessment tools and regimens.REGISTRATION: Prospero CRD42020215519.
U2 - 10.1093/eurjcn/zvae066
DO - 10.1093/eurjcn/zvae066
M3 - Journal article
C2 - 38695330
SN - 1474-5151
JO - European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing
JF - European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing
ER -