Evidence Hub

Delirium Screening in Critically Ill Children: secondary analysis of the multicenter PICU Up! pilot trial dataset, 2019–2020

Razvan Azamfirei, D. Behrens, S. Padilla, Kate Madden, Sarah Goldberg, M. Geno, Mary-Jeanne Manning, M. Piole et al.

Pediatric Critical Care Medicine, 2024

1,064 participants · 18 citations

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To determine the patient-level factors associated with performing daily delirium screening in PICUs with established delirium screening practices. DESIGN: A secondary analysis of 2019–2020 prospective data from the baseline phase of the PICU Up! pilot stepped-wedge multicenter trial (NCT03860168). SETTING: Six PICUs in the United States. PATIENTS: One thousand sixty-four patients who were admitted to a PICU for 3 or more days. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of 1064 patients, 74% (95% CI, 71–76%) underwent delirium screening at least once during their PICU stay. On 57% of the 8965 eligible patient days, screening was conducted. The overall prevalence of delirium was 46% across all screened days, and 64% of screened patients experienced delirium at some point during their PICU stay. Factors associated with greater adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of increased daily delirium screening included PICU stay longer than 15 days compared with 1–3 days (aOR 3.36 [95% CI, 2.62–4.30]), invasive mechanical ventilation as opposed to room air (aOR 1.67 [95% CI, 1.32–2.12]), dexmedetomidine infusions (aOR 1.23 [95% CI, 1.04–1.44]) and propofol infusions (aOR 1.55 [95% CI, 1.08–2.23]). Conversely, decreased aOR of daily delirium screening was associated with female gender (aOR 0.78 [95% CI, 0.63–0.96]), and the administration of continuous infusions of opioids (aOR 0.75 [95% CI, 0.63–0.90]) or ketamine (aOR 0.48 [95% CI, 0.29–0.79]). Neither patient age, the…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 1,064 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free