• Br J Anaesth · Feb 2023

    Review Meta Analysis

    Perioperative risk factors associated with increased incidence of postoperative delirium: systematic review, meta-analysis, and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system report of clinical literature.

    • Lior Mevorach, Ali Forookhi, Alessio Farcomeni, Stefano Romagnoli, and Federico Bilotta.
    • Department of Anaesthesiology, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Policlinico Umberto I Teaching Hospital, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy. Electronic address: anesthesiologysapienza@gmail.com.
    • Br J Anaesth. 2023 Feb 1; 130 (2): e254e262e254-e262.

    BackgroundSystematic reviews to date have neglected to exclusively include studies using a validated diagnostic scale for postoperative delirium and monitoring patients for more than 24 h. Evidence on current risk factors is evolving with significantly heterogeneous study designs, inconsistent reporting of results, and a lack of adjustment for bias.MethodsThis systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to identify risk factors for postoperative delirium in an adult patient population. Study designs suitable for this review included full-text articles, RCTs, observational studies, cohort studies, and case-control studies. Extracted variables from the 169 (7.4%) selected studies were included in qualitative synthesis, quantitative synthesis, and a postoperative delirium checklist. The 16 variables included in the checklist were selected based on consistency, direction of effect, number of studies, and clinical utility as a reference for future studies.ResultsA total of 576 variables were extracted, but only six were eligible for meta-analysis. Age (mean difference [MD]=4.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.93-6.94; P<0.001), American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status >2 (odds ratio [OR]=2.27; 95% CI, 1.47-3.52; P<0.001), Charlson Comorbidity Index ≥2 (OR=1.9; 95% CI, 1.11-3.25; P=0.0202), and Mini-Mental State Examination (MD=-1.94; 95% CI, -3.6 to -0.27; P=0.0224) were statistically significant.ConclusionsRisk factors can assist in clinical decision-making and identification of high-risk patients. Literature analysis identified inconsistent methodology, leading to challenges in interpretation. A standardised format and evidence-based approach should guide future studies.Copyright © 2022 British Journal of Anaesthesia. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…