DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Study on Clinical Variables Contributing to Differentiation of Delirium and Non-Delirium Patients in the ICU

중환자실 섬망 환자와 비섬망 환자 구분에 기여하는 임상 지표에 관한 연구

  • Ko, Chanyoung (Department of Psychiatry and Institute of Behavioral Science in Medicine, Yonsei University College of Medicine) ;
  • Kim, Jae-Jin (Department of Psychiatry and Institute of Behavioral Science in Medicine, Yonsei University College of Medicine) ;
  • Cho, Dongrae (Deepmedi Research Institute of Technology, Deepmedi Inc.) ;
  • Oh, Jooyoung (Department of Psychiatry and Institute of Behavioral Science in Medicine, Yonsei University College of Medicine) ;
  • Park, Jin Young (Department of Psychiatry and Institute of Behavioral Science in Medicine, Yonsei University College of Medicine)
  • 고찬영 (연세대학교 의과대학 정신과학교실 및 의학행동과학연구소) ;
  • 김재진 (연세대학교 의과대학 정신과학교실 및 의학행동과학연구소) ;
  • 조동래 (딥메디 기업부설 연구소) ;
  • 오주영 (연세대학교 의과대학 정신과학교실 및 의학행동과학연구소) ;
  • 박진영 (연세대학교 의과대학 정신과학교실 및 의학행동과학연구소)
  • Received : 2019.07.15
  • Accepted : 2019.08.15
  • Published : 2019.12.31

Abstract

Objectives : It is not clear which clinical variables are most closely associated with delirium in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). By comparing clinical data of ICU delirium and non-delirium patients, we sought to identify variables that most effectively differentiate delirium from non-delirium. Methods : Medical records of 6,386 ICU patients were reviewed. Random Subset Feature Selection and Principal Component Analysis were utilized to select a set of clinical variables with the highest discriminatory capacity. Statistical analyses were employed to determine the separation capacity of two models-one using just the selected few clinical variables and the other using all clinical variables associated with delirium. Results : There was a significant difference between delirium and non-delirium individuals across 32 clinical variables. Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS), urinary catheterization, vascular catheterization, Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A), Blood urea nitrogen, and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Examination II most effectively differentiated delirium from non-delirium. Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that, with the exception of vascular catheterization, these clinical variables were independent risk factors associated with delirium. Separation capacity of the logistic regression model using just 6 clinical variables was measured with Receiver Operating Characteristic curve, with Area Under the Curve (AUC) of 0.818. Same analyses were performed using all 32 clinical variables;the AUC was 0.881, denoting a very high separation capacity. Conclusions : The six aforementioned variables most effectively separate delirium from non-delirium. This highlights the importance of close monitoring of patients who received invasive medical procedures and were rated with very low RASS and HAM-A scores.

연구목적 중환자실 환자들의 섬망 발생 유무와 관련이 되어 있는 것으로 알려진 많은 임상 지표들이 있지만, 이 중 실제 섬망군과 비섬망군을 분류하는 데 있어서 어떠한 지표가 보다 중요한 역할을 하는지에 대한 연구는 충분히 이루어지지 않았다. 본 연구는 중환자실 내에서 섬망이 발생한 군과 발생하지 않은 군 사이의 재실 기간 내 특징을 비교하고, 두 군을 효과적으로 구분할 수 있는 임상 지표들을 확인하고자 하였다. 방 법 2013년 3월 1일부터 2017년 5월 31일까지 강남세브란스병원 중환자실에 있던 6386명의 환자들 중, 섬망과 연관성을 보일 것으로 예상되는 40개의 임상 지표에 대한 데이터가 재실 기간 중 적어도 한 번 이상 측정되거나, 확인이 가능한 환자 1559명을 대상으로 하였다. 무작위 부분집합 특징 선택 방법 및 주성분분석을 사용하여 섬망과 비섬망을 구분하는 데에 기여도가 높은 특징들의 순위를 구하고, 몇 개의 상위 지표가 동시에 사용되었을 때에 섬망과 비섬망을 가장 효율적으로 판별할 수 있는지를 확인하였다. 확인된 상위 지표만을 이용한 것과 전체 임상 지표를 모두 사용하였을 때의 섬망과 비섬망을 구분할 수 있는 정확도에 대해서 비교 분석하였다. 결 과 총 40개 변수 중 32개의 변수에서 섬망과 비섬망군 간 유의미한 차이를 보였다. 주성분 분석(Principal Component Analysis, PCA)상, 상위 6개 변수인 리치몬드 흥분 진정 척도(Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale, RASS), 도뇨관 사용 유무, 혈관 카테터 사용 유무, 해밀턴 불안 척도(Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale, HAM-A), 혈액 요소 질소(Blood Urea Nitrogen, BUN), 급성 생리학 및 만성 건강 평가-II (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Examination II, APACHE II)를 사용했을 때에 섬망과 비섬망군이 가장 잘 구분되었다. 이들 상위 6개 변수에 대해 단일 변수 로지스틱 회귀분석 시행 시 모두 섬망 여부 결정에 대한 유의성을 보였다. 다중 변수 회귀분석 시행 시, 혈관 카테터 사용 유무 를 제외하고 나머지 5개 변수에서 모두 섬망 여부 결정에 대한 유의성을 보였다. 수신자판단특성곡선 분석 결과 신뢰구간 95%에서 곡선하면적 0.818로 높은 판별력을 보였다. 전체 임상 변수를 모두 사용한 수신자판단특성곡선 분석 결과에서는 곡선하면적 0.881로 매우 높은 판별력을 보였다. 결 론 본 연구 결과, 리치몬드 흥분 진정 척도, 도뇨관 사용 유무, 혈관 카테터 사용 유무, 해밀턴 불안 척도, 혈액 요소 질소, 급성 생리학 및 만성 건강 평가-II가 섬망이 발생한 군과 섬망이 발생하지 않은 군을 구분하는데 가장 유용하였다. 중환자실 환자 중 리치몬드 흥분 진정 척도 및 해밀턴 불안 척도 점수가 과도하게 낮거나, 도뇨관 및 혈관 카테터 등의 침습적인 시술을 사용하였을 경우 좀 더 집중적인 모니터링을 통해 섬망의 가능성을 살펴보아야 할 것이다.

Keywords

References

  1. Cavallazzi R, Saad M, Marik PE. Delirium in the ICU: an overview. Ann Intensive Care 2012;2:49. https://doi.org/10.1186/2110-5820-2-49
  2. Girard TD, Pandharipande PP, Ely EW. Delirium in the intensive care unit. Crit Care 2008;12 Suppl 3:S3.
  3. Brummel NE, Girard TD. Preventing delirium in the intensive care unit. Crit Care Clin 2013;29:51-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccc.2012.10.007
  4. Cole MG, Ciampi A, Belzile E, Zhong L. Persistent delirium in older hospital patients: a systematic review of frequency and prognosis. Age Ageing 2009;38:19-26. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afn253
  5. Inouye SK. Prevention of delirium in hospitalized older patients: risk factors and targeted intervention strategies. Ann Med 2000;32:257-263. https://doi.org/10.3109/07853890009011770
  6. Francis J, Martin D, Kapoor WN. A prospective study of delirium in hospitalized elderly. JAMA 1990;263:1097-1101. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1990.03440080075027
  7. Inouye SK. Predisposing and precipitating factors for delirium in hospitalized older patients. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 1999;10:393-400. https://doi.org/10.1159/000017177
  8. Marcantonio ER, Goldman L, Orav EJ, Cook EF, Lee TH. The association of intraoperative factors with the development of postoperative delirium. Am J Med 1998;105:380-384. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9343(98)00292-7
  9. Kamel HK, Iqbal MA, Mogallapu R, Maas D, Hoffmann RG. Time to ambulation after hip fracture surgery: relation to hospitalization outcomes. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2003;58:1042-1045. https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/58.11.M1042
  10. Oh J, Cho D, Park J, Na SH, Kim J, Heo J, Shin CS, Kim JJ, Park JY, Lee B. Prediction and early detection of delirium in the intensive care unit by using heart rate variability and machine learning. Physiol Meas 2018;39:035004. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6579/aaab07
  11. Hshieh TT, Yue J, Oh E, Puelle M, Dowal S, Travison T, Inouye SK. Effectiveness of multicomponent nonpharmacological delirium interventions: a meta-analysis. JAMA Intern Med 2015;175:512-520. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.7779
  12. Martinez F, Tobar C, Hill N. Preventing delirium: should non-pharmacological, multicomponent interventions be used? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. Age Ageing 2015;44:196-204. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afu173
  13. Lundstrom M, Olofsson B, Stenvall M, Karlsson S, Nyberg L, Englund U, Borssen B, Svensson O, Gustafson Y. Postoperative delirium in old patients with femoral neck fracture: a randomized intervention study. Aging Clin Exp Res 2007;19:178-186. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03324687
  14. Simons KS, Laheij RJ, van den Boogaard M, Moviat MA, Paling AJ, Polderman FN, Rozendaal FW, Salet GA, van der Hoeven JG, Pickkers P, de Jager CP. Dynamic light application therapy to reduce the incidence and duration of delirium in intensive-care patients: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Respir Med 2016;4:194-202. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-2600(16)00025-4
  15. Wong A, Young AT, Liang AS, Gonzales R, Douglas VC, Hadley D. Development and Validation of an Electronic Health Record-Based Machine Learning Model to Estimate Delirium Risk in Newly Hospitalized Patients Without Known Cognitive Impairment. JAMA Netw Open 2018;1:e181018. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.1018
  16. Douglas VC, Hessler CS, Dhaliwal G, Betjemann JP, Fukuda KA, Alameddine LR, Lucatorto R, Johnston SC, Josephson SA. The AWOL tool: derivation and validation of a delirium prediction rule. J Hosp Med 2013;8:493-499. https://doi.org/10.1002/jhm.2062
  17. Lundstrom M, Edlund A, Karlsson S, Brannstrom B, Bucht G, Gustafson Y. A multifactorial intervention program reduces the duration of delirium, length of hospitalization, and mortality in delirious patients. J Am Geriatr Soc 2005;53:622-628. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2005.53210.x
  18. Ahn JS, Oh J, Park J, Kim JJ, Park JY. Incidence and Procedure-Related Risk Factors of Delirium in Patients Admitted to an Intensive Care Unit. Korean J Psychosomatic Med 2019;27:35-41. https://doi.org/10.22722/KJPM.2019.27.1.35
  19. Chanques G, Ely EW, Garnier O, Perrigault F, Eloi A, Carr J, Rowan CM, Prades A, de Jong A, Moritz-Gasser S, Molinari N, Jaber S. The 2014 updated version of the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit compared to the 5th version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and other current methods used by intensivists. Ann Intensive Care 2018;8:33. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13613-018-0377-7
  20. Adamis D, Meagher D, Rooney S, Mulligan O, McCarthy G. A comparison of outcomes according to different diagnostic systems for delirium (DSM-5, DSM-IV, CAM, and DRS-R98). Int Psychogeriatr 2018;30:591-596. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1041610217001697
  21. Ahmed S, Leurent B, Sampson EL. Risk factors for incident delirium among older people in acute hospital medical units: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Age Ageing 2014;43:326-333. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afu022
  22. McNicoll L, Pisani MA, Zhang Y, Ely EW, Siegel MD, Inouye SK. Delirium in the intensive care unit: occurrence and clinical course in older patients. J Am Geriatr Soc 2003;51: 591-598. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0579.2003.00201.x
  23. Haviland A, Nagin DS, Rosenbaum PR. Combining propensity score matching and group-based trajectory analysis in an observational study. Psychol Methods 2007;12:247-267. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.12.3.247
  24. Ross ME, Kreider AR, Huang YS, Matone M, Rubin DM, Localio AR. Propensity Score Methods for Analyzing Observational Data Like Randomized Experiments: Challenges and Solutions for Rare Outcomes and Exposures. Am J Epidemiol 2015;181:989-995. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwu469
  25. Khan BA, Guzman O, Campbell NL, Walroth T, Tricker JL, Hui SL, Perkins A, Zawahiri M, Buckley JD, Farber MO, Ely EW, Boustani MA. Comparison and agreement between the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale and the Riker Sedation-Agitation Scale in evaluating patients' eligibility for delirium assessment in the ICU. Chest 2012;142:48-54. https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.11-2100
  26. Han JH, Vasilevskis EE, Schnelle JF, Shintani A, Dittus RS, Wilson A, Ely EW. The Diagnostic Performance of the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale for Detecting Delirium in Older Emergency Department Patients. Acad Emerg Med 2015;22:878-882. https://doi.org/10.1111/acem.12706
  27. Hamilton M. The assessment of anxiety states by rating. Br J Med Psychol 1959;32:50-55. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8341.1959.tb00467.x
  28. Knaus WA, Draper EA, Wagner DP, Zimmerman JE. APACHE II: a severity of disease classification system. Crit Care Med 1985;13:818-829. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003246-198510000-00009
  29. Pohjalainen J, Rasanen O, Kadioglu S. Feature selection methods and their combinations in high-dimensional classification of speaker likability, intelligibility and personality traits. Computer Speech and Language 2015;29:145-171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csl.2013.11.004
  30. Samani A, Kawczynski A, Chmura J, Madeleine P. Principle component analysis of exposure variation analysis during computer work at presence of delayed onset muscle soreness. Work 2012;41 Suppl 1:2387-2391. https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-2012-0471-2387
  31. Peritogiannis V, Bolosi M, Lixouriotis C, Rizos DV. Recent Insights on Prevalence and Corelations of Hypoactive Delirium. Behav Neurol 2015;2015:416792. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/416792
  32. Marklew A. Urinary catheter care in the intensive care unit. Nurs Crit Care 2004;9:21-27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1362-1017.2004.0048.x
  33. Gershengorn HB, Garland A, Kramer A, Scales DC, Rubenfeld G, Wunsch H. Variation of arterial and central venous catheter use in United States intensive care units. Anesthesiology 2014;120:650-664. https://doi.org/10.1097/ALN.0000000000000008