Skip to main content
Download PDF

Functional independence, frailty and perceived quality of life in patients who developed delirium during ICU stay: a prospective cohort study

European Journal of Medical Research volume 28, Article number: 560 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Survivors of critical illness are frequently left with a long-lasting disability. We hypothesised that patients who developed delirium during ICU stay, compared with patients who did not, would have worse health-related quality of life following a critical illness.

Methods

Prospective longitudinal observational and analytical study assessing functional independence, frailty and perceived quality of life measured with the Barthel Index, the Clinical Frailty Scale, and the SF-36, comparing patients who developed delirium during ICU stay and patients who did not. The questionnaires were used at different times during the follow-up (upon ICU admission, at ICU discharge, at hospital discharge and 2 years after hospital discharge).

Results

In a cohort of 1462 patients, we matched 93 patients who developed delirium (delirium group) with 93 patients who did not develop delirium (no-delirium group). Of 156 completed questionnaires (84.7%), we observed that (a) in each of the two groups of patients, the scores related to functional independence (Barthel Index) and frailty (Clinical Frailty Scale) tended to improve over time (p < 0.001), being consistently less favourable in the delirium group compared to the no-delirium group (p < 0.001); (b) the patients who developed delirium also presented lower scores on the SF-36 scale, these differences being statistically significant, and therefore evidencing a worse quality of life, with impact on both the psychological and social spheres (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Patients who developed delirium had significantly lower scores 2 years after hospital discharge on the three used questionnaires, displaying a clear negative impact on the physical, psychological, and social dimensions. The study's results reinforce the need to support and strengthen the care of ICU survivors.

Background

Delirium is a severe neuropsychiatric disorder of organic origin characterised by the appearance of alterations in both consciousness and cognitive function [1]. The number of patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) is increasing, and more than 80% survive ICU care [1, 2]. Subsequently, increasing attention is being given to the long-term outcomes of ICU survivors.

Clinical guidelines [3] have recommended using a bundle approach (e.g. ABCDEF bundle) to target eliminating multiple modifiable risk factors of ICU (delirium is in a percentage preventable) [3,4,5], reducing the chances of suffering delirium or shortening its duration once established. The development of delirium during the ICU stay carries a worse short-term prognosis, such as increased mortality [2], longer duration of mechanical ventilation, longer ICU length-of-stay, and cognitive impairment [6,7,8]. Along with this, delirium is also associated with poor long-term prognoses, such as persistent cognitive impairment [9,10,11] and disability in activities of daily living, including worse motor-sensory function [9,10,11,12,13].

The medical and technological advances made in intensive care have allowed us to treat pathologies that, decades ago, presented an ill-fated prognosis. The professional expertise in critical illness has expanded beyond that required for essential illness management and organ support, including understanding the risk factors for and consequences of critical illness [14]. In this situation, and while Intensive Care Medicine physicians and other healthcare professionals involved in critical care have always been aware of the difficulties involved in recovery after discharge from ICU admission, the literature addressing the devastating long-term consequences of the illness on critically ill patients and their family members [15, 16] is recent. Collectively defined as post-intensive care syndrome (PICS), it has been estimated to occur in 30–50% of patients. PICS involves a new or worsening physical and psychological health status alteration, which appears and persists after hospitalisation for a critical illness. Risk factors associated with developing PICS include delirium during admission, immobility, deep sedation, systemic corticosteroids, and prolonged mechanical ventilation [17, 18].

Thus, improving our understanding of the risk factors amenable to intervention and their implication for patient prognosis (both short and long-term) may lead to improvements in clinical care and foster the development of post-ICU care programmes [19,20,21,22]. Thus, the Society of Critical Care Medicine released the ABCDEF bundle, which encourages assessment and management of pain, agitation, and delirium, implementation of early mobilisation, and family engagement, along with a recommended strategy to mitigate the risk of PICS [3, 20].

We hypothesise that patients who developed delirium during ICU stay suffered more difficulties in subsequent recovery after discharge from the hospital, negatively impacting the patient's functional independence and perceived quality of life. We aimed to study functional independence, frailty and quality of life in a two-year follow-up in two cohorts of patients, the difference between them being whether or not they developed delirium during their ICU stay.

Methods

We conducted a longitudinal observational and analytical study including prospectively collected data from a cohort of patients admitted to a general ICU from October 1, 2016, up to May 1, 2019. Data were collected prospectively in the Registry of the University Hospital of Henares Intensive Care Unit. The research was approved by the Francisco de Vitoria University's Healthcare Ethics Committee (44/2018). Participation and acceptance of inclusion of patient’s data into the Registry were obtained by signing the informed consent document (by the patient or by an authorised surrogate in case the patient could not express their opinion). The study includes all patients admitted during the mentioned period who agreed to participate in the Registry. Exclusion criteria were patients under 18 years old, patients who died during follow-up and patients who required transfer to another hospital (given the impossibility of correct data collection and follow-up upon discharge).

We collected relevant demographic and clinical data from every patient, using the Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS-3) on admission as a validated score for the severity of illness [23]. Delirium screening using the CAM-ICU (Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit) was performed by our nursing staff every eight hours (once every shift). In case of doubt, it was discussed with the attending physician. To be diagnosed with delirium, the patient needed to have a RASS [Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale, [24]] score above -3 and a positive CAM-ICU (defined as an acute change or fluctuation in mental status, accompanied by inattention and either disorganised thinking or an altered level of consciousness [1, 25,26,27]). Before the study, training in the use of CAM-ICU was provided to the nursing staff. The delirium assessment rate of trained nurses was, therefore, high.

We located patients who had not developed delirium with similar demographic characteristics to those with delirium. Matching was performed using four variables: sex, age (± 3 years), the reason for admission (postoperative, cardiological, respiratory, neurological, sepsis, miscellaneous) and SAPS-3 (± 3). When matching, the first two criteria (same sex and age) were met. The third criterion to be completed was the reason for admission, and the fourth was the SAPS-3.

Regarding the analysis of functional independence, frailty and quality of life, we used the following tools: Barthel Index (BI; a generic measure of physical or functional disability, which assesses the patient's level of independence concerning basic activities of daily living [28]), Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS; assessment of frailty [29,30,31,32,33]) and the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36; composed of 36 questions (items) that assess both positive and negative states of health [34, 35]). We were able to collect BI at ICU discharge (referred to as T1), at hospital discharge (referred to as T2), and 2 years after hospital discharge (referred to as T3); CFS collected upon ICU admission (referred to as T0) and CFS at T3; and SF-36 at T3. Assessment of functional independence, frailty and perceived quality of life 2 years after discharge was carried out by telephone (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flowchart of performed questionnaires during the study

Full size image

Statistical analysis

Categorical variables are expressed as numbers and percentages, while quantitative variables are expressed as medians and interquartile ranges. Assumptions of normality (assessment of normal distribution using the Anderson–Darling test) were checked.

Two ART-ANOVA (Aligned Ranks Transformation ANOVA) models were used to analyse the CFS and BI scores, with data obtained at different times (T0, T1, T2, T3) in two defined groups (patients who developed delirium and patients who did not develop delirium during ICU stay). Post hoc multiple comparisons of the main and interaction effects studied were performed with Bonferroni adjustment using the Signs test and Chi-square test, respectively [36]. For the study of simple effects, the Signs test was used to assess the impact derived from the difference between groups at each time individually and between times for each group separately, as the assumptions of normality and symmetry could not be assured. SF-36 results (obtained only at T3) were analysed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test with continuity correction. The effect size, and thus the magnitude or intensity of the differences found, was assessed using Eta-squared (η2) for the main and interaction effects and VD. A (Vargha and Delaney's A) [37, 38] for the simple effects.

Statistical analysis was conducted using SPSS 20.0 software for Windows (IBM, Inc.; Illinois, USA) and R version 3.6.3 (R Core Team, 2020). P values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant, and 95% confidence intervals were evaluated for each estimate.

Results

During the study period, 1534 patients were admitted to our ICU. Seventy-two patients were excluded from the statistical analysis (due to loss of data related to hospital transfer), obtaining a cohort of 1462 adult patients. The demographic and clinical characteristics of the 1462 patients, including short-term outcomes and multivariate analysis, are described elsewhere [39].

Ninety-three patients developed delirium during ICU stay (incidence of 6.3%), paired with 93 patients who did not develop delirium, totalling 186 patients. The demographic, clinical characteristics and response rate to the telephone survey are shown in Table 1.

Table 1 Demographics and clinical characteristics of the studied population
Full size table

Five patients who developed delirium died during the study period. Two years after hospital discharge, we obtained 156 responses (84% response rate). These 156 patients completed the required information for the BI, the CFS, and the SF-36 physical data (85 patients in the non-delirium group and 71 patients in the delirium group). Ten surrogates provided answers to the telephone survey due to language problems (in 4 patients) and old age with associated cognitive impairment (in 6 patients). These ten responses were excluded when analysing the rest of the SF-36 items (we considered that the surrogate answers were not valid when assessing the psychological impact on the individual patients), making a total of 146 responses (81 patients in the non-delirium group and 65 patients in the delirium group).

Overall scores obtained in both groups for BI and CFS are shown in Table 2, and the complete statistical analysis can be found in the Supplement material. Both scores were always significantly different (T1, T2 and T3), except for CFS obtained in T0 (upon ICU admission). Likewise, the effect size was of moderate-–large magnitude for all taken times.

Table 2 Barthel Index and CFS scores
Full size table

We also studied the time pattern of the BI and CFS scores, plotted in Figs. 2, 3. Concerning the BI (Fig. 2), patients who did not develop delirium (in blue; no-delirium group) obtained significantly better scores than patients who did develop delirium (in red; delirium group) (F = 69,134, p < 0.001), although the difference between the two groups of patients did not remain constant over time (F = 8,897; p < 0.001) (Additional file 1: Table S1). In particular, the differences between groups are significantly smaller at T3 (Additional file 1: Table S2) compared to those found on T1 (p = 0.011) and T2 (p < 0.001), although at all three times the differences between groups are significant (Table 2). Moreover, significant differences were found between the three times for both groups individually (p < 0.001) (Additional file 1: Table S3). Regarding the CFS (Fig. 3), scores collected on ICU admission (T0) did not differ between the two groups. Notwithstanding, a statistically significant difference was observed at T3 (Table 2), with a lower CFS value (and therefore a better baseline situation) for the patients who had not developed delirium (p < 0.001) being that difference between groups significantly greater at T3 than at T0 (F = 9101; p = 0.003). Moreover, significant differences were found between the two times for the delirium group (p < 0.001) but not for the no-delirium group (p = 0.541) (Additional file 1: Table S3). The observed effect size (measured with η2; Supplementary Material) was more significant for the BI than the CFS (with a η2 > 0.14—high effect size—when assessing the impact of both defined main effects—delirium and time—on the BI) (Additional file 1: Table S1).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Time course of barthel index

Full size image
Fig. 3
figure 3

Time course of clinical frailty scale

Full size image

Results obtained using the SF-36 questionnaire 2 years after hospital discharge are shown in Table 3. Patients who developed delirium during their ICU admission had lower scores than those who did not develop delirium. Moreover, these differences were statistically significant for the nine items assessed (thus displaying a clear negative impact on the physical, psychological, and social dimensions). We also observed a moderate–large effect size, measured by the VD.A statistic for all SF-36 items.

Table 3 SF-36 questionnaire scores
Full size table

Discussion

This prospective cohort study examined the plausible relationship between patients’ long-term prognosis and the development of delirium during ICU stay. A statistically significant negative impact, of moderate magnitude, was observed during the 2-year up. Patients with delirium present a significantly increased risk of poor functional independence, frailty and quality of life, measured using the Barthel Index, Clinical Frailty Scale and SF-36.

ICU-acquired delirium is associated with adverse short- and long-term outcomes. In the long term, it is strongly related to functional impairment in activities of daily living, as well as cognitive deficits, memory deficits, and inattention [10, 40]. Compared to the general population, ICU survivors have a lower health-related quality of life one year after critical illness [41] and a higher prevalence of long-term cognitive impairment [42]. Although other studies [8, 13] have not found such a strong association between the development of delirium and long-term quality of life, they have demonstrated its association as an independent risk factor for self-reported long-term cognitive functioning problems (measured with the EQ-6D scale or European Quality of Life—six dimensions self-classifier).

Using the BI for activities of daily living enables the assessment of functional outcomes of patients. Li et al. [43] assessed frailty and the development of delirium in cardiac surgery patients. They observed that the coexistence of preoperative frailty and postoperative delirium development led to a substantial loss of independence in three to four basic activities of daily living and a 30.2-fold increased probability of dying one year after surgery. Besides, frail patients who developed delirium also scored lower on the different quality-of-life used questionnaires [44,45,46]. Regarding CFS upon admission, we observed no statistically significant differences between the two groups, probably related to the fact that, at that time, the patients had not yet developed delirium.

The use of SF-36 to assess the impact of delirium on the patient's quality of life is more limited. The assessment of the psychological dimension is understandably tricky, given that many other factors (and not only those related to a residual effect of previous ICU admission) may affect the psyche of patients. A prospective study [40], with a follow-up of 18 months, assessed the impact of delirium on cognitive function and long-term health-related quality of life. No differences were found in the overall assessment of the SF-36 between survivors with and without delirium. However, those survivors who had experienced delirium reported significantly more social errors, and their total score on the cognitive failure questionnaire was considerably higher. Another study [47], focusing on using the SF-36 as a predictor of postoperative delirium, found that some SF-36 scores (especially the general health perception score) were significantly lower in patients with postoperative delirium. Regarding our study, we found a significant impact in all the items assessed by SF-36, highlighting a solid association (large effect size) on the negative impact over the item "one-year health-transition". It seems clear that the development of delirium affects a patient's physical performance and quality of life, including their mental health and social life (encompassing aspects such as the patient's relationship with others or their return to the workforce).

Our study has several potential limitations. First, we performed a single-centre analysis with a relatively limited number of patients. However, we believe that the single-centre nature of the study may favour the homogeneity of data and management consistency. Secondly, matching was performed using four demographic variables and not more, given the limited number of patients within the study sample. Thirdly, the selection of a follow-up period two years after discharge from the hospital could have also led to a bias, as it fails to accurately account for whether the patient developed episodes of delirium post-ICU discharge, post-ICU rehabilitation, access, transfer to rehabilitation facilities or need of specific ambulatory care other than scheduled routine check-ups. Fourthly, we have faced the challenges of conducting long-term outcome studies in critical care [48, 49]. As more patients survive a critical illness, attention has shifted to assessing long-term morbidity and quality of life. However, this increased interest has shed light on many important methodological challenges in conducting this research. Significant challenges have involved retaining patients in the follow-up study, reducing threats to internal and external validity, and—as far as possible—achieving sufficient statistical power when matching (we were able to pair one patient who did not develop delirium with one patient who did, with an estimated statistical power of 60%). Regarding the loss of patient follow-up, 30 patients (16.1%) did not respond to the telephone surveys, in addition to another ten patients who could not adequately complete the entire content of the questionnaires. The social science literature suggests a minimum rate of 70–80% [50], which was exceeded in our work, although no such guidelines exist for ICU survival studies. Strategies described to mitigate this problem include using a patient contact system or scheduling and close follow-up of the cohort [51, 52]. Fifth, we found difficulty in obtaining homogeneous results regarding questionnaire responses. We could only perform a more exhaustive analysis of the time effect (main effect of time) for the BI, as we obtained results at the three previously defined times (T1, T2 and T3). By the same token, the SF-36 survey was only used two years after hospital discharge, precluding a temporal analysis of the results. Sixth and finally, the telephone survey collection process for a group of patients included in the study occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. For this reason, although the data are presented as ‘‘surveys collected 2 years after hospital discharge’’, some patients did not answer the surveys until 2.5 to 3 years later. Moreover, we must highlight that we did not assess our patients' cognitive impairment adequately. We considered cognitive assessment during the study design process [11, 53,54,55,56] but finally discarded it, given that an adequate evaluation of this requires a healthcare visit. This could have harmed the number of patients who completed the follow-up. Besides, if we had decided to include this cognitive assessment and scheduled the hospital visits, the study could not have been carried out due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the mobility restriction measures put in place [57].

The present study also has several strengths. Considering our relatively small ICU capacity (between 8 and 10 available ICU beds), we included a high sample size. We applied a reasonably new statistical model, which allowed us to assess survey scores in two groups, measured at different times. The findings of our study reinforce our commitment to continue working on our multidisciplinary protocol for the management of post-ICU syndrome (coordinating both the hospital team and the Primary Care health centres attached to the hospital area to which we belong). Our post-discharge follow-up programme ensures a successful handover with the inpatient ward team and discusses the next steps with the patient and family. We also offer a support programme for relatives and caregivers, considering the patient’s values and wishes in the shared decision-making process. Despite being a young programme, so far, we have achieved encouraging results, observing improvement in components of mental health (fear, self-esteem, coping, sleep disorders), in the patient's ability to perform basic activities of daily living and in the perceived caregiver overload [58,59,60].

Conclusions

On the three questionnaires, we observed significantly lower scores two years after hospital discharge (Barthel Index, Clinical Frailty Scale and SF-36). This difference was found to be maintained over time for the Barthel Index and the CFS. Our data suggest that patients who developed delirium had worse functional independence, frailty and perceived quality of life than patients who did not.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article.

Abbreviations

ART-ANOVA:

Aligned ranks transformation-analysis of the variance

BI:

Barthel Index

CAM-ICU:

Confusion assessment method for the ICU

CFS:

Clinical frailty scale

EQ-6D:

European quality of life—six dimensions self-classifier

ICU:

Intensive care unit

IQR:

Interquartile range

PICS:

Post-intensive care syndrome

RASS:

Richmond agitation-sedation scale

SAPS-3:

Simplified acute physiology score-3

SARS-CoV-2:

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2

SF-36:

36-Item short form health survey

T0:

Defined time or moment at ICU admission

T1:

Defined time or moment at ICU discharge

T2:

Defined time or moment at hospital discharge

T3:

Defined time or moment 2 years after hospital discharge

VD.A :

Vargha and Delaney's A

Yr:

Years

η 2 :

Eta-squared

References

  1. Ely EW, Inouye SK, Bernard GR, Gordon S, Francis J, May L, et al. Delirium in mechanically ventilated patients: validity and reliability of the confusion assessment method for the intensive care unit (CAM-ICU). JAMA. 2001;286(21):2703–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Ely EW, Shintani A, Truman B, Speroff T, Gordon SM, Harrell FE Jr, et al. Delirium as a predictor of mortality in mechanically ventilated patients in the intensive care unit. JAMA. 2004;291(14):1753–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Devlin JW, Skrobik Y, Gélinas C, Needham DM, Slooter AJC, Pandharipande PP, 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(9):e825–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Zaal IJ, Devlin JW, Peelen LM, Slooter AJ. A systematic review of risk factors for delirium in the ICU. Crit Care Med. 2015;43(1):40–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Krewulak KD, Stelfox HT, Ely EW, Fiest KM. Risk factors and outcomes among delirium subtypes in adult ICUs: a systematic review. J Crit Care. 2020;56:257–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Lat I, McMillian W, Taylor S, Janzen JM, Papadopoulos S, Korth L, et al. The impact of delirium on clinical outcomes in mechanically ventilated surgical and trauma patients. Crit Care Med. 2009;37(6):1898–905.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Milbrandt EB, Deppen S, Harrison PL, Shintani AK, Speroff T, Stiles RA, et al. Costs associated with delirium in mechanically ventilated patients. Crit Care Med. 2004;32(4):955–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Salluh JI, Wang H, Schneider EB, Nagaraja N, Yenokyan G, Damluji A, et al. Outcome of delirium in critically ill patients: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2015;350: h2538.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Estrup S, Kjer CKW, Vilhelmsen F, Poulsen LM, Gøgenur I, Mathiesen O. Cognitive function 3 and 12 months after ICU discharge-a prospective cohort study. Crit Care Med. 2018;46(12):e1121–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Girard TD, Jackson JC, Pandharipande PP, Pun BT, Thompson JL, Shintani AK, et al. Delirium as a predictor of long-term cognitive impairment in survivors of critical illness. Crit Care Med. 2010;38(7):1513–20.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Pandharipande PP, Girard TD, Jackson JC, Morandi A, Thompson JL, Pun BT, et al. Long-term cognitive impairment after critical illness. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(14):1306–16.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Brummel NE, Jackson JC, Pandharipande PP, Thompson JL, Shintani AK, Dittus RS, et al. Delirium in the ICU and subsequent long-term disability among survivors of mechanical ventilation. Crit Care Med. 2014;42(2):369–77.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Wolters AE, van Dijk D, Pasma W, Cremer OL, Looije MF, de Lange DW, et al. Long-term outcome of delirium during intensive care unit stay in survivors of critical illness: a prospective cohort study. Crit Care. 2014;18(3):R125.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Shankar-Hari M, Wunsch H, Rowan K, Singer M, Rubenfeld GD, Angus DC. Reflections on critical care’s past, present, and future. Crit Care Med. 2021;49(11):1855–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Mehlhorn J, Freytag A, Schmidt K, Brunkhorst FM, Graf J, Troitzsch U, et al. Rehabilitation interventions for postintensive care syndrome: a systematic review. Crit Care Med. 2014;42(5):1263–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Herling SF, Greve IE, Vasilevskis EE, Egerod I, Bekker Mortensen C, Møller AM, et al. Interventions for preventing intensive care unit delirium in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;11(11):009783.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Van Der Schaaf M, Bakhshi-Raiez F, Van Der Steen M, Dongelmans DA, De Keizer NF. Recommendations for intensive care follow-up clinics; report from a survey and conference of Dutch intensive cares. Minerva Anestesiol. 2015;81(2):135–44.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Baron R, Binder A, Biniek R, Braune S, Buerkle H, Dall P, et al. Evidence and consensus based guideline for the management of delirium, analgesia, and sedation in intensive care medicine Revision 2015 (DAS-Guideline 2015) short version. Ger Med Sci. 2015;13:19.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Barr J, Fraser GL, Puntillo K, Ely EW, Gélinas C, Dasta JF, 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(1):263–306.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Trogrlić Z, van der Jagt M, Bakker J, Balas MC, Ely EW, van der Voort PH, et al. A systematic review of implementation strategies for assessment, prevention, and management of ICU delirium and their effect on clinical outcomes. Crit Care. 2015;19(1):157.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Bernat Adell MD, Galarza Barrachina L, Bisbal Andrés E, Cebrián Graullera G, Pagés Aznar G, Morán Marmaneu M, et al. Factors affecting sleep quality in intensive care units. Med Intensiva (Engl Ed). 2021;45(8):470–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Moreno RP, Metnitz PG, Almeida E, Jordan B, Bauer P, Campos RA, et al. 2005. SAPS 3 From evaluation of the patient to evaluation of the intensive care unit. Part 2 Development of a prognostic model for hospital mortality at ICU admission. Intensive Care Med. 31(10): 1345–55

  24. Ely EW, Truman B, Shintani A, Thomason JW, Wheeler AP, Gordon S, et al. Monitoring sedation status over time in ICU patients: reliability and validity of the richmond agitation-sedation scale (RASS). JAMA. 2003;289(22):2983–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Chanques G, Ely EW, Garnier O, Perrigault F, Eloi A, Carr J, et al. 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(1):33.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Smith HA, Boyd J, Fuchs DC, Melvin K, Berry P, Shintani A, et al. Diagnosing delirium in critically ill children: validity and reliability of the pediatric confusion assessment method for the intensive care unit. Crit Care Med. 2011;39(1):150–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Smith HA, Gangopadhyay M, Goben CM, Jacobowski NL, Chestnut MH, Savage S, et al. The preschool confusion assessment method for the ICU: valid and reliable delirium monitoring for critically ill infants and children. Crit Care Med. 2016;44(3):592–600.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Mahoney FI, Barthel DW. Functional evaluation: the barthel index. Md State Med J. 1965;14:61–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Muscedere J, Waters B, Varambally A, Bagshaw SM, Boyd JG, Maslove D, et al. The impact of frailty on intensive care unit outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Intensive Care Med. 2017;43(8):1105–22.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Pugh RJ, Ellison A, Pye K, Subbe CP, Thorpe CM, Lone NI, et al. Feasibility and reliability of frailty assessment in the critically ill: a systematic review. Crit Care. 2018;22(1):49.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Pulok MH, Theou O, van der Valk AM, Rockwood K. The role of illness acuity on the association between frailty and mortality in emergency department patients referred to internal medicine. Age Ageing. 2020;49(6):1071–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Rockwood K, Song X, MacKnight C, Bergman H, Hogan DB, McDowell I, et al. A global clinical measure of fitness and frailty in elderly people. CMAJ. 2005;173(5):489–95.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Rockwood K, Theou O. Using the clinical frailty scale in allocating scarce health care resources. Can Geriatr J. 2020;23(3):210–5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Alonso J, Prieto L, Antó JM. The Spanish version of the SF-36 health survey (the SF-36 health questionnaire): an instrument for measuring clinical results. Med Clin (Barc). 1995;104(20):771–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36) I Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992;30(6):473–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Pardo A, Ruiz M, San Martin R. Análisis de datos en ciencias sociales y de la salud. Síntesis, editor. Madrid2009.

  37. Furr R. Interpreting effect sizes in contrast analysis. Underst Stat. 2004;3(1):1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Vargha A, Delaney HD. A critique and improvement of the CL common language effect size statistics of mcgraw and wong. J Educ Behav Stat. 2000;25(2):101–32.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Lobo-Valbuena B, Gordo F, Abella A, Garcia-Manzanedo S, Garcia-Arias MM, Torrejón I, et al. Risk factors associated with the development of delirium in general ICU patients. A Prospective Observ Study PLoS One. 2021;16(9): e0255522.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. van den Boogaard M, Schoonhoven L, Evers AW, van der Hoeven JG, van Achterberg T, Pickkers P. Delirium in critically ill patients: impact on long-term health-related quality of life and cognitive functioning. Crit Care Med. 2012;40(1):112–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Flaatten H, Kvåle R. Survival and quality of life 12 years after ICU a comparison with the general Norwegian population. Intensive Care Med. 2001;27(6):1005–11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Goldberg TE, Chen C, Wang Y, Jung E, Swanson A, Ing C, et al. Association of delirium with long-term cognitive decline: a meta-analysis. JAMA Neurol. 2020;77(11):1373–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Li HC, Wei YC, Hsu RB, Chi NH, Wang SS, Chen YS, et al. Surviving and thriving 1 year after cardiac surgery: frailty and delirium matter. Ann Thorac Surg. 2021;111(5):1578–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Gracie TJ, Caufield-Noll C, Wang NY, Sieber FE. The association of preoperative frailty and postoperative delirium: a meta-analysis. Anesth Analg. 2021;133(2):314–23.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Mazzola P, Tassistro E, Di Santo S, Rossi E, Andreano A, Valsecchi MG, et al. The relationship between frailty and delirium: insights from the 2017 delirium day study. Age Ageing. 2021;50(5):1593–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Sanchez D, Brennan K, Al Sayfe M, Shunker SA, Bogdanoski T, Hedges S, et al. Frailty, delirium and hospital mortality of older adults admitted to intensive care: the Delirium (Deli) in ICU study. Crit Care. 2020;24(1):609.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Kin K, Yasuhara T, Tomita Y, Umakoshi M, Morimoto J, Date I. SF-36 scores predict postoperative delirium after surgery for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J Neurosurg Spine. 2019;30:1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Rylander C. Historic review of long-term outcomes research. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2019;25(5):523–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Wilcox ME, Ely EW. Challenges in conducting long-term outcomes studies in critical care. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2019;25(5):473–88.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Desmond DP, Maddux JF, Johnson TH, Confer BA. Obtaining follow-up interviews for treatment evaluation. J Subst Abuse Treat. 1995;12(2):95–102.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Robinson KA, Dinglas VD, Sukrithan V, Yalamanchilli R, Mendez-Tellez PA, Dennison-Himmelfarb C, et al. Updated systematic review identifies substantial number of retention strategies: using more strategies retains more study participants. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68(12):1481–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Teague S, Youssef GJ, Macdonald JA, Sciberras E, Shatte A, Fuller-Tyszkiewicz M, et al. Retention strategies in longitudinal cohort studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18(1):151.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Hayhurst CJ, Marra A, Han JH, Patel MB, Brummel NE, Thompson JL, et al. Association of hypoactive and hyperactive delirium with cognitive function after critical illness. Crit Care Med. 2020;48(6):e480–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Hopkins RO, Weaver LK, Pope D, Orme JF, Bigler ED, Larson LV. Neuropsychological sequelae and impaired health status in survivors of severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1999;160(1):50–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Hughes CG, Patel MB, Jackson JC, Girard TD, Geevarghese SK, Norman BC, et al. Surgery and anesthesia exposure is not a risk factor for cognitive impairment after major noncardiac surgery and critical illness. Ann Surg. 2017;265(6):1126–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Randolph C, Tierney MC, Mohr E, Chase TN. The repeatable battery for the assessment of neuropsychological status (RBANS): preliminary clinical validity. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 1998;20(3):310–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Giménez-Esparza Vich C, Alcántara Carmona S, García SM. Delirium in COVID-19 Practical aspects of a frequent association. Med Intensiva. 2022;46(6):336–40.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Lobo-Valbuena B, Molina R, Gordo F. Post-intensive care syndrome. ICU Manage Practice. 2020;20(4):271–4.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Lobo-Valbuena B, Sánchez Roca MD, Regalón Martín MP, Torres Morales J, Varillas Delgado D, Gordo F. Post-intensive care syndrome: ample room for improvement data analysis after one year of implementation of a protocol for prevention and management in a second level hospital. Med Intensiva. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medine.2021.08.001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Rai S, Anthony L, Needham DM, Georgousopoulou EN, Sudheer B, Brown R, et al. Barriers to rehabilitation after critical illness: a survey of multidisciplinary healthcare professionals caring for ICU survivors in an acute care hospital. Aust Crit Care. 2020;33(3):264–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all clinical members of the ICU team at H.U del Henares, who actively helped gather the data for the present article.

Funding

No financial support was required for the study. Financial support will be provided in case of publication through Universidad Francisco de Vitoria.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Intensivist – Intensive Care Unit, Hospital Universitario del Henares, Coslada, Madrid, Spain

    Beatriz Lobo-Valbuena, Rosario Molina, Leire Lopez de la Oliva Calvo, Ana Abella, María-Mercedes Garcia-Arias, Irene Salinas Gabiña & Federico Gordo

  2. Grupo de Investigación en Patología Crítica, Facultad de Ciencias de La Salud, Universidad Francisco de Vitoria, Pozuelo de Alarcón, Madrid, Spain

    Beatriz Lobo-Valbuena, Rosario Molina, Ana Abella, María-Mercedes Garcia-Arias, Irene Salinas Gabiña & Federico Gordo

  3. Research Support Unit, Faculty of Medicine, Universidad Francisco de Vitoria, Pozuelo de Alarcón, Madrid, Spain

    Raúl Castañeda-Vozmediano

Authors
  1. Beatriz Lobo-Valbuena
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rosario Molina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Raúl Castañeda-Vozmediano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Leire Lopez de la Oliva Calvo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ana Abella
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. María-Mercedes Garcia-Arias
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Irene Salinas Gabiña
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Federico Gordo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

BLV: investigation, original draft, reviewing and editing. RM: investigation, writing and reviewing. RCV: software and formal analysis. LLOC: investigation and reviewing. AA: review. MMGA: investigation and resources. ISG: reviewing and editing. FG: methodology, project administration, supervision, and validation.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Beatriz Lobo-Valbuena.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The research was approved by the Francisco de Vitoria University's Healthcare Ethics Committee (44/2018). Participation and acceptance of inclusion of patient's data into the Registry were obtained by signing the informed consent document (by the patient or by an authorised surrogate in case the patient could not express their opinion).

Consent for publication

All authors consent for publication.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1: Table S1.

Analysis of main effects and interaction effect for Barthel and CFS. Table S2. Post-hoc analysis for the Barthel Index. Table S3. Simple effects when studying the difference between the times for both groups.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lobo-Valbuena, B., Molina, R., Castañeda-Vozmediano, R. et al. Functional independence, frailty and perceived quality of life in patients who developed delirium during ICU stay: a prospective cohort study. Eur J Med Res 28, 560 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40001-023-01530-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40001-023-01530-8

Keywords

European Journal of Medical Research

ISSN: 2047-783X

Contact us