Validating the Fluctuating Mental Status Evaluation in Neurocritically Ill Patients With Acute Stroke.

IF 7.7 1区 医学 Q1 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE Critical Care Medicine Pub Date : 2024-10-04 DOI:10.1097/CCM.0000000000006437
Michael E Reznik, Seth A Margolis, Nicholas Andrews, Colin Basso, Noa Mintz, Sean Varga, Beth E Snitz, Timothy D Girard, Lori A Shutter, E Wesley Ely, Richard N Jones
{"title":"Validating the Fluctuating Mental Status Evaluation in Neurocritically Ill Patients With Acute Stroke.","authors":"Michael E Reznik, Seth A Margolis, Nicholas Andrews, Colin Basso, Noa Mintz, Sean Varga, Beth E Snitz, Timothy D Girard, Lori A Shutter, E Wesley Ely, Richard N Jones","doi":"10.1097/CCM.0000000000006437","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Neurocritically ill patients are at high risk for developing delirium, which can worsen the long-term outcomes of this vulnerable population. However, existing delirium assessment tools do not account for neurologic deficits that often interfere with conventional testing and are therefore unreliable in neurocritically ill patients. We aimed to determine the accuracy and predictive validity of the Fluctuating Mental Status Evaluation (FMSE), a novel delirium screening tool developed specifically for neurocritically ill patients.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Prospective validation study.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Neurocritical care unit at an academic medical center.</p><p><strong>Patients: </strong>One hundred thirty-nine neurocritically ill stroke patients (mean age, 63.9 [sd, 15.9], median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score 11 [interquartile range, 2-17]).</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>None.</p><p><strong>Measurements and main results: </strong>Expert raters performed daily Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition-based delirium assessments, while paired FMSE assessments were performed by trained clinicians. We analyzed 717 total noncomatose days of paired assessments, of which 52% (n = 373) were rated by experts as days with delirium; 53% of subjects were delirious during one or more days. Compared with expert ratings, the overall accuracy of the FMSE was high (area under the curve [AUC], 0.85; 95% CI, 0.82-0.87). FMSE scores greater than or equal to 1 had 86% sensitivity and 74% specificity on a per-assessment basis, while scores greater than or equal to 2 had 70% sensitivity and 88% specificity. Accuracy remained high in patients with aphasia (FMSE ≥ 1: 82% sensitivity, 64% specificity; FMSE ≥ 2: 64% sensitivity, 84% specificity) and those with decreased arousal (FMSE ≥ 1: 87% sensitivity, 77% specificity; FMSE ≥ 2: 71% sensitivity, 90% specificity). Positive FMSE assessments also had excellent accuracy when predicting functional outcomes at discharge (AUC, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.79-0.93]) and 3 months (AUC, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.78-0.92]).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this validation study, we found that the FMSE was an accurate delirium screening tool in neurocritically ill stroke patients. FMSE scores greater than or equal to 1 indicate \"possible\" delirium and should be used when prioritizing sensitivity, whereas scores greater than or equal to 2 indicate \"probable\" delirium and should be used when prioritizing specificity.</p>","PeriodicalId":10765,"journal":{"name":"Critical Care Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Care Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000006437","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Neurocritically ill patients are at high risk for developing delirium, which can worsen the long-term outcomes of this vulnerable population. However, existing delirium assessment tools do not account for neurologic deficits that often interfere with conventional testing and are therefore unreliable in neurocritically ill patients. We aimed to determine the accuracy and predictive validity of the Fluctuating Mental Status Evaluation (FMSE), a novel delirium screening tool developed specifically for neurocritically ill patients.

Design: Prospective validation study.

Setting: Neurocritical care unit at an academic medical center.

Patients: One hundred thirty-nine neurocritically ill stroke patients (mean age, 63.9 [sd, 15.9], median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score 11 [interquartile range, 2-17]).

Interventions: None.

Measurements and main results: Expert raters performed daily Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition-based delirium assessments, while paired FMSE assessments were performed by trained clinicians. We analyzed 717 total noncomatose days of paired assessments, of which 52% (n = 373) were rated by experts as days with delirium; 53% of subjects were delirious during one or more days. Compared with expert ratings, the overall accuracy of the FMSE was high (area under the curve [AUC], 0.85; 95% CI, 0.82-0.87). FMSE scores greater than or equal to 1 had 86% sensitivity and 74% specificity on a per-assessment basis, while scores greater than or equal to 2 had 70% sensitivity and 88% specificity. Accuracy remained high in patients with aphasia (FMSE ≥ 1: 82% sensitivity, 64% specificity; FMSE ≥ 2: 64% sensitivity, 84% specificity) and those with decreased arousal (FMSE ≥ 1: 87% sensitivity, 77% specificity; FMSE ≥ 2: 71% sensitivity, 90% specificity). Positive FMSE assessments also had excellent accuracy when predicting functional outcomes at discharge (AUC, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.79-0.93]) and 3 months (AUC, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.78-0.92]).

Conclusions: In this validation study, we found that the FMSE was an accurate delirium screening tool in neurocritically ill stroke patients. FMSE scores greater than or equal to 1 indicate "possible" delirium and should be used when prioritizing sensitivity, whereas scores greater than or equal to 2 indicate "probable" delirium and should be used when prioritizing specificity.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
验证急性脑卒中神经重症患者的波动精神状态评估。
目的:神经重症患者是谵妄的高危人群,谵妄会恶化这一弱势群体的长期预后。然而,现有的谵妄评估工具并没有考虑到神经系统的缺陷,而这些缺陷往往会干扰常规测试,因此对于神经重症患者来说并不可靠。我们旨在确定波动精神状态评估(FMSE)的准确性和预测有效性,这是一种专为神经重症患者开发的新型谵妄筛查工具:前瞻性验证研究:地点:一家学术医疗中心的神经重症监护病房:139 名神经重症卒中患者(平均年龄 63.9 [sd,15.9],美国国立卫生研究院卒中量表评分中位数 11 [四分位间范围 2-17]):无干预措施:专家评分员每天进行基于《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第五版的谵妄评估,而配对的 FMSE 评估则由训练有素的临床医生进行。我们分析了总计 717 个非昏迷日的配对评估,其中 52%(n = 373)被专家评为谵妄日;53% 的受试者在一天或多天内出现谵妄。与专家评分相比,FMSE 的总体准确率较高(曲线下面积 [AUC],0.85;95% CI,0.82-0.87)。FMSE 评分大于或等于 1 分时,每次评估的灵敏度为 86%,特异度为 74%;评分大于或等于 2 分时,灵敏度为 70%,特异度为 88%。对于失语症患者(FMSE ≥ 1:灵敏度为 82%,特异度为 64%;FMSE ≥ 2:灵敏度为 64%,特异度为 84%)和唤醒能力下降的患者(FMSE ≥ 1:灵敏度为 87%,特异度为 77%;FMSE ≥ 2:灵敏度为 71%,特异度为 90%),准确度仍然很高。在预测出院时(AUC,0.86 [95% CI,0.79-0.93])和3个月时(AUC,0.85 [95% CI,0.78-0.92])的功能结果时,FMSE评估阳性也具有极高的准确性:在这项验证研究中,我们发现 FMSE 是神经重症卒中患者谵妄筛查的准确工具。FMSE 评分大于或等于 1 分表示 "可能 "谵妄,应优先考虑灵敏度,而评分大于或等于 2 分表示 "可能 "谵妄,应优先考虑特异性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Critical Care Medicine
Critical Care Medicine 医学-危重病医学
CiteScore
16.30
自引率
5.70%
发文量
728
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Critical Care Medicine is the premier peer-reviewed, scientific publication in critical care medicine. Directed to those specialists who treat patients in the ICU and CCU, including chest physicians, surgeons, pediatricians, pharmacists/pharmacologists, anesthesiologists, critical care nurses, and other healthcare professionals, Critical Care Medicine covers all aspects of acute and emergency care for the critically ill or injured patient. Each issue presents critical care practitioners with clinical breakthroughs that lead to better patient care, the latest news on promising research, and advances in equipment and techniques.
期刊最新文献
Performance of the Healthy Aging Brain Care Monitor Self Report in Monitoring Post-Intensive Care Syndrome Among Acute Respiratory Failure Survivors. The Need for Institutional Policies for Innovative Therapy: Existing Approaches and Key Elements. Vascular Complications After Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Support: A CT Study. The Impact of Multi-Institution Datasets on the Generalizability of Machine Learning Prediction Models in the ICU. ICU-Electroencephalogram Unit Improves Outcome in Status Epilepticus Patients: A Retrospective Before-After Study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1