TABLE 1.
Patient Characteristics Based on Confusion Assessment Method Defined Delirium
| Quantitative Data: Unique Subjectsa | Total (n = 404) | No Delirium (n = 132) | Delirium (n = 143) | Coma (n = 129) | Post Hocb |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, yr, mean (sd) | 59.8 (17.6) | 55.1 (18.6) | 64.3 (16.1) | 59.7 (17.0) | N < D |
| Age-adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index, median (IQR) | 4 (2–6) | 3 (1–5) | 5 (3–6) | 5 (3–7) | N < D, N < C |
| Length of stay (d), median (IQR) | 10 (5–19) | 6 (3–11) | 12 (6–18) | 17 (9–29) | N < D < C |
| Glasgow Outcome Scale at discharge (1 to 5), median (IQR) | 3 (3–4) | 4 (3–5) | 3 (3–3) | 1 (1–3) | N > D > C |
| Categorical data: unique subjectsa, n (%) | |||||
| Sexc | |||||
| Female | 172 (42.6) | 56 (42.4) | 65 (45.5) | 51 (39.5) | NS |
| Male | 232 (57.4) | 76 (57.6) | 78 (54.5) | 78 (60.5) | |
| Racec | |||||
| Asian | 13 (3.2) | 4 (3.0) | 2 (1.4) | 7 (5.4) | NS |
| Black | 34 (8.4) | 9 (6.8) | 16 (11.2) | 9 (7.0) | |
| Native American or other Pacific Islander | 1 (0.2) | 1 (0.8) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | |
| White | 320 (79.2) | 109 (82.6) | 113 (79.0) | 98 (76.0) | |
| Other or unknown | 36 (8.9) | 9 (6.8) | 12 (8.4) | 15 (11.6) | |
| Ethnicityc | |||||
| Hispanic | 16 (4.0) | 3 (2.3) | 3 (2.1) | 10 (7.8) | N/C |
| Non-Hispanic | 339 (83.9) | 119 (90.2) | 121 (84.6) | 99 (76.7) | |
| Unavailable | 49 (12.1) | 10 (7.6) | 19 (13.3) | 20 (15.5) | |
| Disposition | |||||
| Home, self-care | 105 (26.0) | 68 (51.5) | 30 (21.0) | 7 (5.4) | N/D, N/C, D/C |
| Home, with services | 47 (11.6) | 29 (22.0) | 13 (9.1) | 5 (3.9) | |
| Acute rehabilitation | 59 (14.6) | 16 (12.1) | 23 (16.1) | 20 (15.5) | |
| Skilled nursing facility | 55 (13.6) | 10 (7.6) | 40 (28.0) | 5 (3.9) | |
| Short-term hospital | 10 (2.5) | 2 (1.5) | 5 (3.5) | 3 (2.3) | |
| Long-term care | 31 (7.7) | 2 (1.5) | 10 (7.0) | 19 (14.7) | |
| Hospice | 16 (4.0) | 3 (2.3) | 9 (6.3) | 4 (3.1) | |
| Death | 81 (20.0) | 2 (1.5) | 13 (9.1) | 66 (51.2) | |
| Three mo postdischarge | |||||
| Alive | 236 (58.4) | 102 (77.3) | 87 (60.8) | 47 (36.4) | N/D, N/C, D/C |
| Deceased | 113 (28.0) | 9 (6.8) | 29 (20.3) | 75 (58.1) | |
| Unknown | 55 (13.6) | 21 (15.9) | 27 (18.9) | 7 (5.4) | |
| Quantitative Data: All Timepointsa | Total (n = 407) | No Delirium (n = 132) | Delirium (n = 145) | Coma (n = 130) | Post Hocb |
| Delirium severity (Confusion Assessment Method-Severity Long Form: 0–19), median (IQR) | 11 (4–15) | 2 (1–4) | 11 (9–13) | NA | N < D |
| Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (–5 to +4), median (IQR) | –1 (–4 to 0) | 0 (0–0) | –1 (–2 to 0) | ––4 (–5 to –4) | N > D > C |
| Categorical data: all timepointsa, n (%) | |||||
| ICU admission | 172 (42.3) | 15 (11.4) | 46 (31.7) | 111 (85.4) | N < D < C |
| EEG type, n (%) | |||||
| Routine EEG (< 60 min) | 170 (41.8) | 83 (62.9) | 80 (55.2) | 7 (5.4) | N/C, D/C |
| LTM | 237 (58.2) | 49 (37.1) | 65 (44.8) | 123 (94.6) | |
| EEG epoch scoring | |||||
| Duration (min) used for clinical reports, mean (sd) | 393.6 (459.2) | 271.8 (450.2) | 281.9 (399.0) | 641.7 (434.5) | NA |
| Routine EEG (< 60 min), mean (sd) | 26.5 (10.5) | 26.5 (12.0) | 26.0 (8.7) | 31.0 (10.0) | |
| LTM, mean (sd) | 656.9 (442.6) | 687.4 (522.1) | 596.8 (419.0) | 676.4 (420.7) | |
| Evaluation time within reported EEG epoch, n (%)d | 243 (59.7) | 51 (38.6) | 75 (51.7) | 117 (90) | NA |
| Evaluation time 0–1 hr from reported EEG epoch | 106 (26.0) | 51 (38.6) | 47 (32.4) | 8 (6.2) | |
| Evaluation time 1–2 hr from reported EEG epoch | 32 (7.9) | 20 (15.2) | 12 (8.3) | 0 (0.0) | |
| Evaluation time 2–3 hr from reported EEG epoch | 18 (4.4) | 5 (3.8) | 9 (6.2) | 4 (3.1) | |
| Evaluation time 3–5 hr from reported EEG epoch | 8 (2.0) | 5 (3.8) | 2 (1.4) | 1 (0.8) | |
C = coma, D = delirium, IQR = interquartile range, LTM = long-term monitoring, N = no delirium, N/D = no delirium and delirium are significantly different, NA = not applicable, NS = not significant.
aDataset consisted of 404 individual subjects with three having been evaluated > 1× (total of 407 timepoints of paired EEG and delirium assessments).
bQuantitative data are reported as medians (IQR) and compared using Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance tests, followed by Dunn’s post hoc comparison. Categorical data are reported as n = counts (percent) and compared using χ2 tests, followed by paired comparisons with Bonferroni correction. The significance level for all tests was set at p < 0.05. We show the pairwise results from the post hoc comparison. If NS, the omnibus p is NS.
cDemographic data (age, sex, race, and ethnicity) is reported based on information obtained from the electronic health record.
dFor scoring, the reported EEG epoch containing the time of patient evaluation was chosen. If a patient was unable to be evaluated during the EEG recording, the nearest reported EEG epoch to the evaluation time was then chosen.