The 3-Minute Diagnostic Confusion Assessment Method severity score correlates with the Delirium Rating Scale–Revised–98 and with biomarkers of delirium

Cameron Rivera , David Kunkel , Maihlee Her , Simran Qureshi , Robert A. Pearce , Robert D. Sanders , Richard Lennertz
{"title":"The 3-Minute Diagnostic Confusion Assessment Method severity score correlates with the Delirium Rating Scale–Revised–98 and with biomarkers of delirium","authors":"Cameron Rivera ,&nbsp;David Kunkel ,&nbsp;Maihlee Her ,&nbsp;Simran Qureshi ,&nbsp;Robert A. Pearce ,&nbsp;Robert D. Sanders ,&nbsp;Richard Lennertz","doi":"10.1016/j.bjao.2025.100398","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Several methods are used to measure delirium severity in the postoperative period. Here, we compare severity scores from two common assessment methods: the 3-Minute Diagnostic Confusion Assessment Method (3D-CAM) and the Delirium Rating Scale–Revised–98 (DRS).</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Data were collected as part of an ongoing observational cohort study of perioperative delirium in patients &gt;65 yr old undergoing major elective surgery with an anticipated hospital stay of at least 2 days. Patients were excluded if they had a documented history of dementia, resided in a nursing home, underwent neurosurgery, or could not complete neurocognitive testing. Patients underwent paired 3D-CAM and DRS assessments before and after operation along with EEG, cognitive testing, and plasma biomarker analysis.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Of 226 subjects enrolled, 204 completed both the 3D-CAM and DRS assessments. Peak 3D-CAM severity (3D-CAM-S) scores correlated with peak DRS severity scores, for both the raw (ρ=0.74, <em>P</em>&lt;0.001) and short form method (ρ=0.66, <em>P</em>&lt;0.001). Peak 3D-CAM-S raw scores also correlated with delirium duration and severity duration area under the curve measures (ρ=0.71, <em>P</em>&lt;0.001 and ρ=0.91, <em>P</em>&lt;0.001, respectively). Similar to prior reports with the DRS, 3D-CAM-S raw scores correlated with worse performance on the Trail Making Test B (ρ=0.37, <em>P</em>&lt;0.001, <em>n</em>=177), slow-wave electroencephalogram power (ρ=0.3, <em>P</em>=0.001, <em>n</em>=73), and plasma neurofilament light (ρ=0.26, <em>P</em>&lt;0.05, <em>n</em>=61) and tau (ρ=0.41, <em>P</em>&lt;0.001, <em>n</em>=63).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>The 3D-CAM-S severity scores correlated with DRS, delirium duration, and biomarkers of delirium. The 3D-CAM, which is easier to implement than the DRS in postoperative patients, may provide a comparable assessment of delirium severity in this population.</div></div><div><h3>Clinical trial registration</h3><div>NCT03124303.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":72418,"journal":{"name":"BJA open","volume":"14 ","pages":"Article 100398"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BJA open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S277260962500022X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Several methods are used to measure delirium severity in the postoperative period. Here, we compare severity scores from two common assessment methods: the 3-Minute Diagnostic Confusion Assessment Method (3D-CAM) and the Delirium Rating Scale–Revised–98 (DRS).

Methods

Data were collected as part of an ongoing observational cohort study of perioperative delirium in patients >65 yr old undergoing major elective surgery with an anticipated hospital stay of at least 2 days. Patients were excluded if they had a documented history of dementia, resided in a nursing home, underwent neurosurgery, or could not complete neurocognitive testing. Patients underwent paired 3D-CAM and DRS assessments before and after operation along with EEG, cognitive testing, and plasma biomarker analysis.

Results

Of 226 subjects enrolled, 204 completed both the 3D-CAM and DRS assessments. Peak 3D-CAM severity (3D-CAM-S) scores correlated with peak DRS severity scores, for both the raw (ρ=0.74, P<0.001) and short form method (ρ=0.66, P<0.001). Peak 3D-CAM-S raw scores also correlated with delirium duration and severity duration area under the curve measures (ρ=0.71, P<0.001 and ρ=0.91, P<0.001, respectively). Similar to prior reports with the DRS, 3D-CAM-S raw scores correlated with worse performance on the Trail Making Test B (ρ=0.37, P<0.001, n=177), slow-wave electroencephalogram power (ρ=0.3, P=0.001, n=73), and plasma neurofilament light (ρ=0.26, P<0.05, n=61) and tau (ρ=0.41, P<0.001, n=63).

Conclusions

The 3D-CAM-S severity scores correlated with DRS, delirium duration, and biomarkers of delirium. The 3D-CAM, which is easier to implement than the DRS in postoperative patients, may provide a comparable assessment of delirium severity in this population.

Clinical trial registration

NCT03124303.
3分钟诊断混乱评估方法严重程度评分与谵妄评定量表-修订- 98和谵妄的生物标志物相关
研究背景:术后谵妄严重程度的测量有几种方法。在这里,我们比较了两种常见的评估方法的严重程度评分:3分钟诊断混乱评估方法(3D-CAM)和谵妄评定量表-修订- 98 (DRS)。方法收集数据,作为一项正在进行的观察性队列研究的一部分,该研究涉及65岁接受重大择期手术且预计住院时间至少为2天的患者围手术期谵妄。如果患者有痴呆病史、住在养老院、接受过神经外科手术或无法完成神经认知测试,则排除在外。患者在手术前后接受配对的3D-CAM和DRS评估,同时进行脑电图、认知测试和血浆生物标志物分析。结果226名受试者中,204名同时完成了3D-CAM和DRS评估。对于原始方法(ρ=0.74, P<0.001)和简式方法(ρ=0.66, P<0.001),峰值3D-CAM严重程度(3D-CAM- s)评分与峰值DRS严重程度评分相关。峰值3D-CAM-S原始评分也与谵妄持续时间和严重持续时间曲线下测量面积相关(ρ=0.71, P<;0.001和ρ=0.91, P<0.001)。与先前的DRS报告类似,3D-CAM-S原始分数与Trail Making Test B (ρ=0.37, P=0.001, n=177)、慢波脑电图功率(ρ=0.3, P=0.001, n=73)、血浆神经丝光(ρ=0.26, P= 0.05, n=61)和tau (ρ=0.41, P= lt;0.001, n=63)的较差表现相关。结论3D-CAM-S严重程度评分与DRS、谵妄持续时间及谵妄生物标志物相关。3D-CAM在术后患者中比DRS更容易实施,可以为该人群提供可比较的谵妄严重程度评估。临床试验注册编号nct03124303。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
BJA open
BJA open Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
83 days
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信