Evaluation Study
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Evaluation of the 3-Minute Diagnostic Confusion Assessment Method for Identification of Postoperative Delirium in Older Patients.

JAMA Network Open 2021 December 2
IMPORTANCE: Delirium is a common postoperative complication in older patients that often goes undetected and might lead to worse outcomes. The 3-Minute Diagnostic Confusion Assessment Method (3D-CAM) might be a practical tool for routine clinical diagnosis of delirium.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the 3D-CAM for detecting postoperative delirium compared with the long-form CAM used for research purposes.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This cohort study of older patients enrolled in ongoing clinical trials between 2015 and 2018 was conducted at a single tertiary US hospital. Included participants were aged 60 years or older undergoing major elective surgical procedures that required at least a 2-day hospital stay. Data were analyzed between February and April 2019.

EXPOSURES: Surgical procedures of at least 2 hours in length requiring general anesthesia with planned extubation.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Patients were concurrently assessed for delirium using the 3D-CAM assessment and the long-form CAM, scored based on a standardized cognitive assessment. Agreement between these 2 methods was tested using Cohen κ with repeated measures, a generalized linear mixed-effects model, and Bland-Altman analysis.

RESULTS: Sixteen raters conducted 471 concurrent CAM and 3D-CAM interviews including 299 patients (mean [SD] age, 69 [6.5] years), the majority of whom were men (152 [50.8%]), were White (263 [88.0%]), and had noncardiac operations (211 [70.6%]). Both instruments had good intraclass correlation (0.84 for the CAM and 0.98 for the 3D-CAM). Cohen κ demonstrated good overall agreement between the CAM and 3D-CAM (κ = 0.71; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.83). According to the mixed-effects model, there was statistically significant disagreement between the 3D-CAM and CAM (estimated difference in fixed effect, -0.68; 95% CI, -1.32 to -0.05; P = .04). Bland-Altman analysis showed the probability of a delirium diagnosis with the 3D-CAM was more than twice the probability of a delirium diagnosis with the CAM (probability ratio, 2.78; 95% CI, 2.44 to 3.23).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The 3D-CAM instrument demonstrated agreement with the long-form CAM and might provide a pragmatic and sensitive clinical tool for detecting postoperative delirium, with the caveat that the 3D-CAM might overdiagnose delirium.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app