Abstract
Purpose To ascertain delirium prevalence and outcomes in COVID-19.
Methods We conducted a point-prevalence study in a cohort of COVID-19 inpatients at University College Hospital. Delirium was defined by DSM-IV criteria. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 4 weeks; secondary outcomes were physical and cognitive function.
Results In 71 patients, 31 (42%) had delirium, of which only 19 had been recognised by the clinical team. At 4 weeks, 20 (28%) had died, 26 (36%) were interviewed by telephone and 21 (30%) remained as inpatients. Physical function was substantially worse in people after delirium (−39 points on functional scale/166, 95% CI −92 to −21, p=0.01) (Table 2). Mean cognitive scores at follow-up were similar and delirium was not associated with mortality in this sample.
Conclusions Our findings indicate that delirium is common, yet under-recognised. Delirium is associated with functional impairments in the medium-term.
Aim To investigate functional and cognitive outcomes among patients with delirium in COVID-19.
Findings Delirium in COVID-19 was prevalent (42%) but only a minority had been recognised by the clinical team. At 4-week follow-up, delirium was significantly associated with worse functional outcomes, independent of pre-morbid frailty. Cognitive outcomes were not appreciably worse.
Message The presence of delirium is a significant factor in predicting worse functional outcomes in patients with COVID-19.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
Daniel Davis is funded through a Wellcome Intermediate Clinical Fellowship (WT107467).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
These analyses were conducted as part of a service evaluation project and individual consent was not necessary as determined by the NHS Health Research Authority (HRA), the regulatory body for medical research for England, UK. The HRA has the Research Ethics Service as one of its core functions and they determined the project was exempt from the need to obtain approval from an NHS Research Ethics Committee. https://www.hra.nhs.uk/about-us/committees-and-services/res-and-recs/
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
On request
