Implications of Objective vs Subjective Delirium Assessment in Surgical Intensive Care Patients.

Background Delirium is an independent predictor of increased length of stay, mortality, and treatment costs in critical care patients. Its incidence may be underestimated or overestimated if delirium is assessed by using subjective clinical impression alone rather than an objective instrument. Objectives To determine frequency of discrepancies between subjective and objective delirium monitoring. Methods An observational cohort study was performed in a surgical-cardiosurgical 31-bed intensive care unit of a university hospital. Patients' delirium status was rated daily by bedside nurses on the basis of subjective individual clinical impressions and by medical students on the basis of scores on the objective Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit. Results Of 160 patients suitable for analysis, 38.8% (n = 62) had delirium according to objective criteria at some time during their stay in the intensive care unit. A total of 436 paired observations were analyzed. Delirium was diagnosed in 26.1% of observations (n = 114) with the objective method. This percentage included 6.4% (n = 28) in whom delirium was not recognized via subjective criteria. According to subjective criteria, delirium was present in 29.4% of paired observations (n = 128), including 9.6% (n = 42) with no objective indications of delirium. A total of 8 patients with no evidence of delirium according to the objective criteria were prescribed haloperidol and lorazepam because the subjective method indicated they had delirium. Conclusions Use of objective criteria helped detect delirium in more patients and also identified patients mistakenly thought to have delirium who actually did not meet objective criteria for diagnosis of the condition.

Low-dose intradermal versus intramuscular trivalent inactivated seasonal influenza vaccine in lung transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND: In this study we compared the immunogenicity of influenza vaccine administered intradermally to the standard intramuscular vaccination in lung transplant recipients. METHODS: Patients were randomized to receive the trivalent inactivated seasonal 2008-9 influenza vaccine containing either 6 μg (intradermal) or 15 μg (intramuscular) of hemagglutinin per viral strain. Immunogenicity was assessed by measurement of geometric mean titer of antibodies using the hemagglutination-inhibition (HI) assay. Vaccine response was defined as a 4-fold or higher increase of antibody titers to at least one vaccine antigen. RESULTS: Eighty-five patients received either the intradermal (n = 41) or intramuscular (n = 44) vaccine. Vaccine response was seen in 6 of 41 patients (14.6%) in the intradermal vs 8 of 43 (18.6%) in the intramuscular group (p = 0.77). Seroprotection (HI ≥1:32) was 39% for H1N1, 83% for H3N2 and 29% for B strain in the intradermal group vs 28% for H1N1, 98% for H3N2 and 58% for B strain in the intramuscular group (p = 0.36 for H1N1, p = 0.02 for H3N2, p < 0.01 for B). Mild adverse events were seen in 44% of patients in the intradermal group and 34% in the intramuscular group (p = 0.38). CONCLUSIONS: Immunogenicity of the 2008-9 influenza vaccine given intradermally or intramuscularly was overall poor in lung transplant recipients. Novel strategies for influenza vaccination in this population are needed.

A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Intradermal vs. Intramuscular Influenza Vaccine in Lung Transplant Recipients

Background: Immunogenicity of standard infl uenza vaccine is suboptimal in lung transplant recipients. Intradermal vaccine may elicit stronger responses due to recruitment of local dendritic cells. We compared the immunogenicity of the infl uenza vaccine administered intradermally (ID) to the standard intramuscular (IM) vaccination. Methods: In this investigator-blinded, two-center, prospective trial, lung transplant patients were randomized to receive intradermal (6ug) or intramuscular (15ug) 2008/9 trivalent inactivated infl uenza vaccine. Immunogenicity was evaluated using a standard hemagglutination inhibition assay (HIA). Response to the vaccine was defi ned as a fourfold increase of the HIA levels for any of the 3 viral strains in the vaccine. Geometric mean titers (GMT) and seroprotection rate (HIA ≥32) were also analyzed. Patients were followed during 6 months for the development of infl uenza or acute rejection. Results: We randomized 84 patients to receive the ID (n=41) vs. IM (n=43) vaccine, respectively. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. Median time from transplantation was 3.4 yrs (ID) vs. 3.3 yrs (IM) (p=0.84). Vaccine response to at least one antigen was seen in 6/41 (14.6%) patients in the ID vs. 8/43 (18.6%) in the IM group (p=0.77). In the ID group, GMTs (95% CI) after vaccination were 15.7 (11.1-22.3) for H1N1, 84.0 (52.0-135.7) for H3N2, and 14.5 (9.6-21.8) for B strains vs. in the IM group 17.5 (11.8-25.9) for H1N1, 108.9 (77.5-153.2) for H3N2, and 20.2 (12.8-31.9) for B (p=NS, all 3 strains). Seroprotection was 39% (H1N1), 82.9% (H3N2) and 29.3% (B strain) in the ID group vs. 27.9% (H1N1), 97.7% (H3N2) and 58.1% (B strain) in the IM group. No factors associated with vaccine response were identifi ed. Mild adverse events were seen in 44% of patients (ID) vs. 34% (IM) (p=0.38). Two patients (4.8%) in the ID group developed infl uenza infection compared to none in the IM group. Two patients in each group developed biopsy-proven acute rejection during follow-up. Conclusions: Immunogenicity of the 2008/09 infl uenza vaccine was poor in lung transplant recipients. ID administration of the vaccine elicited similar immune responses to standard IM vaccination. Novel strategies of vaccination are needed to protect lung transplant recipients from infl uenza.

Assessment of cytomegalovirus-specific cell-mediated immunity for the prediction of cytomegalovirus disease in high-risk solid-organ transplant recipients: a multicenter cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease remains an important problem in solid-organ transplant recipients, with the greatest risk among donor CMV-seropositive, recipient-seronegative (D(+)/R(-)) patients. CMV-specific cell-mediated immunity may be able to predict which patients will develop CMV disease. METHODS: We prospectively included D(+)/R(-) patients who received antiviral prophylaxis. We used the Quantiferon-CMV assay to measure interferon-γ levels following in vitro stimulation with CMV antigens. The test was performed at the end of prophylaxis and 1 and 2 months later. The primary outcome was the incidence of CMV disease at 12 months after transplant. We calculated positive and negative predictive values of the assay for protection from CMV disease. RESULTS: Overall, 28 of 127 (22%) patients developed CMV disease. Of 124 evaluable patients, 31 (25%) had a positive result, 81 (65.3%) had a negative result, and 12 (9.7%) had an indeterminate result (negative mitogen and CMV antigen) with the Quantiferon-CMV assay. At 12 months, patients with a positive result had a subsequent lower incidence of CMV disease than patients with a negative and an indeterminate result (6.4% vs 22.2% vs 58.3%, respectively; P < .001). Positive and negative predictive values of the assay for protection from CMV disease were 0.90 (95% confidence interval [CI], .74-.98) and 0.27 (95% CI, .18-.37), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This assay may be useful to predict if patients are at low, intermediate, or high risk for the development of subsequent CMV disease after prophylaxis. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT00817908.