Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, ISSN - 0973 - 709X

Users Online : 140321

AbstractMaterial and MethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionReferencesDOI and Others
Article in PDF How to Cite Citation Manager Readers' Comments (0) Audio Visual Article Statistics Link to PUBMED Print this Article Send to a Friend
Advertisers Access Statistics Resources

Dr Mohan Z Mani

"Thank you very much for having published my article in record time.I would like to compliment you and your entire staff for your promptness, courtesy, and willingness to be customer friendly, which is quite unusual.I was given your reference by a colleague in pathology,and was able to directly phone your editorial office for clarifications.I would particularly like to thank the publication managers and the Assistant Editor who were following up my article. I would also like to thank you for adjusting the money I paid initially into payment for my modified article,and refunding the balance.
I wish all success to your journal and look forward to sending you any suitable similar article in future"



Dr Mohan Z Mani,
Professor & Head,
Department of Dermatolgy,
Believers Church Medical College,
Thiruvalla, Kerala
On Sep 2018




Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar

"Over the last few years, we have published our research regularly in Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. Having published in more than 20 high impact journals over the last five years including several high impact ones and reviewing articles for even more journals across my fields of interest, we value our published work in JCDR for their high standards in publishing scientific articles. The ease of submission, the rapid reviews in under a month, the high quality of their reviewers and keen attention to the final process of proofs and publication, ensure that there are no mistakes in the final article. We have been asked clarifications on several occasions and have been happy to provide them and it exemplifies the commitment to quality of the team at JCDR."



Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar
Head, Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad
Chairman, Research Group, Charutar Arogya Mandal, Karamsad
National Joint Coordinator - Advanced IAP NNF NRP Program
Ex-Member, Governing Body, National Neonatology Forum, New Delhi
Ex-President - National Neonatology Forum Gujarat State Chapter
Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad, Anand, Gujarat.
On Sep 2018




Dr. Kalyani R

"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research is at present a well-known Indian originated scientific journal which started with a humble beginning. I have been associated with this journal since many years. I appreciate the Editor, Dr. Hemant Jain, for his constant effort in bringing up this journal to the present status right from the scratch. The journal is multidisciplinary. It encourages in publishing the scientific articles from postgraduates and also the beginners who start their career. At the same time the journal also caters for the high quality articles from specialty and super-specialty researchers. Hence it provides a platform for the scientist and researchers to publish. The other aspect of it is, the readers get the information regarding the most recent developments in science which can be used for teaching, research, treating patients and to some extent take preventive measures against certain diseases. The journal is contributing immensely to the society at national and international level."



Dr Kalyani R
Professor and Head
Department of Pathology
Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College
Sri Devaraj Urs Academy of Higher Education and Research , Kolar, Karnataka
On Sep 2018




Dr. Saumya Navit

"As a peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research provides an opportunity to researchers, scientists and budding professionals to explore the developments in the field of medicine and dentistry and their varied specialities, thus extending our view on biological diversities of living species in relation to medicine.
‘Knowledge is treasure of a wise man.’ The free access of this journal provides an immense scope of learning for the both the old and the young in field of medicine and dentistry as well. The multidisciplinary nature of the journal makes it a better platform to absorb all that is being researched and developed. The publication process is systematic and professional. Online submission, publication and peer reviewing makes it a user-friendly journal.
As an experienced dentist and an academician, I proudly recommend this journal to the dental fraternity as a good quality open access platform for rapid communication of their cutting-edge research progress and discovery.
I wish JCDR a great success and I hope that journal will soar higher with the passing time."



Dr Saumya Navit
Professor and Head
Department of Pediatric Dentistry
Saraswati Dental College
Lucknow
On Sep 2018




Dr. Arunava Biswas

"My sincere attachment with JCDR as an author as well as reviewer is a learning experience . Their systematic approach in publication of article in various categories is really praiseworthy.
Their prompt and timely response to review's query and the manner in which they have set the reviewing process helps in extracting the best possible scientific writings for publication.
It's a honour and pride to be a part of the JCDR team. My very best wishes to JCDR and hope it will sparkle up above the sky as a high indexed journal in near future."



Dr. Arunava Biswas
MD, DM (Clinical Pharmacology)
Assistant Professor
Department of Pharmacology
Calcutta National Medical College & Hospital , Kolkata




Dr. C.S. Ramesh Babu
" Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a multi-specialty medical and dental journal publishing high quality research articles in almost all branches of medicine. The quality of printing of figures and tables is excellent and comparable to any International journal. An added advantage is nominal publication charges and monthly issue of the journal and more chances of an article being accepted for publication. Moreover being a multi-specialty journal an article concerning a particular specialty has a wider reach of readers of other related specialties also. As an author and reviewer for several years I find this Journal most suitable and highly recommend this Journal."
Best regards,
C.S. Ramesh Babu,
Associate Professor of Anatomy,
Muzaffarnagar Medical College,
Muzaffarnagar.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Arundhathi. S
"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a reputed peer reviewed journal and is constantly involved in publishing high quality research articles related to medicine. Its been a great pleasure to be associated with this esteemed journal as a reviewer and as an author for a couple of years. The editorial board consists of many dedicated and reputed experts as its members and they are doing an appreciable work in guiding budding researchers. JCDR is doing a commendable job in scientific research by promoting excellent quality research & review articles and case reports & series. The reviewers provide appropriate suggestions that improve the quality of articles. I strongly recommend my fraternity to encourage JCDR by contributing their valuable research work in this widely accepted, user friendly journal. I hope my collaboration with JCDR will continue for a long time".



Dr. Arundhathi. S
MBBS, MD (Pathology),
Sanjay Gandhi institute of trauma and orthopedics,
Bengaluru.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Mamta Gupta,
"It gives me great pleasure to be associated with JCDR, since last 2-3 years. Since then I have authored, co-authored and reviewed about 25 articles in JCDR. I thank JCDR for giving me an opportunity to improve my own skills as an author and a reviewer.
It 's a multispecialty journal, publishing high quality articles. It gives a platform to the authors to publish their research work which can be available for everyone across the globe to read. The best thing about JCDR is that the full articles of all medical specialties are available as pdf/html for reading free of cost or without institutional subscription, which is not there for other journals. For those who have problem in writing manuscript or do statistical work, JCDR comes for their rescue.
The journal has a monthly publication and the articles are published quite fast. In time compared to other journals. The on-line first publication is also a great advantage and facility to review one's own articles before going to print. The response to any query and permission if required, is quite fast; this is quite commendable. I have a very good experience about seeking quick permission for quoting a photograph (Fig.) from a JCDR article for my chapter authored in an E book. I never thought it would be so easy. No hassles.
Reviewing articles is no less a pain staking process and requires in depth perception, knowledge about the topic for review. It requires time and concentration, yet I enjoy doing it. The JCDR website especially for the reviewers is quite user friendly. My suggestions for improving the journal is, more strict review process, so that only high quality articles are published. I find a a good number of articles in Obst. Gynae, hence, a new journal for this specialty titled JCDR-OG can be started. May be a bimonthly or quarterly publication to begin with. Only selected articles should find a place in it.
An yearly reward for the best article authored can also incentivize the authors. Though the process of finding the best article will be not be very easy. I do not know how reviewing process can be improved. If an article is being reviewed by two reviewers, then opinion of one can be communicated to the other or the final opinion of the editor can be communicated to the reviewer if requested for. This will help one’s reviewing skills.
My best wishes to Dr. Hemant Jain and all the editorial staff of JCDR for their untiring efforts to bring out this journal. I strongly recommend medical fraternity to publish their valuable research work in this esteemed journal, JCDR".



Dr. Mamta Gupta
Consultant
(Ex HOD Obs &Gynae, Hindu Rao Hospital and associated NDMC Medical College, Delhi)
Aug 2018




Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey

"I wish to thank Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), for asking me to write up few words.
Writing is the representation of language in a textual medium i e; into the words and sentences on paper. Quality medical manuscript writing in particular, demands not only a high-quality research, but also requires accurate and concise communication of findings and conclusions, with adherence to particular journal guidelines. In medical field whether working in teaching, private, or in corporate institution, everyone wants to excel in his / her own field and get recognised by making manuscripts publication.


Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journals–No manuscripts–No authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."



Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
E-mail: drrajendrak1@rediffmail.com
On May 11,2011




Dr. Shankar P.R.

"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."



Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
E-mail: ravi.dr.shankar@gmail.com
On April 2011
Anuradha

Dear team JCDR, I would like to thank you for the very professional and polite service provided by everyone at JCDR. While i have been in the field of writing and editing for sometime, this has been my first attempt in publishing a scientific paper.Thank you for hand-holding me through the process.


Dr. Anuradha
E-mail: anuradha2nittur@gmail.com
On Jan 2020

Important Notice

Original article / research
Year : 2022 | Month : July | Volume : 16 | Issue : 7 | Page : UC39 - UC45 Full Version

Incidence of Postoperative Delirium and its Association with Intraoperative Blood Pressure Fluctuation in Elderly undergoing Oncosurgery: A Prospective Cohort Study


Published: July 1, 2022 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2022/57305.16624
Geethu Krishna Narayanan, Rachel Cherian Koshy, Rajasree Omanakutty Amma, Deepu Subramanian, Sreelekshmi Padmaja Rajendran

1. Junior Consultant, Department of Anaesthesiology, Ananthapuri Hospitals and Research Institute, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, India. 2. Professor, Department of Anaesthesiology, Regional Cancer Centre, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, India. 3. Associate Professor, Department of Anaesthesiology, Regional Cancer Centre, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, India. 4. Resident, Department of Anaesthesiology, Regional Cancer Centre, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, India. 5. Resident, Department of Anaesthesiology, Regional Cancer Centre, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, India.

Correspondence Address :
Dr. Rajasree Omanakutty Amma,
Associate Professor, Department of Anaesthesiology, Regional Cancer Centre, Medical College Campus, Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram-695011, Kerala, India.
E-mail: milisajan@hotmail.com

Abstract

Introduction: Postoperative Delirium (POD) is one of the most common complications in geriatric surgical patients. The POD has immense implication because it can initiate a cascade of deleterious events leading to functional decline, reduced cognitive function, prolonged hospitalisation, and death. The risk factors for POD include increased age, cognitive, visual or sensory impairment, functional dependence, infection, and electrolyte abnormalities. Published literature on POD in patients aged >60 years undergoing oncosurgeries are few. According to the American Geriatric Society, evidence for recommendation of intraoperative risk factors is lacking. The relation between intraoperative haemodynamics and postoperative pain with POD is controversial, as studies provide differences in evidence. Hence this relation needs to be studied further.

Aim: To find the incidence of POD in patients >60 years of age undergoing oncosurgery, and its association with intraoperative hypotension and blood pressure fluctuations. The secondary objective was to assess the relation of POD with postoperative pain.

Materials and Methods: The present study was prospective cohort study which was carried on 50 patients aged >60 years undergoing cancer surgery. Intraoperative hypotension and blood pressure fluctuations were measured based on predefined criteria. Postoperative pain and total opioid consumption were also noted. Delirium was assessed with the short Confusion Assessment Method (short CAM), on the first three postoperative days. The association between hypotension and intraoperative blood pressure fluctuations with POD were analysed with Fisher exact test and Mann-Whitney U test. Association of pain scores and total dose of opioid with POD was performed using Student’s t-test and Mann-Whitney U test.

Results: The mean age of the study population was 69.5±2.8 years. The mean preoperative Addenbrook’s Cognitive Examination (ACE) score was 83.78. The incidence of POD was 22%. There was a significant association between intraoperative blood pressure fluctuation and POD. The mean BP variance ranged from 126.89 to 111.13 mmHg. Increased age and more co-morbidities ≥3 (present in 58%) showed an association with POD.

Conclusion: The incidence of POD was high (22%) among the elderly requiring oncosurgery. Intraoperative blood pressure fluctuation as well as hypotension was associated with increased risk of POD. Hence in elderly patients, tight blood pressure control is advisable during surgery.

Keywords

Haemodynamic, Hypotension, Observational, Surgery, Variance

The POD is one of the most common complication in geriatric surgical population (1). The incidence of delirium in older hospitalised patients and those in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) is 10-60% and 11-89%, respectively (2),(3),(4). The overall prevalence of delirium in the elderly patients following surgery ranges from 11-65% (5),(6),(7). According to the American geriatric society, the incidence of POD range from 5% (in low-risk patients undergoing low-risk operations) to 50% (in high-risk patients undergoing high-risk operations) in elderly surgical population (8). The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V) definition of delirium describes an acute and fluctuating disturbance of consciousness with reduced ability to focus, maintain, or shift attention, accompanied by change in cognition and perceptual disturbances secondary to a general medical condition and cannot be accounted for by a pre-existing or evolving dementia (9).

The POD is a form of delirium that manifests in patients after surgical procedures and anaesthesia, usually peaking between one and four days after the surgery often following a lucid interval (10),(11). An episode of delirium leads to a cascade of deleterious events, including major postoperative complications, prolonged hospitalisation, higher healthcare costs, reduced cognitive function, poor functional outcome, increased physical dependence and institutionalisation, increased morbidity and higher likelihood of mortality within six months and increased long-term mortality as well [12,13]. The aetiology of delirium is not yet fully understood and is multifactorial (10). Delirium risk model by Inouye SK suggests inter-relationship between predisposing factors and precipitating factors in the development of delirium (14). Established patient-specific risk factors for the development of delirium following surgery include older age, pre-existing dementia, functional impairment, multiple co-morbidities, and history of delirium (15).

The relationship between anaesthesia and delirium is complex, and not yet fully elucidated. One possible focus area to prevent POD is intraoperative blood pressure management. However, the relationship between intraoperative blood pressure and POD is ambiguous. The harmful effect of intraoperative hypotension on the brain can be one of the possible mechanisms of POD and is controversially discussed in different studies (1),(12). Inadequate cerebral perfusion as a result of intraoperative hypotension is one of the possible mechanisms of POD. The oxidative stress hypothesis on the pathophysiology of POD proposes that brain hypoperfusion induces local ischaemia which triggers a chain of events leading to acute brain failure. Another important precipitating yet modifiable factor contributing to POD is postoperative pain and its management (16). Admission to ICU, prolonged intubation/mechanical ventilation, poor pain management, and disrupted sleep patterns are other postoperative factors associated with the development of POD (17).

The aim of the study was to detect the incidence rate of POD in elderly patients undergoing oncosurgeries. The study also determined the association of intraoperative hypotension and blood pressure fluctuations with POD. The secondary objectives were to assess the influence of perioperative risk factors on POD and to study the association of postoperative pain and POD.

Material and Methods

This prospective cohort study was done during the period of June 2016 to May 2017, at a tertiary cancer centre in southern India. The study was done after obtaining Institutional Review Board (IRB) (IRB No: 10/2015/09) and Human Ethics Committee (HEC) clearance (HEC No. 13/2015). Sample size was estimated to be 50 based on an earlier study assuming 80% power and 5% confidence level (18). This was based on difference in proportion of delirium of 15% in patients with and without intraoperative haemodynamic variability.

Inclusion criteria: Consenting patients, aged >60 years, undergoing cancer surgery, belonging to American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) class I-III.

Exclusion criteria: Patients with known psychiatric illness and on regular psychiatric medication, patients having endo-tracheal tube retained during postoperative period, deafness, blindness, severe hand deformity or dysfunction, psychosis and other conditions that would affect cognitive testing performance, patients who have evidence of delirium preoperatively based on short CAM (19). Patients with a Malayalam version of Addenbrooke’s Cognitive Examination (M-ACE) score <80 were also excluded from the study.

Study Procedure

The study flowchart is given as (Table/Fig 1). Preoperative baseline characteristics, co-morbidities, baseline haematological and biochemical values were noted during admission. The socio-economic status (SES) was determined based on per capita income of the family. Families with an annual income less than 24,200 rupees were classified as Below Poverty Line (BPL) and those with more than one lakh per annum as Above Poverty Line (APL). Preoperatively, the baseline cognitive status of the patient was determined using ACE-III questionnaire in Malayalam, on the day of admission to the ward (20). ACE-III is a cognitive assessment tool, a free to use tool available in the public domain. The five cognitive domains tested by ACE are attention, orientation, memory, language, verbal fluency, and visuospatial skills. The total score is 100, and a higher score denotes better cognitive function. It takes 15-20 min to administer and score. The cut-off for cognitive dysfunction is taken as 80-88/100. The M-ACE has been developed by Mathuranath PS et al., and is validated as a reliable and sensitive screening tool to diagnose cognitive dysfunction (20).

Preoperative pain status was evaluated using Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NRS-11) (21). It is a patient self-reported scale with 11 points. It assesses pain in a continuum of 0-10, where 0 is no pain and 10 is the worst pain imaginable, 1-3 mild, 4-7 moderate and 8-10 severe pain. Anaesthetic technique was either general anaesthesia alone or with epidural block or combined epidural and spinal anaesthesia. Baseline blood pressure and heart rate was measured. Intraoperative blood pressure, heart rate, type and duration of surgery, type of anaesthesia, total blood loss, transfusion and any events of desaturation (SpO2 <90%), total dose of opioid used intraoperatively were also noted.

Intraoperative hypotension was defined as relative intraoperative hypotension- 20 or 40% decrease below the patient’s preoperative baseline for either Systolic Blood Pressure (SBP) or Mean Arterial Pressure (MAP). It can also be defined as absolute hypotension- blood pressure decrease below MAP of 60 mmHg. The duration of absolute hypotension was noted. Blood pressure fluctuation was calculated as variance. The patients were followed prospectively on postoperative days 1, 2, and 3 by study personnel and daily interviews with the patient were conducted. A structured interview using the (short-CAM) for the first three postoperative days twice daily (9 am and 6 pm) determined the presence of delirium (19). Consistency of evaluation was ensured by conducting all three interviews by the same investigator. A second investigator validated all cases of incident delirium.

Postoperative pain was assessed daily which included pain at rest, dynamic pain, maximal pain over the previous 24 hours (h), method of postoperative analgesia, and a 24-hours cumulative dose of opioid converted to fentanyl equivalents. Severity of pain was measured using NRS. The pain experienced by the patient at rest while lying on bed at rest was defined as pain at rest. Pain the patient experienced while ambulating or moving in bed was defined as dynamic pain. Maximal pain was defined as the maximal pain the patient experienced over the previous 24 hours.

Statistical Analysis

From the collected data incidence of POD was analysed. For demographic, and perioperative measures, frequency distribution and summary measures (mean and standard deviation) were studied. For data in proportions Chi-square test and Fisher exact test was used. For analysis of association of POD and intraoperative hypotension and blood pressure fluctuation Fisher exact test and
Mann-Whitney U test were used. Comparisons for continuous variables, including pain scores and total dose of opioid (in fentanyl equivalents), was performed using Student’s t-test. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software version 17.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) was utilised for data analysis. Results were considered statistically significant when p-value of <0.05 was obtained.

Results

A total of 50 patients undergoing elective cancer surgery were enrolled in the study. Demographic features of the study population are given in (Table/Fig 2). About 56% of the study population were males and 50% were APL. About 48% had some sort of formal education and 34 persons out of the 50 people studied had either smoking or alcohol habits. Overall 86% of the sample population underwent the surgery under combined general and epidural anaesthesia. Surgery duration was two h for 62% and 3-5 h for 38%.

In the study population, cognitive status as assessed by ACE score showed that the mean ACE score of the sample was 83.78±3.90. A score of <80 denotes poor cognitive function and hence excluded from the study. None of the patients in the study had a history of POD. The baseline investigations of the patients showed that the mean preoperative haemoglobin of the sample was 11.2±1.54. There was a single incidence of significant desaturation (SpO2 <90%). None of the study population had intraoperative blood loss of more than one litre or need of any blood transfusion. The mean baseline SBP was 133.60±15.91 mmHg and the mean MAP was 79.24±9.67 mmHg. The average duration of MAP <60 mmHg during surgery was 3.68±2.78 minutes. The intraoperative blood pressure distribution is given in (Table/Fig 3).

Postoperatively, patients were followed-up for the first three days monitoring their pain, analgesics and investigations. Pain was assessed using NRS and the maximum pain was observed on day 1 (48% - moderate pain at rest and 78%- moderate pain with movement). The pain scores progressively reduced over time. The mean total opioid consumption in the intraoperative period was 112.20±33.22 mcg in fentanyl equivalents. Average fentanyl consumption was 50.7, 89.8, 84, 46.5 mcg on postoperative day 0, 1, 2 and 3, respectively.

The incidence of delirium was found to be 4% on day 1 following surgery, 18% on the second and 22% on the third postoperative day. On statistical analysis with Mann-Whitney U test, it was observed that the incidence of POD was more in patients with higher age consistently on all the three postoperative days. But this association was not statistically significant (p-value=0.759). The number of co-morbidities ≥3 showed statistically significant association with POD (p=0.042) studied using Fisher exact test. The association of POD and perioperative risk factors is given in (Table/Fig 4). The POD did not have an association with the type of surgery, duration of the procedure, premedication with midazolam or the type of anaesthesia.

The relation of intraoperative haemodynamic variables and POD is given in (Table/Fig 5). The association of intraoperative blood pressure with POD was studied using variance of the entire MAP recorded during surgery and tested using Mann-Whitney U test. The blood pressure variance was found to have an association with POD on all the three postoperative days. Intraoperative hypotension (decrease of MAP or SBP >20% from baseline and a MAP or SBP decrease of >40% from baseline) was tested for association with POD using Fisher exact test. The results did not show any statistically significant association. But at the same time, the intraoperative (>40% decrease from baseline MAP as well as SBP) showed statistically significant association with POD both on day 2 and 3.

The patients were followed-up on three postoperative days with pain assessed twice daily. Fischer’s exact test was used for testing the association of POD with pain at rest, on movement and maximum pain over 24 hours. But the study could not bring out an association between pain and delirium. The maximum pain over 24 hours on the postoperative days 1 to 3 also did not have an association with POD (Table/Fig 6). The total opioids consumed postoperatively for three days was not found to be associated with delirium, as assessed by Student’s t-test (Table/Fig 6). The study could not find any association between POD and serial haemoglobin values.

Discussion

The study aimed at finding out the effect of intraoperative hypotension and blood pressure fluctuations on the incidence of POD in elderly patients undergoing oncosurgery. Specific perioperative precipitating factors for POD include type of surgery and its duration, greater intraoperative blood loss, more postoperative transfusions and postoperative haematocrit of <30%, the use of physical restraints, malnutrition, addition of more than three medications 24-48 h before the onset of delirium, the use of an indwelling urinary bladder catheter, and electrolyte and fluid abnormalities. The present study found a statistically significant association of POD with intraoperative blood pressure variance, a fall in MAP >40% from baseline and co-morbidities ≥3. In a study by Wang N-Y et al., it was seen that in elderly patients, both very high and very low levels of MAP were associated with significantly increased risk of POD (22). Severe acute pain regardless of the method of analgesia is also associated with POD (23).

In the present study, the incidence of POD was found to be 22%. The incidence increased progressively for 3 postoperative days. This observation was in conformance with metanalyses that reported incidence of 11.5 to 36.11%, 13.2 to 17.9%, and 8.2 to 54.4% (24),(25),(26). Although Dasgupta M and Dumbrell AC; Pinho C et al., showed increased age as an independent risk factor for POD (5),(27), the present study could not find a statistical association, even-though it was observed to be more in higher age groups. Gender, educational status, SES, smoking, alcohol intake, BMI, hypertension, thyroid disease and diabetes mellitus were not found to have any association with POD. These observations are consistent with other studies which showed no correlation between POD and these demographic factors (18),(28).

In this study, 58% sample had co-morbidities ≥3 and 81.8% of patients who developed delirium by third post operative day had preoperative co-morbidities ≥3, which was statistically significant. Studies by Lee HB et al., and Sanders RD et al., also reported more occurrence of POD with increasing number of comorbidities [29,30]. None of the patients in the study population had a history of POD. Poor preoperative cognitive status has been shown to be a risk factor for POD by many authors (31),(32). As the study excluded patients with cognitive score of <80 we could not find the association between poor cognitive status and POD. Several studies have shown that preoperative anaemia (Hb<7.5 gm%) is associated with POD (33),(34). Inouye SK et al., also suggests BUN/Cr ratio of ≥18, as a predisposing factor for delirium (35). The present study could not find such a relation as the population studied had BUN/Cr ratio <18.

The lowest SBP and MAP intraoperatively had influence on the occurrence of POD. Similarly, the highest SBP and MAP also showed an association with POD on all three postoperative days. These results are in accordance with the study by Wang NY et al., and several others (22),(36),(37). The results of this study showed association of blood pressure variance with POD, similar to the study by Hirsch J et al., also (18). This suggests that tight control of blood pressure during the intraoperative period is an important preventive measure to avoid POD.

In the current study, none of the patients reported severe pain. There was no statistically significant association between mild and moderate pain with occurrence of POD. Several studies earlier showed that the use of opioids especially meperidine increases the risk of POD (38),(39). Fong HK et al., in a systematic review showed that meperidine was consistently associated with an increased risk of delirium in elderly surgical patients, but there was no significant difference in POD or cognitive decline among other more frequently used opioids like morphine, fentanyl, or hydromorphone (40). In the present study, there was no association between opioid dose and POD. This might be due to adequate pain management using multimodal analgesia employing epidural and intravenous routes. In the systematic review by Fong HK et al., of the five studies included, three compared epidural with iv analgesia but all of them used epidural opioids also, and hence they found no significant difference in occurrence of delirium between the groups (40).

Limitation(s)

Depression has been identified as an independent risk factor for POD in some studies. Patients were not screened preoperatively for psychiatric disease and this was one limitation. Medications and perioperative pain therapy was not included as possible predictor for delirium in this study. Incident cases could have been missed as assessment of delirium was not done by a psychiatry specialist and was checked only twice daily. No assessment was done of POD severity, its duration and of delirium subtypes. The study must have missed clinical subtypes like hypoactive delirium in assessment and this could have resulted in under reporting of the incidence in the study.

Conclusion

The POD as well as postoperative cognitive dysfunction is a cause for morbidity in elderly surgical patients affecting their quality of life. Hence this is currently a matter of great concern in the field of perioperative medicine. Steps to decrease the incidence are necessary which could be possible only if causes are well understood. According to this study, there was a high incidence of POD about 22% among elderly cancer patients. Detecting the predisposing factors of POD in elderly helps the treating physician to plan management strategies tailored to the patient to reduce morbidities. One of the important precipitating as well as modifiable risk factor for POD was intraoperative blood pressure changes. The study proves that both intraoperative hypotension and hypertension precipitate POD. Adequate blood pressure control during intraoperative period will be an important preventive measure for POD, especially in the elderly.

References

1.
Inouye SK, Robinson T, Blaum C, Busby-Whitehead J, Boustani M, Chalian A, et al. Postoperative delirium in older adults: Best practice statement from the American Geriatrics Society. J Am Coll Surg. 2015;220(2):136-48. [crossref] [PubMed]
2.
Ely EW, Inouye SK, Bernard GR, Gordon S, Francis J, May L, et al. Delirium in mechanically ventilated patients: Validity and reliability of the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU). JAMA. 2001;286(21):2703-10. [crossref] [PubMed]
3.
McNicoll L, Pisani MA, Zhang Y, Ely EW, Siegel MD, Inouye SK. Delirium in the Intensive Care Unit: Occurrence and clinical course in older patients. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2003;51(5):591-98. [crossref] [PubMed]
4.
Tilouche N, Hassen MF, Ali HBS, Jaoued O, Gharbi R, Atrous SSE. Delirium in the Intensive Care Unit: Incidence, risk factors, and impact on outcome. Indian J Crit Care Med. 2018;22(3):144-49. [crossref] [PubMed]
5.
Dasgupta M, Dumbrell AC. Preoperative risk assessment for delirium after noncardiac surgery: A systematic review. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2006;54(10):1578-89. [crossref] [PubMed]
6.
Mahanna-Gabrielli E, Schenning KJ, Eriksson LI, Browndyke JN, Wright CB, Culley DJ, et al. State of the clinical science of perioperative brain health: Report from the American Society of Anesthesiologists Brain Health Initiative Summit 2018. Br J Anaesth. 2019;123(4):464-78. [crossref] [PubMed]
7.
Inouye SK, Westendorp RGJ, Saczynski JS. Delirium in elderly people. Lancet. 2014;383(9920):911-22. [crossref]
8.
American Geriatrics Society Abstracted Clinical Practice Guideline for Postoperative Delirium in Older Adults. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2015;63(1):142-50. [crossref] [PubMed]
9.
DSM-5 Basics | Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders [Internet]. [cited 2017 Nov 24]. Available from: https://dsm.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.5555/appi.books. 9780890425596. Section1.
10.
Whitlock EL, Vannucci A, Avidan MS. Postoperative delirium. Minerva Anestesiol. 2011;77(4):448-56.
11.
Vijayakumar B, Elango P, Ganessan R. Post-operative delirium in elderly patients. Indian J Anaesth. 2014;58(3):251-56. [crossref] [PubMed]
12.
Rudolph JL, Inouye SK, Jones RN, Yang FM, Fong TG, Levkoff SE, et al. Delirium: An independent predictor of functional decline after cardiac surgery. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2010;58(4):643-49. [crossref] [PubMed]
13.
Saczynski JS, Marcantonio ER, Quach L, Fong TG, Gross A, Inouye SK, et al. Cognitive trajectories after postoperative delirium. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(1):30-39. [crossref] [PubMed]
14.
Inouye SK. Delirium in older persons. N Engl J Med. 2006;354(11):1157-65. [crossref] [PubMed]
15.
Robinson TN, Eiseman B. Postoperative delirium in the elderly: Diagnosis and management. Clin Interv Aging. 2008;3(2):351-55. [crossref] [PubMed]
16.
Vaurio LE, Sands LP, Wang Y, Mullen EA, Leung JM. Postoperative delirium: The importance of pain and pain management. Anesth Analg. 2006;102(4):1267. [crossref] [PubMed]
17.
Schenning KJ, Deiner SG. Postoperative delirium in the geriatric patient. Anesthesiol Clin. 2015; 33(3):505-16. [crossref] [PubMed]
18.
Hirsch J, DePalma G, Tsai TT, Sands LP, Leung JM. Impact of intraoperative hypotension and blood pressure fluctuations on early postoperative delirium after non-cardiac surgery. BJA. 2015;115(3):418-26. [crossref] [PubMed]
19.
Inouye SK, van Dyck CH, Alessi CA, Balkin S, Siegal AP, Horwitz RI. Clarifying confusion: The confusion assessment method. A new method for detection of delirium. Ann Intern Med. 1990;113(12):941-48. [crossref] [PubMed]
20.
Mathuranath PS, Hodges JR, Mathew R, Cherian PJ, George A, Bak TH. Adaptation of the ACE for a Malayalam speaking population in Southern India. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2004;19(12):1188-94. [crossref] [PubMed]
21.
Wayback Machine [Internet]. 2011 [cited 2022 Jul 14]. Available from: https://web.archive.org/web/20111215212528/http://painconsortium.nih.gov/pain_scales/NumericRatingScale.pdf.
22.
Wang NY, Hirao A, Sieber F. Association between intraoperative blood pressure and postoperative delirium in elderly hip fracture patients. Plos one. 2015;10(4):e0123892. [crossref] [PubMed]
23.
Alvarez-Bastidas L, Morales-Vera E, Valle-Leal JG, Marroquín-González J. Delirium in the elderly patient after anesthesia: Associated factors. Colombian Journal of Anesthesiology. 2018;46(4):273-78. [crossref]
24.
Zhu Y, Wang G, Liu S, Zhou S, Lian Y, Zhang C, et al. Risk factors for postoperative delirium in patients undergoing major head and neck cancer surgery: A meta-analysis. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2017;47(6):505-11. [crossref] [PubMed]
25.
Ansaloni L, Catena F, Chattat R, Fortuna D, Franceschi C, Mascitti P, et al. Risk factors and incidence of postoperative delirium in elderly patients after elective and emergency surgery. Br J Surg. 2010;97(2):273-80. [crossref] [PubMed]
26.
Scholz AFM, Oldroyd C, McCarthy K, Quinn TJ, Hewitt J. Systematic review and meta-analysis of risk factors for postoperative delirium among older patients undergoing gastrointestinal surgery. Br J Surg. 2016;103(2):21-28. [crossref] [PubMed]
27.
Pinho C, Cruz S, Santos A, Abelha FJ. Postoperative delirium: Age and low functional reserve as independent risk factors. J Clin Anesth. 2016;33:507-13. [crossref] [PubMed]
28.
DeCrane SK, Sands L, Ashland M, Lim E, Tsai TL, Paul S, et al. Factors associated with recovery from early postoperative delirium. J Am Soc Peri Anesthesia Nurses. 2011;26(4):231-41. [crossref] [PubMed]
29.
Lee HB, Mears SC, Rosenberg PB, Leoutsakos JMS, Gottschalk A, Sieber FE. Predisposing factors for post-operative delirium after hip fracture repair among patients with and without dementia. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2011;59(12):2306-13. [crossref] [PubMed]
30.
Sanders RD, Coburn M, Cunningham C, Pandharipande P. Risk factors for postoperative delirium. Lancet Psychiatry. 2014;1(6):404-06. [crossref]
31.
Sprung J, Roberts RO, Weingarten TN, Nunes Cavalcante A, Knopman DS, Petersen RC, et al. Postoperative delirium in elderly patients is associated with subsequent cognitive impairment. Br J Anaesth. 2017;119(2):316-23. [crossref] [PubMed]
32.
Needham MJ, Webb CE, Bryden DC. Postoperative cognitive dysfunction and dementia: What we need to know and do. Br J Anaesth. 2017;119(suppl_1):i115-25. [crossref] [PubMed]
33.
Oh ST, Park JY. Postoperative delirium. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2019;72(1):04-12. [crossref] [PubMed]
34.
Bilotta F, Lauretta MP, Borozdina A, Mizikov VM, Rosa G. Postoperative delirium: Risk factors, diagnosis and perioperative care. Minerva Anestesiol. 2013;79(9):1066-76. [crossref]
35.
Inouye SK, Bogardus STJ, Charpentier PA, Leo-Summers L, Acampora D, Holford TR, et al. A multicomponent intervention to prevent delirium in hospitalized older patients. N Engl J Med. 1999;340(9):669-76. [crossref] [PubMed]
36.
Radinovic K, Markovic Denic L, Milan Z, Cirkovic A, Baralic M, Bumbasirevic V. Impact of intraoperative blood pressure, blood pressure fluctuation, and pulse pressure on postoperative delirium in elderly patients with hip fracture: A prospective cohort study. Injury. 2019;50(9):1558-64. [crossref] [PubMed]
37.
Hori D, Brown C, Ono M, Rappold T, Sieber F, Gottschalk A, et al. Arterial pressure above the upper cerebral autoregulation limit during cardiopulmonary bypass is associated with postoperative delirium. Br J Anaesth. 2014;113(6):1009-17. [crossref] [PubMed]
38.
Adunsky A, Levy R, Heim M, Mizrahi E, Arad M. Meperidine analgesia and delirium in aged hip fracture patients. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics. 2002;35(3):253-59. [crossref]
39.
Morrison RS, Magaziner J, Gilbert M, Koval KJ, McLaughlin MA, Orosz G, et al. Relationship between pain and opioid analgesics on the development of delirium following hip fracture. The Journals of Gerontology. 2003;58(1):M76-81. [crossref] [PubMed]
40.
Fong HK, Sands LP, Leung JM. The role of postoperative analgesia in delirium and cognitive decline in elderly patients: A systematic review. Anesth Analg. 2006;102(4):1255-66. [crossref] [PubMed]

DOI and Others

DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2022/57305.16624

Date of Submission: Apr 25, 2022
Date of Peer Review: May 26, 2022
Date of Acceptance: Jun 13, 2022
Date of Publishing: Jul 01, 2022

AUTHOR DECLARATION:
• Financial or Other Competing Interests: None
• Was Ethics Committee Approval obtained for this study? Yes
• Was informed consent obtained from the subjects involved in the study? Yes
• For any images presented appropriate consent has been obtained from the subjects. NA

PLAGIARISM CHECKING METHODS:
• Plagiarism X-checker: May 03, 2022
• Manual Googling: Jun 06, 2022
• iThenticate Software: Jun 28, 2022 (13%)

ETYMOLOGY: Author Origin

JCDR is now Monthly and more widely Indexed .
  • Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
  • Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
  • Academic Search Complete Database
  • Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
  • Embase
  • EBSCOhost
  • Google Scholar
  • HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
  • Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
  • Journal seek Database
  • Google
  • Popline (reproductive health literature)
  • www.omnimedicalsearch.com