The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has updated its Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, including with new information specifically addressed to individuals in the European Economic Area. As described in the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, this website utilizes cookies, including for the purpose of offering an optimal online experience and services tailored to your preferences.

Please read the entire Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. By closing this message, browsing this website, continuing the navigation, or otherwise continuing to use the APA's websites, you confirm that you understand and accept the terms of the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, including the utilization of cookies.

×

Abstract

Objective:

Although delirium is the most common neurobehavioral complication after stroke, its motor subtypes—hypoactive, hyperactive, mixed, and none—as well as their risk factors are not well characterized. Motor subtypes influence recognition and prognosis of delirium in hospitalized patients.

Methods:

The aim of this prospective study was to assess the frequency of poststroke delirium subtypes and to describe their predictive models. Consecutive patients with stroke were screened for delirium with the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit. Delirium was diagnosed according to DSM-5 criteria, and subtypes were classified with the Delirium Motor Subtype Scale–4. Baseline demographic characteristics, biochemistry, stroke-related data, medications, neurological deficits, and premorbid cognitive and functional impairments were assessed.

Results:

Out of 750 patients (mean age, 71.75 years [SD=13.13]), 203 (27.07%) had delirium: 85 (11.34%) were hypoactive, 77 (10.27%) were mixed hypoactive-hyperactive, 31 (4.13%) were hyperactive, and 10 (1.33%) had an unspecified type. Cognitive impairment at the time of hospital admission and spatial neglect, among other factors, were identified as the best predictors for all motor delirium subtypes.

Conclusions:

Screening for poststroke delirium is important because the hypoactive subtype bears the worst prognosis and is misdiagnosed the most compared with other subtypes. All identified factors for the predictive models of delirium subtypes are routinely assessed during hospital admission. Their occurrence in patients with stroke should alert the treating physician to the high risk for a particular delirium subtype.

Delirium is the most common neurobehavioral complication in acute hospital admissions of the elderly,1 but it often goes unrecognized in clinical practice. It is characterized by disturbances in attention and awareness, changes in cognition that develop acutely, and a fluctuating course.2 Because the presentation of delirium varies, clinical subtypes of delirium based on motor behavior and arousal disturbances have been distinguished: hyperactive, hypoactive, mixed, or neither type (nonmotor subtype).3

The hyperactive type is characterized by severe confusion and disorientation, motor agitation, restlessness, and wandering. The hypoactive type is characterized by motor retardation, withdrawal from interaction with the surrounding world, apathy, decreased speed of actions, and a decreased amount of speech. Mixed delirium includes both hyperactive and hypoactive symptoms. The nonmotor subtype is diagnosed if the patient only experiences cognitive symptoms of delirium.3

It is estimated that between one half and two thirds of delirium cases are undetected due to misdiagnosis, late detection, or in many cases a completely missed diagnosis.4 Patients with the hypoactive profile with the absence of overt distress or disturbances are more likely to be unrecognized compared with patients with the hyperactive subtype entailing overt behavioral disturbances that attract the attention of medical personnel.5 Patients with the hyperactive or mixed type of delirium are usually misdiagnosed with functional psychosis, hypomania, anxiety disorders, or akathisia, while the hypoactive subtype is easily mistaken for depression or dementia.6

Stroke is a syndrome that often causes cognitive impairment and psychiatric disturbances. One of these is delirium, and its prevalence is estimated to be between 10% and 48%.7 Although delirium after stroke is a very frequent complication, there is a paucity of studies assessing the subtypes of poststroke delirium and the risk factors for its development. Differentiating poststroke neurocognitive and behavioral complications from delirium is difficult and time-consuming. Patients with the hypoactive subtype of delirium may be easily missed because they are often perceived as cooperative and exhibit fewer behavioral problems than patients with the hyperactive type.5,8 This is especially important because studies that performed detailed assessment of delirium subtypes showed that the hypoactive subtype is more common than the hyperactive subtype in a variety of clinical settings.9,10

Delirium subtypes impact prognosis and are considered to be relevant to detection, etiology, and phenomenology.6,11,12 While some data show that the hypoactive subtype has a worse prognosis in both short-13 and long-term perspectives,14 not all studies confirmed these observations.12,15 So far, the frequency of poststroke delirium subtypes and their precipitating factors have not been investigated in a large cohort of stroke patients.

The advanced knowledge of who is at risk for developing this common poststroke complication can improve recognition, change treatment, and improve the prognosis of delirium.

Therefore, the aim of the PRospective Observational POLIsh Study on poststroke delirium (PROPOLIS) was to assess the frequency of delirium motor subtypes in the Polish stroke population within 7 days of a hospital stay. Another aim was to build predictive models for delirium subtypes in order to better identify patients at risk for developing these serious complications.

Methods

The 750 consecutive patients with stroke (ischemic or hemorrhagic) or transient ischemic attack admitted to the Stroke Unit at the University Hospital in Krakow who met inclusion criteria for this study were investigated for the presence and risk factors of delirium. Stroke was defined according to the criteria of the U.S National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.16 All patients were treated according to the standard protocols of international guidelines.17

Inclusion and exclusion criteria for this study are described in detail elsewhere.18 Briefly, exclusion criteria were <18 years of age, hospital admission more than 48 hours from the first stroke symptoms, subarachnoid hemorrhage, cerebral venous thrombosis, cerebral vasculitis, trauma, coma, brain tumor, delirium due to alcohol withdrawal, and diseases with a life expectancy <1 year.

Patients were screened for delirium every day, starting from hospital admission until the 7th day of hospital stay. Screening was performed at the same time (3–6 p.m.) of every day by a neurologist. An abbreviated version of the Confusion Assessment Method (bCAM) was used for the delirium screening; the Confusion Assessment Method—Intensive Care Units (CAM-ICU) was used for those with speech output problems.19,20 Delirium Motor Subtype Scale 4 was completed for assessment of motor subtype presentation, where delirium was categorized as hyperactive, hypoactive, mixed, or nonmotor subtype.21

To screen for possible delirious symptoms during all 24 hours, a short questionnaire regarding patient’s behavior and cognitive fluctuations was completed by ward nurses for each patient.

Diagnosis of delirium was concluded by clinical observation and structural assessment. Delirium was diagnosed according to the DSM-5 criteria.22

To screen for prestroke dementia, a Polish version of the Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly (IQCODE) was used.23 Cognitive and behavioral and emotional functioning were also screened by the psychologist during the hospital stay. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA),24 Frontal Assessment Battery,25 and Cognitive Test for Delirium2 were used between days 1 and 2 and on the 7th day after hospital admission. On admission, information was obtained from the spouse or caregiver regarding prestroke behavioral functioning on the Neuropsychiatric Inventory.26

Data were collected regarding sociodemographic factors, comorbidity (hypertension, diabetes mellitus, atrial fibrillation, myocardial infarct, percutaneous coronary intervention, coronary artery bypass grafting, respiratory system disorders, gastrointestinal complications, liver and renal dysfunctions, genitourinary problems, past neurological history, musculoskeletal dysfunctions, and endocrine problems), and smoking (current, ex-smoker, never smoked). The Cumulative Illness Rating Scale, a valid and reliable method of measuring prestroke comorbidity, was used as the general indicator of health status.27

Medications taken were evaluated and grouped according to their pharmacological family. Auditory and visual impairment, stroke-related factors, laboratory test results, pneumonia, and urinary tract infection during hospitalization were recorded.

At the time of hospital admission, all patients had neuroimaging (CT/MRI). Ischemic stroke etiology was classified according to the Trial of Org 10172 in Acute Stroke Treatment criteria.28 The severity of the clinical deficit was graded using the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS)29 at the time of hospital admission. Motor functions prior to admission were assessed using the modified Rankin Scale.

This study was approved by the medical ethical committee at the Jagiellonian University. Informed consent was given by the patient after the procedures were fully explained. If the patient was unable to fully understand the procedures, the caregiver was asked for informed assent; then, when the patient’s condition improved, he or she was asked to provide informed consent.

Statistics

All of the statistical analyses were performed using STATISTICA for Windows version 12 (StatSoft, Tulsa, Okla.). First, associations between types of delirium and predisposing factors were found. Odds ratios with p values were obtained using univariate logistic regression to identify variables significantly associated with delirium, which were subsequently entered into the multivariable logistic regression analysis. The final predictive model for each delirium type was fitted using forward stepwise selection method. The goodness of fit was determined by the chi-square test. The value of alpha=0.05 was considered as a threshold for statistical significance.

Results

The 750 patients with a mean age of 71.75 years (SD=13.13) were included in the study (women, N=398, mean age=74.72 years [SD=13.20]; men, N=352, mean age=68.40 years [SD=12.23]). Six hundred fifty patients had ischemic stroke, 52 had hemorrhagic stroke, and 48 had a transient ischemic attack. The National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score for the entire cohort was 8.52 [SD=7.31] (ischemic stroke, 8.85 [SD=7.23], hemorrhagic stroke, 11.15 [SD=7.35], and transient ischemic attack, 1.17 [SD=2.19]).

Out of 203 patients with delirium (women, N=119 [29.90%]; men, N=84 [23.86%]), hyperactive type was identified in 31 (15.27%), hypoactive in 85 (41.87%), mixed type in 77 (39.93%), and unspecified in 10 (4.93%). The group of patients with delirium was characterized elsewhere.30 The demographic and clinical characteristics of patients with delirium subtypes are presented in Tables 13.

TABLE 1. Risk Factors Predicting Hyperactive Poststroke Delirium

Risk FactorsTotal NHyperactive DeliriumNo DeliriumOdds Ratio95% CIpa
N%MeanSDN%MeanSD
Age (years)57877.1911.8769.8113.421.051.02–1.090.003
Gender (male)57815/3148.39268/54748.990.980.46–2.080.950
National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale5789.615.996.876.831.051.00–1.100.032
Predementia
 Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly >88 points4657/2626.9249/43911.162.931.17–7.350.022
Montreal Cognitive Assessment score43612.377.9121.025.490.830.77–0.89<0.001
Diabetes mellitus57714/3145.16132/54624.182.581.24–5.390.011
Atrial fibrillation57714/3145.16104/54619.053.51.67–7.34<0.001
Percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting5777/3122.5846/5468.423.171.30–7.770.011
Modified Cumulative Illness Rating Scale
 Total score57711.194.818.804.891.091.02–1.170.009
 Severity index5770.820.350.640.363.391.35–8.520.009
 Comorbidity index5774.421.693.241.941.331.12–1.580.001
Medications
 Heparin5143/2611.5415/4883.074.111.11–15.270.034
Pneumonia at hospital admission5785/3116.1331/5475.673.201.48–8.930.026
Pneumonia during hospitalization5785/3116.1321/5473.844.821.68–13.820.003
Urinary tract infection at hospital admission56113/2944.83122/53222.932.731.28–5.840.010
Spatial neglect5786/3119.3532/5475.853.861.48–10.110.006
Vision disorders57819/3161.29153/54727.974.081.93–8.61<0.001
Laboratory data
 WBC count (day 1)56310.033.498.392.911.161.05–1.280.004
 Urine leukocyte (day 1)55517/2958.62180/52634.222.721.27–5.840.010
 Nitrate in urine (day 1)5566/2920.6942/5277.973.011.16–7.820.023
 Urine bacteremia (day 1)54426/2989.66255/51549.518.842.63–29.64<0.001
Anxiety46112/2646.15104/43523.912.731.22–6.100.014
Motoric disorders4615/2619.2331/4357.133.101.09–8.820.033

aStatistical significance is indicated in bold.

TABLE 1. Risk Factors Predicting Hyperactive Poststroke Delirium

Enlarge table

TABLE 2. Predictive Model for Poststroke Hyperactive Delirium

VariableTotalDeliriumNo DeliriumOdds Ratio95% CIpa
N%MeanSDN%MeanSDN%MeanSD
Montreal Cognitive Assessment score20.645.8812.377.9121.025.490.830.76–0.91<0.001
Diabetes mellitus146/57725.3014/3145.16132/54624.185.911.79–19.500.004
Neglect38/5786.576/3119.3532/5475.854.591.19–17.750.027
Urine bacteremia (day 1)281/54451.6526/2989.66255/51549.515.191.08–25.030.040

aAll values meet statistical significance.

TABLE 2. Predictive Model for Poststroke Hyperactive Delirium

Enlarge table

TABLE 3. Risk Factors Predicting Hypoactive Poststroke Delirium

Risk FactorsTotal NHyperactive DeliriumNo DeliriumOdds Ratio95 % CIpa
N%MeanSDN%MeanSD
Gender (male)63223/8527.06268/54748.990.390.23–0.64<0.001
Age (years)63277.1310.3469.8113.421.051.03–1.07<0.001
Premodified Rankin scale6311.441.720.521.551.521.32–1.75<0.001
NIHSS63214.136.796.876.831.131.10–1.17<0.001
Localization of stroke
 Left versus right hemispheric stroke55033/7941.77273/47157.960.520.32–0.840.008
 Hemorrhagic versus ischemic stroke59110/8312.0528/5085.512.351.09–5.040.029
Education (years)55710.253.0211.663.670.870.80–0.950.002
Predementia
 Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly >88 points51220/7327.4049/43911.163.001.66–5.45<0.001
Montreal Cognitive Assessment score45311.285.7921.025.490.790.75–0.84<0.001
Atrial fibrillation63033/8439.29104/54619.052.751.69–4.48<0.001
Smoker ever61024/7930.38252/53147.460.480.29–0.800.005
Modified Cumulative Illness Rating Scale
 Total score62910.884.748.804.891.091.04–1.3<0.001
 Severity index6290.790.360.640.362.861.55–5.260.001
 Comorbidity index6294.111.793.241.941.251.11–1.40<0.001
Medications
 Anticoagulants56112/7316.4434/4886.972.631.29–5.350.008
 Insulin56012/7216.6733/4886.762.761.35–5.640.006
 Beta blockers55836/7051.43177/48836.271.861.12–3.080.016
Pneumonia at admission63215/8517.6531/5475.673.571.83–6.95<0.001
Pneumonia during hospitalization63212/8514.1221/5473.844.121.94–8.73<0.001
Urinary tract infection at admission61341/8150.62122/53222.933.442.13–5.73<0.001
Aphasia63239/8545.88166/54730.351.951.22–4.000.005
Spatial neglect63229/8534.1232/5475.858.334.69–14.80<0.001
Vision disorders63267/8578.82153/54727.979.595.51–16.60<0.001
Laboratory data
 White blood count on admission4579.483.578.303.271.091.02–1.170.016
 Glucose level on admission5588.254.237.302.751.091.02–1.160.016
 White blood count during hospitalization61611.714.538.392.911.281.19–1.36<0.001
 Urine-leukocyte count (first day)60748/8159.26180/52634.222.801.73–4.52<0.001
 Urine-nitrate count (first day)60812/8114.8142/5277.972.011.01–4.010.048
 Urine-bacteremia (first day)59461/7977.22255/51549.513.461.98–6.02<0.001
Temperatureb63237.390.6637.060.681.881.38–2.57<0.001
Depression50822/7330.1482/43518.851.861.06–3.240.029
Sleep disorders50831/7342.47132/43530.341.691.02–2.820.042

aAll values meet statistical significance.

bThe highest body temperature for each patient between day 1 and day 3 of the hospital stay (mean for all group).

TABLE 3. Risk Factors Predicting Hypoactive Poststroke Delirium

Enlarge table

A number of predisposing factors for hyperactive delirium were identified in univariate analysis (Table 1.).

Multivariable logistic regression analysis based on the results of univariate logistic regression was performed. For the hyperactive delirium constellation of MoCA score, urine bacteremia, diabetes mellitus, and spatial neglect allowed us to achieve the best predictive model (Table 2).

Univariate analysis identified predisposing factors for hypoactive delirium (Table 3).

Multivariable logistic regression analysis based on the results of univariate logistic regression was performed. In the predictive model for the hypoactive type of delirium MoCA score, the presence of vision disorders, WBC count during hospitalization, anticoagulant therapy, and spatial neglect syndrome were identified as the best predictors of this type of delirium (Table 4).

TABLE 4. Predictive Model for Poststroke Hypoactive Delirium

Risk FactorsTotalHypoactive DeliriumNo DeliriumOdds Ratio95% CIpa
N%MeanSDN%MeanSDN%MeanSD
Montreal Cognitive Assessment score20.256.1111.285.7921.025.490.780.71–0.85<0.001
Vision disorders220/63234.8167/8578.82153/54727.976.492.02–20.850.002
WBC count during hospitalization8.843.3711.714.538.392.911.221.07–1.390.003
Anticoagulants46/5618.2012/7316.4434/4886.977.281.61–32.980.010
Neglect61/6329.6529/8534.1232/5475.854.091.14–14.650.031

aAll values meet statistical significance.

TABLE 4. Predictive Model for Poststroke Hypoactive Delirium

Enlarge table

Predisposing factors for mixed type of delirium were identified by univariate analysis (Table 5.).

TABLE 5. Risk Factors Predicting Mixed Poststroke Delirium

Risk FactorsTotal NMixed DeliriumNo DeliriumOdds Ratio95% CIpa
N%MeanSDN%MeanSD
Age (years)62477.9610.1669.8113.421.061.04–1.08<0.001
Gender (male)62441/7753.25268/54748.991.190.73–1.920.486
National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale62413.696.366.876.831.131.09–1.16<0.001
Premodified Rankin scale6241.491.770.521.161.541.33–1.78<0.001
Stroke localization
 Cerebellum stroke versus hemispheric/brainstem6221/761.3265/54611.90.100.01–0.720.023
 Hemorrhagic versus ischemic stroke58311/7514.6728/5085.512.951.40–6.210.005
Education (years)55610.563.2011.663.370.900.83–0.980.015
Predementia
 Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly >88 points50224/6338.1049/43911.164.902.27–8.84<0.001
Montreal Cognitive Assessment Score44610.526.3321.025.490.790.73–0.84<0.001
Hypertension62346/7759.74388/54671.060.600.37–0.990.045
Atrial fibrillation62327/7735.06104/54619.052.301.37–3.840.002
Modified Cumulative Illness Rating Scale
 Total score62311.034.568.804.891.091.04–1.44<0.001
 Severity index6230.780.350.640.362.591.37–4.880.003
 Comorbidity index6234.301.813.241.941.311.16–1.47<0.001
Medications
 Diuretics55222/6434.38103/48821.111.961.12–3.430.019
 Anticholinergic drugs5530.481.060.250.691.361.04–1.780.023
Pneumonia at admission62419/7724.6831/5475.675.452.89–10.2)<0.001
Urinary tract infection at admission60430/7241.67122/53222.932.401.44–4.000.001
Aphasia62435/7745.45166/54730.351.911.78–3.110.001
Neglect62424/7731.1732/5475.857.293.99–13.3<0.001
Vision disorders62453/7768.83153/54727.975.693.39–9.55<0.001
Laboratory data
 WBC count on admission4549.323.348.303.271.081.00–1.160.037
 WBC count (day 1)6089.723.678.392.911.131.06–1.220.001
 Potassium (day 1)6214.190.614.340.430.460.26–0.800.007
 Urine leukocyte count (day 1)59735/7149.30180/52634.221.871.13–3.080.014
 Urine nitrate count (day 1)59812/7116.9042/5277.972.351.17–4.720.017
 Urine bacteremia (day 1)58550/7071.43255/51549.512.551.47–4.410.001
Temperatureb62437.430.7037.060.681.991.45–2.74<0.001
Delusion4989/6314.2927/4356.212.521.22–5.650.025
Apathy49823/6336.5160/43513.793.592.01–6.43<0.001
Disinhibition49810/6315.8719/4354.374.131.82–9.370.001
Anxiety49824/6338.10104/43523.911.961.12–3.410.018
Sleep49827/6342.86132/43530.341.721.00–2.960.049

aStatistical significance is indicated in bold.

bThe highest body temperature for each patient between day 1 and day 3 of the hospital stay (mean for all group).

TABLE 5. Risk Factors Predicting Mixed Poststroke Delirium

Enlarge table

Multivariable logistic regression analysis based on the results of univariate logistic regression was performed. For mixed type of delirium MoCA score, spatial neglect, atrial fibrillation, and comorbidity index allowed us to achieve the best predictive model (Table 6).

TABLE 6. Predictive Model for Poststroke Mixed Delirium

Risk FactorsTotalMixed DeliriumNo DeliriumOdds Ratio95 % CIpa
N%MeanSDN%MeanSDN%MeanSD
Montreal Cognitive Assessment score20.346.1210.526.3321.025.490.780.71–0.85<0.001
Spatial Neglect56/6248.9724/7731.1732/5475.8512.183.82–38.86<0.001
Atrial fibrillation131/62321.0327/7735.06104/54619.053.541.27–9.860.016
Comorbidity index3.371.954.301.813.231.931.321.00–1.750.048

aAll values meet statistical significance.

TABLE 6. Predictive Model for Poststroke Mixed Delirium

Enlarge table

Discussion

This study demonstrated the highest prevalence of hypoactive delirium subtype among stroke patients, followed by a mixed type that was almost as common as the hypoactive type, whereas the easily detectable hyperactive variant was nearly three times less common.

This is in line with two previous studies assessing poststroke delirium subtypes, Ojagberni et al.31 and Kozak et al.,32 where the hypoactive form of poststroke delirium was also the prevalent type. However, its prevalence was much higher than in our study (65.6% and 72.7%, respectively, versus 41.8%). Both previous studies were small, the delirium prevalence was discrepant (33% versus 18%, respectively), and risk factors for delirium subtypes were not analyzed. The prevalence of delirium in our study (27.07%) was in the midrange of both studies and the number of included patients was much higher, which makes our results more reliable. It is also noteworthy to mention that our study identified mixed-type delirium in 39.9% of all delirium cases, suggesting that changes in the psychomotor activity of patients with stroke are frequent and signs of mental or motor hyper- and hypoactivity often coexist.

Delirium is a multifactorial acute condition that usually involves a predisposing factor and one or more acute superimposed conditions that directly precipitate delirium.33 Different theories have been proposed in an attempt to explain the processes leading to the development of poststroke delirium. Most of these theories are complementary rather than competing. Current theories explain delirium development by the interaction of hypoxia, inflammatory processes, disturbance of neurotransmitters, neuroendocrine dysregulation, and the presence of internal or external risk factors,34 all of which can affect the integrity of functional brain networks in patients with delirium.

This study aimed to identify the risk factors for different delirium subtypes and to build a predictive model for each poststroke delirium subtype. We found that the MoCA score on the first day of the hospital stay as well as spatial neglect were found to be the predicting factors in all delirium subtypes.

Cognitive decline is a well-known risk factor for delirium.7 In our cohort, prestroke cognitive decline and MoCA scores were identified as risk factors for all subtypes of delirium, but the MoCA score on the first day of hospitalization had a better predictive value in the final predictive models. The MoCA is an objective, direct tool for estimating general cognitive functioning, whereas IQCODE relies on the caregiver’s subjective assessment. Although patients with prestroke dementia score worse on MoCA, stroke can lower cognitive reserve in some patients classified as free of prestroke dementia on admission by the application of IQCODE.

We decided to use MoCA for cognitive screening in the poststroke cohort because vascular cognitive impairment is different than that seen in neurodegenerative conditions. A more commonly used cognitive screening tool, the Mini-Mental State Examination, was designed to detect Alzheimer's disease, which is primarily a disorder of memory. People with vascular impairment have more executive dysfunction; therefore, this tool might be less sensitive in the poststroke population. Our study showed that MoCA better identifies patients at risk for delirium among poststroke survivors than prestroke IQCODE assessment does.

Different studies on poststroke delirium suggest that any visual disturbances may increase the risk of delirium: poor vision prestroke,35 hemianopsia,36 and neglect.37 Differentiating between different types of visual impairment (for example, between spatial neglect and hemianopsia) may be challenging, especially among patients in confused states or with cognitive impairment. Therefore, it seems important to remember that any visual deficit increases the likelihood of occurrence for all the delirium subtypes in poststroke patients.

Additionally, we identified urine bacteremia and WBC count during hospitalization as a risk for the hyper- and hypoactive types of delirium, respectively, in the final predictive model. Infections were identified as an important cause of delirium in the elderly patient population38 and a risk factor for poststroke delirium.39 Additionally, comorbid disorders increase the risk of poststroke delirium.40 In our predictive models, the best predictive values for the hyperactive and mixed subtypes of delirium had diabetes and atrial fibrillation with the comorbidity index, respectively.

Our study showed that some risk factors for each delirium subtype predict the development of delirium better than others. All identified risk factors in the final predictive models for delirium subtypes are easily assessed or obtained in routine clinical practice.

The present study is the first one to identify risk factors for different subtypes of poststroke delirium. Recognizing different subtypes of delirium is crucial for reducing the potential for underestimation of such variations with the associated inaccuracy in subtype attribution. We used DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for delirium. The DSM-5 criteria changed the way delirium is regarded: the term is now more restrictively defined in terms of cognitive features. Therefore, every patient with stroke had a repeated screening of cognitive functioning every day. From the first day of hospital admission, careful attention was given to discriminate cognitive dysfunction due to dementia and delirium.

The strength of our study is our large number of consecutive patients with stroke and a very careful assessment of the range of potential risk factors, including cognitive and neuropsychiatric factors. Diagnosis of delirium is often difficult; many cases may be missed, especially in stroke patients, due to prevalent language disorders, neglect, mood disturbances, and cognitive impairment that can be confused with delirium, thus making proper assessment impossible. Only a systematic assessment and longitudinal observation by medical personnel can give reliable answers to questions regarding disturbances of patients’ awareness. In our study, structural assessment was conducted every day, and the final diagnosis was based on a daily observational chart provided by the medical personnel for every patient.

For delirium screening, we used bCAM for verbal patients and CAM-ICU for patients who could not speak but who were able to communicate nonverbally. Both methods have high sensitivity and specificity and are easy to administer. The same assessor administered the scale from day 1 to day 7, thus making bias of interobserver variation minimal.14,15

Age is a risk factor for poststroke delirium; therefore, the prevalence of delirium may be affected by age inclusion criteria and the number of young patients included in the study. This study included patients of a wide age range, but the mean age of the cohort was high and similar to other studies. Therefore, we do not think that age inclusion criteria could have caused a bias.

The incidence of poststroke delirium in our sample might be underestimated due to the restricted 7-day observation period. This is the average duration of a hospital stay in Krakow’s stroke unit. Therefore, those with delayed onset delirium might have been missed.

In conclusion, the PROPOLIS showed that the hyperactive form of poststroke delirium is the rarest type. The best factors predicting different subtypes of delirium are easily assessed in everyday practice, and their co-occurrence in patients with stroke should alert a treating physician to a high risk for their prevalence and severe poststroke complications. The identification of risk factors with the best predictive value will help identify patients at risk of developing a particular delirium subtype during their hospital stay. Our results may also encourage new prevention studies for this frequent and serious poststroke complication.

From the Department of Neurology, School of Medicine, Jagiellonian University, Krakow, Poland (PP, KK, EK, AW, AS-M, TD, AK-M).
Send correspondence to Dr. Klimkowicz-Mrowiec; e-mail:

Supported by the Leading National Research Centre.

The authors report no financial relationships with commercial interests.

The authors thank Malgorzata Mazurek for assistance with this article.

References

1 Siddiqi N, House AO, Holmes JD: Occurrence and outcome of delirium in medical in-patients: a systematic literature review. Age Ageing 2006; 35:350–364Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

2 Hart RP, Levenson JL, Sessler CN, et al.: Validation of a cognitive test for delirium in medical ICU patients. Psychosomatics 1996; 37:533–546Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

3 Liptzin B, Levkoff SE: An empirical study of delirium subtypes. Br J Psychiatry 1992; 161:843–845Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

4 Meagher D, Leonard M: The active management of delirium: improving detection and treatment. Adv Psychiatr Treat 2008; 14:291–301CrossrefGoogle Scholar

5 Inouye SK, Foreman MD, Mion LC, et al.: Nurses’ recognition of delirium and its symptoms: comparison of nurse and researcher ratings. Arch Intern Med 2001; 161:2467–2473Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

6 Meagher D: Motor subtypes of delirium: past, present and future. Int Rev Psychiatry 2009; 21:59–73Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

7 McManus J, Pathansali R, Stewart R, et al.: Delirium post-stroke. Age Ageing 2007; 36:613–618Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

8 Rice KL, Bennett M, Gomez M, et al.: Nurses’ recognition of delirium in the hospitalized older adult. Clin Nurse Spec 2011; 25:299–311Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

9 Boettger S, Breitbart W: Phenomenology of the subtypes of delirium: phenomenological differences between hyperactive and hypoactive delirium. Palliat Support Care 2011; 9:129–135Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

10 Meagher DJ, Leonard M, Donnelly S, et al.: A longitudinal study of motor subtypes in delirium: frequency and stability during episodes. J Psychosom Res 2012; 72:236–241Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

11 Camus V, Gonthier R, Dubos G, et al.: Etiologic and outcome profiles in hypoactive and hyperactive subtypes of delirium. J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol 2000; 13:38–42Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

12 Marcantonio E, Ta T, Duthie E, et al.: Delirium severity and psychomotor types: their relationship with outcomes after hip fracture repair. J Am Geriatr Soc 2002; 50:850–857Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

13 Avelino-Silva TJ, Campora F, Curiati JAE, et al.: Prognostic effects of delirium motor subtypes in hospitalized older adults: A prospective cohort study. PLoS One 2018; 13:e0191092Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

14 Kiely DK, Jones RN, Bergmann MA, et al.: Association between psychomotor activity delirium subtypes and mortality among newly admitted post-acute facility patients. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2007; 62:174–179Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

15 Slor CJ, Adamis D, Jansen RW, et al.: Delirium motor subtypes in elderly hip fracture patients: risk factors, outcomes and longitudinal stability. J Psychosom Res 2013; 74:444–449Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

16 https://www.ninds.nih.gov/Disorders/All-Disorders/Stroke-Information-PageGoogle Scholar

17 Intercollegiate Stroke Working Party: National Clinical Guideline for Stroke, 4th ed. London, Royal College of Physicians, 2012Google Scholar

18 Klimiec E, Dziedzic T, Kowalska K, et al.: PRospective Observational POLIsh Study on post-stroke delirium (PROPOLIS): methodology of hospital-based cohort study on delirium prevalence, predictors and diagnostic tools. BMC Neurol 2015; 19;15:94CrossrefGoogle Scholar

19 Inouye SK, van Dyck CH, Alessi CA, et al.: Clarifying confusion: the confusion assessment method. A new method for detection of delirium. Ann Intern Med 1990; 113:941–948Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

20 Ely EWE, Inouye SK, Bernard GR, et al.: Delirium in mechanically ventilated patients: validity and reliability of the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU). JAMA 2001; 286:2703–2710Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

21 Meagher D, Adamis D, Leonard M, et al.: Development of an abbreviated version of the Delirium Motor Subtyping Scale (DMSS-4). Int Psychogeriatr 2014; 26:693–702Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

22 American Psychiatric Association: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th ed. Washington, DC, American Psychiatric Association, 2013CrossrefGoogle Scholar

23 Klimkowicz A, Dziedzic T, Slowik A, et al.: Incidence of pre- and poststroke dementia: Cracow Stroke Registry. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 2002; 14:137–140Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

24 Nasreddine ZS, Phillips NA, Bédirian V, et al.: The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA: a brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment. J Am Geriatr Soc 2005; 53:695–699Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

25 Dubois B, Slachevsky A, Litvan I, et al.: The FAB: a Frontal Assessment Battery at bedside. Neurology 2000; 55:1621–1626Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

26 Cummings JL, Mega M, Gray K, et al.: The Neuropsychiatric Inventory: comprehensive assessment of psychopathology in dementia. Neurology 1994; 44:2308–2314Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

27 de Groot V, Beckerman H, Lankhorst GJ, et al.: How to measure comorbidity: a critical review of available methods. J Clin Epidemiol 2003; 56:221–229Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

28 Adams HP, Bendixen BH, Kappelle LJ, et al.: Classification of subtype of acute ischemic stroke: definitions for use in a multicenter clinical trial. Stroke 1993; 24:35–41Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

29 Meyer BC, Lyden PD: The modified National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale: its time has come. Int J Stroke 2009; 4:267–273Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

30 Pasinska P, Kowalska K, Klimiec E, et al.: Frequency and predictors of post-stroke delirium in PRospective Observational POLIsh Study (PROPOLIS). J Neurol 2018; 265:863–870Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

31 Ojagbemi A, Owolabi M, Bello T, et al.: Stroke severity predicts poststroke delirium and its association with dementia: Longitudinal observation from a low income setting. J Neurol Sci 2017; 375:376–381Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

32 Kozak HH, Uğuz F, Kılınç İ, et al.: Delirium in patients with acute ischemic stroke admitted to the non-intensive stroke unit: Incidence and association between clinical features and inflammatory markers. Neurol Neurochir Pol 2017; 51:38–44Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

33 Inouye SK: Predisposing and precipitating factors for delirium in hospitalized older patients. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 1999; 10:393–400Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

34 Riedel B, Browne K, Silbert B: Cerebral protection: inflammation, endothelial dysfunction, and postoperative cognitive dysfunction. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol 2014; 27:89–97Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

35 Mc Manus J, Pathansali R, Hassan H, et al.: The evaluation of delirium post-stroke. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 2009; 24:1251–1256Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

36 Dahl MH, Rønning OM, Thommessen B: Delirium in acute stroke: prevalence and risk factors. Acta Neurol Scand Suppl 2010; 190:39–43CrossrefGoogle Scholar

37 Caeiro L, Ferro JM, Albuquerque R, et al.: Delirium in the first days of acute stroke. J Neurol 2004; 251:171–178Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

38 Kuswardhani RAT, Sugi YS. Factors related to the severity of delirium in the elderly patients with infection. Gerontol Geriatr Med 2017; 3:2333721417739188.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

39 Miu DK, Yeung JC: Incidence of post-stroke delirium and 1-year outcome. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2013; 13:123–129Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

40 Sheng AZ, Shen Q, Cordato D, et al.: Delirium within three days of stroke in a cohort of elderly patients. J Am Geriatr Soc 2006; 54:1192–1198Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar