An 86-year-old woman with hypertension, osteoporosis, and mild cognitive impairment presents with episodes of palpitations and heart “fluttering.” These episodes occur 1 to 2 times per week, last for up to several hours, and are associated with mild shortness of breath and reduced activity tolerance. She is widowed and lives in a retirement facility, but she is independent in activities of daily living. She has fallen twice in the past year without significant injury.

See related editorial

Physical examination is unremarkable. An electrocardiogram demonstrates sinus rhythm with left ventricular hypertrophy. A 30-day event monitor reveals several episodes of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation that correspond with her symptoms. A subsequent echocardiogram shows normal left ventricular systolic function, mild diastolic dysfunction, and no significant valvular abnormalities. Laboratory studies, including thyroid-stimulating hormone, are normal.

What is this patient’s risk of stroke? What is her risk of major bleeding from anticoagulation? How should fall risk be addressed in the decision-making process? What other factors should be considered?

AGE, ATRIAL FIBRILLATION, AND STROKE RISK

The prevalence of atrial fibrillation increases with age, and nearly half of patients with atrial fibrillation in the United States are 75 or older.¹ In addition, older age is an independent risk factor for stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation, and the proportion of strokes attributable to atrial fibrillation increases exponentially with age:

• 1.5% at age 50 to 59
• 2.8% at age 60 to 69
• 9.9% at age 70 to 79
• 23.5% at age 80 to 89.²

Numerous large randomized trials have shown that anticoagulation with warfarin reduces the risk of stroke by about two-thirds in patients with atrial fibrillation, and that this benefit extends to the elderly.

In the Birmingham Atrial Fibrillation Treatment of the Aged trial,³ 973 patients at least 75 years old (mean age 81.5, 55% male) were randomized to receive either warfarin with a target international normalized ratio of 2.0 to 3.0 or aspirin 75 mg/day. Over an average follow-up of 2.7 years, the composite outcome of fatal or disabling stroke, arterial embolism, or intracranial hemorrhage occurred in 24 (4.9%) of the 488 patients in the warfarin group and 48 (9.9%) of the 485 patients in the aspirin group (absolute yearly risk reduction 2%, 95% confidence interval 0.7–3.2, number needed to treat 50 for 1 year). Importantly, the benefit of warfarin was similar in men and women, and in patients ages 75 to 79, 80 to 84, and 85 and older.

More recently, the oral anticoagulants dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban have been shown to be at least as effective as warfarin with respect to both stroke prevention and major bleeding complications, and subgroup analyses have confirmed similar outcomes in older and younger patients.^4,5

But despite the proven value of anticoagulation for stroke prevention in older adults, only 40% to 60% of older patients who are suitable candidates for anticoagulation actually receive it.⁶ Moreover, the proportion of patients who are treated declines progressively with age. The most frequently cited reason for nontreatment is perception of a high risk of falls and associated concerns about bleeding, especially intracranial hemorrhage.^7–10

BALANCING STROKE RISK VS BLEEDING RISK

Balancing the risk of stroke against the risk of bleeding related to falls is a commonly encountered conundrum in older patients with atrial fibrillation.

Stroke risk

The CHADS₂ score was, until recently, the most widely used method for assessing stroke risk in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. CHADS₂ assigns 1 point each for congestive heart failure, hypertension, age ≥ 75, and diabetes, and 2 points for prior stroke or transient ischemic attack (range 0–6 points). Annual stroke risk based on the CHADS₂ score ranges from about 2% to about 18%
(Table 1).¹¹

The CHA₂DS₂-VASc score,¹² a modification of CHADS₂, appears to assess the risk of stroke more accurately, especially at the lower end of the scale, and recent guidelines for managing atrial fibrillation recommend using the CHA₂DS₂-VASc algorithm.¹³ CHA₂DS₂-VASc is similar to CHADS₂, except that it assigns 1 point for ages 65 to 74, 2 points for ages 75 and older, 1 point for vascular disease (coronary artery disease, peripheral arterial disease, aortic aneurysm), and 1 point for female sex (Table 1).^11,12

For both CHADS₂ and CHA₂DS₂-VASc, systemic anticoagulation is recommended for patients who have a score of 2 or higher. Our patient’s CHADS₂ score is 2, and her CHA₂DS₂-VASc score is 4, corresponding to an annual estimated stroke risk of 4% with both scores (Table 1). Note, however, that the CHA₂DS₂-VASc score provides more information at the lower end of the spectrum.

Bleeding risk

Several scoring systems for assessing bleeding risk have also been developed (Table 2).^14–16 Of these, the HAS-BLED score has come to be used more widely in recent years.

Perhaps not surprisingly, some of the same factors associated with risk of stroke also predict increased risk of bleeding (eg, older age, hypertension, prior stroke).¹⁴ Note, however, that history of falling or high risk of falling is only included in one of the bleeding risk models (HEMORR₂HAGES).¹⁵

These tools are somewhat limited by their lack of consideration of concomitant antiplatelet therapy (only included in HAS-BLED) or history of bleeding (only ATRIA¹⁶ considers major and minor bleeding, HEMORR₂HAGES does not specify bleeding severity, and HAS-BLED only considers major bleeding). The models also fail to include medications such as antibiotics or antiarrhythmic agents, which are commonly used by older patients with atrial fibrillation and may increase bleeding risk. In addition, all bleeding risk scores were developed for warfarin, and their applicability to patients treated with the newer oral anticoagulants has not been established.

At the time of presentation, our patient has a HAS-BLED score of 2 (1 point each for age and hypertension), placing her at intermediate risk of bleeding.¹⁴

Fear the clot, not the bleed

So how does one balance the risk of stroke vs the risk of bleeding? An adage from the early days of thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction was “fear the clot, not the bleed.” In other words, in the present context the consequences of a thrombus embolizing from the heart to the brain are likely to be more devastating and more permanent than the consequences of anticoagulation-associated hemorrhage.

Support for this view is underscored by a 2015 study by Lip et al,¹⁷ who examined stroke and bleeding risks and outcomes in a large real-world population of patients age 75 and older. The analysis included 819 patients ages 85 to 89 and 386 patients age 90 and older. The key finding was that the oldest patients derived the greatest net benefit from anticoagulation.

Moreover, the Canadian stroke registry of 3,197 patients, mean age 79, showed that advanced age was a more potent risk factor for ischemic stroke than it was for hemorrhagic stroke.¹⁸

Thus, the benefit from anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation does not appear to have an upper age limit.

FALLS AND ANTICOAGULATION

Falls are an important source of morbidity, disability, and activity curtailment in older adults and, like atrial fibrillation, the incidence and prevalence of falls increase with age. In community-dwelling adults age 65 and older, the overall proportion with at least 1 fall in the preceding year ranges from about 30% to 40%.¹⁹ However, the rate increases with age and exceeds 50% in nursing home residents.²⁰

Although anticoagulation is associated with a higher risk of bleeding in patients who fall, the absolute risk is small.

In a study of older adults with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, a history of falls or documented high risk of falling was associated with a risk of intracranial hemorrhage during follow-up that was 1.9 times higher.²¹ Importantly, however, this risk did not differ among patients treated with warfarin, aspirin, or no antithrombotic therapy. In this analysis, patients with a CHADS₂ score of 2 or higher benefited from anticoagulation, whether or not they were considered to be at risk for falls.

In another study,²² it was estimated that an individual would have to fall 295 times in 1 year for the risk of fall-related major bleeding to outweigh the benefit of warfarin in reducing the risk of stroke.

Thus, based on available evidence, perception of a high risk of falling should not be construed as justification for withholding anticoagulation in older patients who are otherwise suitable candidates for such therapy.

AT WHAT POINT DOES BLEEDING RISK OUTWEIGH ANTICOAGULATION BENEFIT?

Absolute contraindications to anticoagulation include an intracranial hemorrhage or neurosurgical procedure with high risk for bleeding within the past 30 days, an intracranial neoplasm or vascular abnormality with high risk of bleeding, recurrent life-threatening gastrointestinal or other bleeding events, and severe bleeding disorders, including severe thrombocytopenia.

In patients with atrial fibrillation at high risk of bleeding as assessed by one of the bleeding risk scores and relatively low risk of ischemic stroke, the risk of anticoagulation may outweigh the benefit, although no studies have specifically addressed this issue.

In patients with frequent falls, including injurious falls, the benefits of anticoagulation usually outweigh the risks of bleeding, but management should incorporate interventions designed to mitigate fall risk.

Finally, in patients with a poor prognosis approaching the end of life, the risks and burdens of anticoagulation may exceed the perceived benefits, in which case discontinuation of anticoagulation may be appropriate.

SHOULD OUR PATIENT RECEIVE ANTICOAGULATION?

As noted above, our patient has a high risk of stroke and a moderate risk of bleeding, and multiple lines of evidence indicate that the benefits of anticoagulation (ie, prevention of stroke and systemic embolization) substantially outweigh the risks of bleeding. Although she has a history of falls, which may seem to muddy the waters, this factor should not play a major role in decision-making. Moreover, her advanced age should, if anything, be considered a point in favor of anticoagulation. So from the scientific standpoint, anticoagulation is the clear winner.

A shared decision

But that is not the end of the story. Since there is tension between benefits and risks with either approach (ie, anticoagulation or no anticoagulation), it is important to discuss the issues and options with the patient and relevant caregivers. Most older adults have witnessed the ravages of stroke in a friend or relative, and a recent study showed that most would be willing to accept a modest risk of bleeding to prevent a stroke.²³

However, this is ultimately a personal decision for each patient, and in accordance with the principle of patient autonomy, the patient’s expressed wishes should be honored by using a process of shared decision-making.

Which anticoagulant?

Finally, what about the choice of anticoagulation? The complexities of using warfarin, including its narrow therapeutic range and myriad interactions with other medications and foods, can make it a less appealing option for both patient and provider.

We recommend a novel oral anticoagulant as first-line therapy in the absence of contraindications such as severe renal insufficiency, and prefer apixaban because it is the only agent shown to be superior to warfarin with respect to both stroke prevention and bleeding risk.²⁴

Important disadvantages of the novel oral anticoagulants include their higher cost and lack of an effective antidote in the event of clinically significant bleeding (with the exception of idarucizumab, which was recently approved for reversal of serious bleeding associated with dabigatran), issues that may be of particular concern to older adults. While there is no therapeutic range to monitor for the newer agents, more frequent monitoring for occult anemia may be needed.

Thus, selection of an anticoagulant should also be individualized through shared decision-making.

Is aspirin alone an alternative?

And what if the patient chooses to forgo anticoagulation? In that case, aspirin 75 to 325 mg/day may seem reasonable, but there is scant evidence that aspirin is beneficial for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation in this age group, and aspirin, too, is associated with an increased risk of bleeding.²⁵

As a result, current US and European guidelines recommend a very limited role for aspirin as a single agent in the management of atrial fibrillation.²⁶ The joint 2014 guidelines of the American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology, and Heart Rhythm Society give aspirin a class IIB recommendation (ie, it “may” be considered), level of evidence C (ie, very limited) for use as an alternative to no antithrombotic therapy or systemic anticoagulation only in patients with a CHA₂DS₂-VASc score of 1, thereby excluding all patients age 75 and older.¹³

In most cases, aspirin as sole prophylaxis against stroke in atrial fibrillation should be avoided in the absence of another indication for its use, such as coexisting coronary artery disease or peripheral arterial disease.

A COMPLEX DECISION

In summary, the decisions surrounding anticoagulation of elderly patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation are complex. Accurate assessment of stroke risk is key, and although bleeding risk is also an essential consideration, it is important not to overemphasize bleeding and fall risks in the decision-making process.

An 86-year-old woman with hypertension, osteoporosis, and mild cognitive impairment presents with episodes of palpitations and heart “fluttering.” These episodes occur 1 to 2 times per week, last for up to several hours, and are associated with mild shortness of breath and reduced activity tolerance. She is widowed and lives in a retirement facility, but she is independent in activities of daily living. She has fallen twice in the past year without significant injury.

See related editorial

Physical examination is unremarkable. An electrocardiogram demonstrates sinus rhythm with left ventricular hypertrophy. A 30-day event monitor reveals several episodes of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation that correspond with her symptoms. A subsequent echocardiogram shows normal left ventricular systolic function, mild diastolic dysfunction, and no significant valvular abnormalities. Laboratory studies, including thyroid-stimulating hormone, are normal.

What is this patient’s risk of stroke? What is her risk of major bleeding from anticoagulation? How should fall risk be addressed in the decision-making process? What other factors should be considered?

AGE, ATRIAL FIBRILLATION, AND STROKE RISK

The prevalence of atrial fibrillation increases with age, and nearly half of patients with atrial fibrillation in the United States are 75 or older.¹ In addition, older age is an independent risk factor for stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation, and the proportion of strokes attributable to atrial fibrillation increases exponentially with age:

• 1.5% at age 50 to 59
• 2.8% at age 60 to 69
• 9.9% at age 70 to 79
• 23.5% at age 80 to 89.²

Numerous large randomized trials have shown that anticoagulation with warfarin reduces the risk of stroke by about two-thirds in patients with atrial fibrillation, and that this benefit extends to the elderly.

In the Birmingham Atrial Fibrillation Treatment of the Aged trial,³ 973 patients at least 75 years old (mean age 81.5, 55% male) were randomized to receive either warfarin with a target international normalized ratio of 2.0 to 3.0 or aspirin 75 mg/day. Over an average follow-up of 2.7 years, the composite outcome of fatal or disabling stroke, arterial embolism, or intracranial hemorrhage occurred in 24 (4.9%) of the 488 patients in the warfarin group and 48 (9.9%) of the 485 patients in the aspirin group (absolute yearly risk reduction 2%, 95% confidence interval 0.7–3.2, number needed to treat 50 for 1 year). Importantly, the benefit of warfarin was similar in men and women, and in patients ages 75 to 79, 80 to 84, and 85 and older.

More recently, the oral anticoagulants dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban have been shown to be at least as effective as warfarin with respect to both stroke prevention and major bleeding complications, and subgroup analyses have confirmed similar outcomes in older and younger patients.^4,5

But despite the proven value of anticoagulation for stroke prevention in older adults, only 40% to 60% of older patients who are suitable candidates for anticoagulation actually receive it.⁶ Moreover, the proportion of patients who are treated declines progressively with age. The most frequently cited reason for nontreatment is perception of a high risk of falls and associated concerns about bleeding, especially intracranial hemorrhage.^7–10

BALANCING STROKE RISK VS BLEEDING RISK

Balancing the risk of stroke against the risk of bleeding related to falls is a commonly encountered conundrum in older patients with atrial fibrillation.

Stroke risk

The CHADS₂ score was, until recently, the most widely used method for assessing stroke risk in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. CHADS₂ assigns 1 point each for congestive heart failure, hypertension, age ≥ 75, and diabetes, and 2 points for prior stroke or transient ischemic attack (range 0–6 points). Annual stroke risk based on the CHADS₂ score ranges from about 2% to about 18%
(Table 1).¹¹

The CHA₂DS₂-VASc score,¹² a modification of CHADS₂, appears to assess the risk of stroke more accurately, especially at the lower end of the scale, and recent guidelines for managing atrial fibrillation recommend using the CHA₂DS₂-VASc algorithm.¹³ CHA₂DS₂-VASc is similar to CHADS₂, except that it assigns 1 point for ages 65 to 74, 2 points for ages 75 and older, 1 point for vascular disease (coronary artery disease, peripheral arterial disease, aortic aneurysm), and 1 point for female sex (Table 1).^11,12

For both CHADS₂ and CHA₂DS₂-VASc, systemic anticoagulation is recommended for patients who have a score of 2 or higher. Our patient’s CHADS₂ score is 2, and her CHA₂DS₂-VASc score is 4, corresponding to an annual estimated stroke risk of 4% with both scores (Table 1). Note, however, that the CHA₂DS₂-VASc score provides more information at the lower end of the spectrum.

Bleeding risk

Several scoring systems for assessing bleeding risk have also been developed (Table 2).^14–16 Of these, the HAS-BLED score has come to be used more widely in recent years.

Perhaps not surprisingly, some of the same factors associated with risk of stroke also predict increased risk of bleeding (eg, older age, hypertension, prior stroke).¹⁴ Note, however, that history of falling or high risk of falling is only included in one of the bleeding risk models (HEMORR₂HAGES).¹⁵

These tools are somewhat limited by their lack of consideration of concomitant antiplatelet therapy (only included in HAS-BLED) or history of bleeding (only ATRIA¹⁶ considers major and minor bleeding, HEMORR₂HAGES does not specify bleeding severity, and HAS-BLED only considers major bleeding). The models also fail to include medications such as antibiotics or antiarrhythmic agents, which are commonly used by older patients with atrial fibrillation and may increase bleeding risk. In addition, all bleeding risk scores were developed for warfarin, and their applicability to patients treated with the newer oral anticoagulants has not been established.

At the time of presentation, our patient has a HAS-BLED score of 2 (1 point each for age and hypertension), placing her at intermediate risk of bleeding.¹⁴

Fear the clot, not the bleed

So how does one balance the risk of stroke vs the risk of bleeding? An adage from the early days of thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction was “fear the clot, not the bleed.” In other words, in the present context the consequences of a thrombus embolizing from the heart to the brain are likely to be more devastating and more permanent than the consequences of anticoagulation-associated hemorrhage.

Support for this view is underscored by a 2015 study by Lip et al,¹⁷ who examined stroke and bleeding risks and outcomes in a large real-world population of patients age 75 and older. The analysis included 819 patients ages 85 to 89 and 386 patients age 90 and older. The key finding was that the oldest patients derived the greatest net benefit from anticoagulation.

Moreover, the Canadian stroke registry of 3,197 patients, mean age 79, showed that advanced age was a more potent risk factor for ischemic stroke than it was for hemorrhagic stroke.¹⁸

Thus, the benefit from anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation does not appear to have an upper age limit.

FALLS AND ANTICOAGULATION

Falls are an important source of morbidity, disability, and activity curtailment in older adults and, like atrial fibrillation, the incidence and prevalence of falls increase with age. In community-dwelling adults age 65 and older, the overall proportion with at least 1 fall in the preceding year ranges from about 30% to 40%.¹⁹ However, the rate increases with age and exceeds 50% in nursing home residents.²⁰

Although anticoagulation is associated with a higher risk of bleeding in patients who fall, the absolute risk is small.

In a study of older adults with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, a history of falls or documented high risk of falling was associated with a risk of intracranial hemorrhage during follow-up that was 1.9 times higher.²¹ Importantly, however, this risk did not differ among patients treated with warfarin, aspirin, or no antithrombotic therapy. In this analysis, patients with a CHADS₂ score of 2 or higher benefited from anticoagulation, whether or not they were considered to be at risk for falls.

In another study,²² it was estimated that an individual would have to fall 295 times in 1 year for the risk of fall-related major bleeding to outweigh the benefit of warfarin in reducing the risk of stroke.

Thus, based on available evidence, perception of a high risk of falling should not be construed as justification for withholding anticoagulation in older patients who are otherwise suitable candidates for such therapy.

AT WHAT POINT DOES BLEEDING RISK OUTWEIGH ANTICOAGULATION BENEFIT?

Absolute contraindications to anticoagulation include an intracranial hemorrhage or neurosurgical procedure with high risk for bleeding within the past 30 days, an intracranial neoplasm or vascular abnormality with high risk of bleeding, recurrent life-threatening gastrointestinal or other bleeding events, and severe bleeding disorders, including severe thrombocytopenia.

In patients with atrial fibrillation at high risk of bleeding as assessed by one of the bleeding risk scores and relatively low risk of ischemic stroke, the risk of anticoagulation may outweigh the benefit, although no studies have specifically addressed this issue.

In patients with frequent falls, including injurious falls, the benefits of anticoagulation usually outweigh the risks of bleeding, but management should incorporate interventions designed to mitigate fall risk.

Finally, in patients with a poor prognosis approaching the end of life, the risks and burdens of anticoagulation may exceed the perceived benefits, in which case discontinuation of anticoagulation may be appropriate.

SHOULD OUR PATIENT RECEIVE ANTICOAGULATION?

As noted above, our patient has a high risk of stroke and a moderate risk of bleeding, and multiple lines of evidence indicate that the benefits of anticoagulation (ie, prevention of stroke and systemic embolization) substantially outweigh the risks of bleeding. Although she has a history of falls, which may seem to muddy the waters, this factor should not play a major role in decision-making. Moreover, her advanced age should, if anything, be considered a point in favor of anticoagulation. So from the scientific standpoint, anticoagulation is the clear winner.

A shared decision

But that is not the end of the story. Since there is tension between benefits and risks with either approach (ie, anticoagulation or no anticoagulation), it is important to discuss the issues and options with the patient and relevant caregivers. Most older adults have witnessed the ravages of stroke in a friend or relative, and a recent study showed that most would be willing to accept a modest risk of bleeding to prevent a stroke.²³

However, this is ultimately a personal decision for each patient, and in accordance with the principle of patient autonomy, the patient’s expressed wishes should be honored by using a process of shared decision-making.

Which anticoagulant?

Finally, what about the choice of anticoagulation? The complexities of using warfarin, including its narrow therapeutic range and myriad interactions with other medications and foods, can make it a less appealing option for both patient and provider.

We recommend a novel oral anticoagulant as first-line therapy in the absence of contraindications such as severe renal insufficiency, and prefer apixaban because it is the only agent shown to be superior to warfarin with respect to both stroke prevention and bleeding risk.²⁴

Important disadvantages of the novel oral anticoagulants include their higher cost and lack of an effective antidote in the event of clinically significant bleeding (with the exception of idarucizumab, which was recently approved for reversal of serious bleeding associated with dabigatran), issues that may be of particular concern to older adults. While there is no therapeutic range to monitor for the newer agents, more frequent monitoring for occult anemia may be needed.

Thus, selection of an anticoagulant should also be individualized through shared decision-making.

Is aspirin alone an alternative?

And what if the patient chooses to forgo anticoagulation? In that case, aspirin 75 to 325 mg/day may seem reasonable, but there is scant evidence that aspirin is beneficial for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation in this age group, and aspirin, too, is associated with an increased risk of bleeding.²⁵

As a result, current US and European guidelines recommend a very limited role for aspirin as a single agent in the management of atrial fibrillation.²⁶ The joint 2014 guidelines of the American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology, and Heart Rhythm Society give aspirin a class IIB recommendation (ie, it “may” be considered), level of evidence C (ie, very limited) for use as an alternative to no antithrombotic therapy or systemic anticoagulation only in patients with a CHA₂DS₂-VASc score of 1, thereby excluding all patients age 75 and older.¹³

In most cases, aspirin as sole prophylaxis against stroke in atrial fibrillation should be avoided in the absence of another indication for its use, such as coexisting coronary artery disease or peripheral arterial disease.

A COMPLEX DECISION

In summary, the decisions surrounding anticoagulation of elderly patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation are complex. Accurate assessment of stroke risk is key, and although bleeding risk is also an essential consideration, it is important not to overemphasize bleeding and fall risks in the decision-making process.

An 86-year-old woman with hypertension, osteoporosis, and mild cognitive impairment presents with episodes of palpitations and heart “fluttering.” These episodes occur 1 to 2 times per week, last for up to several hours, and are associated with mild shortness of breath and reduced activity tolerance. She is widowed and lives in a retirement facility, but she is independent in activities of daily living. She has fallen twice in the past year without significant injury.

See related editorial

Physical examination is unremarkable. An electrocardiogram demonstrates sinus rhythm with left ventricular hypertrophy. A 30-day event monitor reveals several episodes of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation that correspond with her symptoms. A subsequent echocardiogram shows normal left ventricular systolic function, mild diastolic dysfunction, and no significant valvular abnormalities. Laboratory studies, including thyroid-stimulating hormone, are normal.

What is this patient’s risk of stroke? What is her risk of major bleeding from anticoagulation? How should fall risk be addressed in the decision-making process? What other factors should be considered?

AGE, ATRIAL FIBRILLATION, AND STROKE RISK

The prevalence of atrial fibrillation increases with age, and nearly half of patients with atrial fibrillation in the United States are 75 or older.¹ In addition, older age is an independent risk factor for stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation, and the proportion of strokes attributable to atrial fibrillation increases exponentially with age:

• 1.5% at age 50 to 59
• 2.8% at age 60 to 69
• 9.9% at age 70 to 79
• 23.5% at age 80 to 89.²

Numerous large randomized trials have shown that anticoagulation with warfarin reduces the risk of stroke by about two-thirds in patients with atrial fibrillation, and that this benefit extends to the elderly.

In the Birmingham Atrial Fibrillation Treatment of the Aged trial,³ 973 patients at least 75 years old (mean age 81.5, 55% male) were randomized to receive either warfarin with a target international normalized ratio of 2.0 to 3.0 or aspirin 75 mg/day. Over an average follow-up of 2.7 years, the composite outcome of fatal or disabling stroke, arterial embolism, or intracranial hemorrhage occurred in 24 (4.9%) of the 488 patients in the warfarin group and 48 (9.9%) of the 485 patients in the aspirin group (absolute yearly risk reduction 2%, 95% confidence interval 0.7–3.2, number needed to treat 50 for 1 year). Importantly, the benefit of warfarin was similar in men and women, and in patients ages 75 to 79, 80 to 84, and 85 and older.

More recently, the oral anticoagulants dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban have been shown to be at least as effective as warfarin with respect to both stroke prevention and major bleeding complications, and subgroup analyses have confirmed similar outcomes in older and younger patients.^4,5

But despite the proven value of anticoagulation for stroke prevention in older adults, only 40% to 60% of older patients who are suitable candidates for anticoagulation actually receive it.⁶ Moreover, the proportion of patients who are treated declines progressively with age. The most frequently cited reason for nontreatment is perception of a high risk of falls and associated concerns about bleeding, especially intracranial hemorrhage.^7–10

BALANCING STROKE RISK VS BLEEDING RISK

Balancing the risk of stroke against the risk of bleeding related to falls is a commonly encountered conundrum in older patients with atrial fibrillation.

Stroke risk

The CHADS₂ score was, until recently, the most widely used method for assessing stroke risk in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. CHADS₂ assigns 1 point each for congestive heart failure, hypertension, age ≥ 75, and diabetes, and 2 points for prior stroke or transient ischemic attack (range 0–6 points). Annual stroke risk based on the CHADS₂ score ranges from about 2% to about 18%
(Table 1).¹¹

The CHA₂DS₂-VASc score,¹² a modification of CHADS₂, appears to assess the risk of stroke more accurately, especially at the lower end of the scale, and recent guidelines for managing atrial fibrillation recommend using the CHA₂DS₂-VASc algorithm.¹³ CHA₂DS₂-VASc is similar to CHADS₂, except that it assigns 1 point for ages 65 to 74, 2 points for ages 75 and older, 1 point for vascular disease (coronary artery disease, peripheral arterial disease, aortic aneurysm), and 1 point for female sex (Table 1).^11,12

For both CHADS₂ and CHA₂DS₂-VASc, systemic anticoagulation is recommended for patients who have a score of 2 or higher. Our patient’s CHADS₂ score is 2, and her CHA₂DS₂-VASc score is 4, corresponding to an annual estimated stroke risk of 4% with both scores (Table 1). Note, however, that the CHA₂DS₂-VASc score provides more information at the lower end of the spectrum.

Bleeding risk

Several scoring systems for assessing bleeding risk have also been developed (Table 2).^14–16 Of these, the HAS-BLED score has come to be used more widely in recent years.

Perhaps not surprisingly, some of the same factors associated with risk of stroke also predict increased risk of bleeding (eg, older age, hypertension, prior stroke).¹⁴ Note, however, that history of falling or high risk of falling is only included in one of the bleeding risk models (HEMORR₂HAGES).¹⁵

These tools are somewhat limited by their lack of consideration of concomitant antiplatelet therapy (only included in HAS-BLED) or history of bleeding (only ATRIA¹⁶ considers major and minor bleeding, HEMORR₂HAGES does not specify bleeding severity, and HAS-BLED only considers major bleeding). The models also fail to include medications such as antibiotics or antiarrhythmic agents, which are commonly used by older patients with atrial fibrillation and may increase bleeding risk. In addition, all bleeding risk scores were developed for warfarin, and their applicability to patients treated with the newer oral anticoagulants has not been established.

At the time of presentation, our patient has a HAS-BLED score of 2 (1 point each for age and hypertension), placing her at intermediate risk of bleeding.¹⁴

Fear the clot, not the bleed

So how does one balance the risk of stroke vs the risk of bleeding? An adage from the early days of thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction was “fear the clot, not the bleed.” In other words, in the present context the consequences of a thrombus embolizing from the heart to the brain are likely to be more devastating and more permanent than the consequences of anticoagulation-associated hemorrhage.

Support for this view is underscored by a 2015 study by Lip et al,¹⁷ who examined stroke and bleeding risks and outcomes in a large real-world population of patients age 75 and older. The analysis included 819 patients ages 85 to 89 and 386 patients age 90 and older. The key finding was that the oldest patients derived the greatest net benefit from anticoagulation.

Moreover, the Canadian stroke registry of 3,197 patients, mean age 79, showed that advanced age was a more potent risk factor for ischemic stroke than it was for hemorrhagic stroke.¹⁸

Thus, the benefit from anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation does not appear to have an upper age limit.

FALLS AND ANTICOAGULATION

Falls are an important source of morbidity, disability, and activity curtailment in older adults and, like atrial fibrillation, the incidence and prevalence of falls increase with age. In community-dwelling adults age 65 and older, the overall proportion with at least 1 fall in the preceding year ranges from about 30% to 40%.¹⁹ However, the rate increases with age and exceeds 50% in nursing home residents.²⁰

Although anticoagulation is associated with a higher risk of bleeding in patients who fall, the absolute risk is small.

In a study of older adults with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, a history of falls or documented high risk of falling was associated with a risk of intracranial hemorrhage during follow-up that was 1.9 times higher.²¹ Importantly, however, this risk did not differ among patients treated with warfarin, aspirin, or no antithrombotic therapy. In this analysis, patients with a CHADS₂ score of 2 or higher benefited from anticoagulation, whether or not they were considered to be at risk for falls.

In another study,²² it was estimated that an individual would have to fall 295 times in 1 year for the risk of fall-related major bleeding to outweigh the benefit of warfarin in reducing the risk of stroke.

Thus, based on available evidence, perception of a high risk of falling should not be construed as justification for withholding anticoagulation in older patients who are otherwise suitable candidates for such therapy.

AT WHAT POINT DOES BLEEDING RISK OUTWEIGH ANTICOAGULATION BENEFIT?

Absolute contraindications to anticoagulation include an intracranial hemorrhage or neurosurgical procedure with high risk for bleeding within the past 30 days, an intracranial neoplasm or vascular abnormality with high risk of bleeding, recurrent life-threatening gastrointestinal or other bleeding events, and severe bleeding disorders, including severe thrombocytopenia.

In patients with atrial fibrillation at high risk of bleeding as assessed by one of the bleeding risk scores and relatively low risk of ischemic stroke, the risk of anticoagulation may outweigh the benefit, although no studies have specifically addressed this issue.

In patients with frequent falls, including injurious falls, the benefits of anticoagulation usually outweigh the risks of bleeding, but management should incorporate interventions designed to mitigate fall risk.

Finally, in patients with a poor prognosis approaching the end of life, the risks and burdens of anticoagulation may exceed the perceived benefits, in which case discontinuation of anticoagulation may be appropriate.

SHOULD OUR PATIENT RECEIVE ANTICOAGULATION?

As noted above, our patient has a high risk of stroke and a moderate risk of bleeding, and multiple lines of evidence indicate that the benefits of anticoagulation (ie, prevention of stroke and systemic embolization) substantially outweigh the risks of bleeding. Although she has a history of falls, which may seem to muddy the waters, this factor should not play a major role in decision-making. Moreover, her advanced age should, if anything, be considered a point in favor of anticoagulation. So from the scientific standpoint, anticoagulation is the clear winner.

A shared decision

But that is not the end of the story. Since there is tension between benefits and risks with either approach (ie, anticoagulation or no anticoagulation), it is important to discuss the issues and options with the patient and relevant caregivers. Most older adults have witnessed the ravages of stroke in a friend or relative, and a recent study showed that most would be willing to accept a modest risk of bleeding to prevent a stroke.²³

However, this is ultimately a personal decision for each patient, and in accordance with the principle of patient autonomy, the patient’s expressed wishes should be honored by using a process of shared decision-making.

Which anticoagulant?

Finally, what about the choice of anticoagulation? The complexities of using warfarin, including its narrow therapeutic range and myriad interactions with other medications and foods, can make it a less appealing option for both patient and provider.

We recommend a novel oral anticoagulant as first-line therapy in the absence of contraindications such as severe renal insufficiency, and prefer apixaban because it is the only agent shown to be superior to warfarin with respect to both stroke prevention and bleeding risk.²⁴

Important disadvantages of the novel oral anticoagulants include their higher cost and lack of an effective antidote in the event of clinically significant bleeding (with the exception of idarucizumab, which was recently approved for reversal of serious bleeding associated with dabigatran), issues that may be of particular concern to older adults. While there is no therapeutic range to monitor for the newer agents, more frequent monitoring for occult anemia may be needed.

Thus, selection of an anticoagulant should also be individualized through shared decision-making.

Is aspirin alone an alternative?

And what if the patient chooses to forgo anticoagulation? In that case, aspirin 75 to 325 mg/day may seem reasonable, but there is scant evidence that aspirin is beneficial for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation in this age group, and aspirin, too, is associated with an increased risk of bleeding.²⁵

As a result, current US and European guidelines recommend a very limited role for aspirin as a single agent in the management of atrial fibrillation.²⁶ The joint 2014 guidelines of the American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology, and Heart Rhythm Society give aspirin a class IIB recommendation (ie, it “may” be considered), level of evidence C (ie, very limited) for use as an alternative to no antithrombotic therapy or systemic anticoagulation only in patients with a CHA₂DS₂-VASc score of 1, thereby excluding all patients age 75 and older.¹³

In most cases, aspirin as sole prophylaxis against stroke in atrial fibrillation should be avoided in the absence of another indication for its use, such as coexisting coronary artery disease or peripheral arterial disease.

A COMPLEX DECISION

In summary, the decisions surrounding anticoagulation of elderly patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation are complex. Accurate assessment of stroke risk is key, and although bleeding risk is also an essential consideration, it is important not to overemphasize bleeding and fall risks in the decision-making process.

Click here to access the January 2017 Digital Edition

Table of Contents

• What’s New for Federal Practitioner in 2017?
• Addressing Sexual Health With Patients
• Leadership Initiatives in Patient-Centered Transgender Care
• Patient Knowledge and Attitudes About Fecal Microbiota Therapy for Clostridium difficile Infection
• Decentralized vs Centralized Pharmacist Treatment of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Managed With Anticoagulants
• The Importance of Subclavian Angiography in the Evaluation of Chest Pain
• Diabetes: Health Literacy Education Improves Veteran Outcomes
• Torsades de Pointes in Severe Alcohol Withdrawal and Cirrhosis: Implications for Risk Stratification and Management
• Dementia Evaluation, Management, and Outreach

Click here to access the January 2017 Digital Edition

Table of Contents

• What’s New for Federal Practitioner in 2017?
• Addressing Sexual Health With Patients
• Leadership Initiatives in Patient-Centered Transgender Care
• Patient Knowledge and Attitudes About Fecal Microbiota Therapy for Clostridium difficile Infection
• Decentralized vs Centralized Pharmacist Treatment of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Managed With Anticoagulants
• The Importance of Subclavian Angiography in the Evaluation of Chest Pain
• Diabetes: Health Literacy Education Improves Veteran Outcomes
• Torsades de Pointes in Severe Alcohol Withdrawal and Cirrhosis: Implications for Risk Stratification and Management
• Dementia Evaluation, Management, and Outreach

Click here to access the January 2017 Digital Edition

Table of Contents

• What’s New for Federal Practitioner in 2017?
• Addressing Sexual Health With Patients
• Leadership Initiatives in Patient-Centered Transgender Care
• Patient Knowledge and Attitudes About Fecal Microbiota Therapy for Clostridium difficile Infection
• Decentralized vs Centralized Pharmacist Treatment of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Managed With Anticoagulants
• The Importance of Subclavian Angiography in the Evaluation of Chest Pain
• Diabetes: Health Literacy Education Improves Veteran Outcomes
• Torsades de Pointes in Severe Alcohol Withdrawal and Cirrhosis: Implications for Risk Stratification and Management
• Dementia Evaluation, Management, and Outreach

Click here to access the 2017 Directory of VA and DoD Facilities Digital Edition

Table of Contents

• Department of Defense Health Care Facilities

 

Click here to access the 2017 Directory of VA and DoD Facilities Digital Edition

Table of Contents

• Department of Defense Health Care Facilities

 

Click here to access the 2017 Directory of VA and DoD Facilities Digital Edition

Table of Contents

• Department of Defense Health Care Facilities

 

Lab mice

Photo by Aaron Logan

SAN DIEGO—Researchers have developed artificial red blood cells (RBCs) that appear able to emulate functions of natural red blood cells (RBCs), at least in rodents.

The artificial RBCs, known as ErythroMer, are designed to be freeze-dried, stored at ambient temperatures, and reconstituted with water when needed.

If ErythroMer proves safe and effective in humans, it could represent an alternative to blood transfusions that might be useful in situations where donated blood is difficult to obtain or store.

“There are currently no simple, practical means to bring transfusion to most trauma victims outside of hospitals,” said Allan Doctor, MD, of Washington University in Saint Louis, Missouri.

“ErythroMer would be a blood substitute that a medic can carry in his or her pack and literally take it out, add water, and inject it.”

Dr Doctor presented details on ErythroMer at the 2016 ASH Annual Meeting (abstract 1027).

Design

“Due to significant advances in synthetic chemistry and nanomedicine, we’re now able to encapsulate biologics with programmable polymers to generate nanoparticles that can emulate normal cellular physiology,” Dr Doctor noted.

With ErythroMer, he and his colleagues encapsulated human hemoglobin, methylene blue, and 2,3-DPG in an amphiphilic polymer shell. The polymer and its payload components, through microfluidization, self-assemble into toroids that are about one-fiftieth the size of human RBCs.

ErythroMer is designed to be pH-responsive, so that, in areas of high pH, 2,3-DPG is sequestered in the inner surface of the particle shell and does not bind to hemoglobin. In areas of low pH, 2,3-DPG is released from the shell and binds to hemoglobin, facilitating oxygen offloading. The role of methylene blue is to inhibit auto-oxidation of hemoglobin.

The last step in synthesis of the particle is crosslinking of the surface, which neutralizes the surface charge, stabilizes the particle, and generates a selective diffusion barrier to nitric oxide. The particle can be lyophilized for extended storage and later reconstituted.

Testing

Tests showed that ErythroMer matches the oxygen binding feature of human RBCs within 10%, a level researchers say should be sufficient to stabilize a bleeding patient until a blood transfusion can be obtained.

Experiments in mice showed that ErythroMer captures oxygen in the lungs and releases it to tissues in a pattern that is indistinguishable from that seen in a control group of mice injected with their own blood.

In rats, ErythroMer effectively resuscitated animals in shock following acute loss of 40% of their blood volume.

So far, tests suggest ErythroMer has overcome barriers that halted the development of previous blood substitutes.

However, Dr Doctor noted that ErythroMer does have its weaknesses. The particles are cleared rapidly from the bloodstream (in 3 to 7 hours), and hemoglobin sourcing presents a challenge. The researchers are now exploring the possibility of using recombinant hemoglobin genetically engineered in yeast.

The team hopes to further optimize ErythroMer’s shell, extend circulation time, confirm the efficacy of ErythroMer in a larger animal model (rabbits), evaluate the impact of the product on the coagulation and immune systems, and scale up production.

If further testing goes well, the researchers estimate that ErythroMer could be ready for use by field medics and emergency responders within 10 to 12 years.

ErythroMer development has been supported by the Children’s Discovery Institute at Washington University and St. Louis Children’s Hospital, the Skandalaris Center at Washington University, and the BioSTL Fundamentals Program.

This research was funded by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences; the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, the US Department of Defense; the American Heart Association; Doris Duke Foundation; and Children’s Discovery Institute.

Lab mice

Photo by Aaron Logan

SAN DIEGO—Researchers have developed artificial red blood cells (RBCs) that appear able to emulate functions of natural red blood cells (RBCs), at least in rodents.

The artificial RBCs, known as ErythroMer, are designed to be freeze-dried, stored at ambient temperatures, and reconstituted with water when needed.

If ErythroMer proves safe and effective in humans, it could represent an alternative to blood transfusions that might be useful in situations where donated blood is difficult to obtain or store.

“There are currently no simple, practical means to bring transfusion to most trauma victims outside of hospitals,” said Allan Doctor, MD, of Washington University in Saint Louis, Missouri.

“ErythroMer would be a blood substitute that a medic can carry in his or her pack and literally take it out, add water, and inject it.”

Dr Doctor presented details on ErythroMer at the 2016 ASH Annual Meeting (abstract 1027).

Design

“Due to significant advances in synthetic chemistry and nanomedicine, we’re now able to encapsulate biologics with programmable polymers to generate nanoparticles that can emulate normal cellular physiology,” Dr Doctor noted.

With ErythroMer, he and his colleagues encapsulated human hemoglobin, methylene blue, and 2,3-DPG in an amphiphilic polymer shell. The polymer and its payload components, through microfluidization, self-assemble into toroids that are about one-fiftieth the size of human RBCs.

ErythroMer is designed to be pH-responsive, so that, in areas of high pH, 2,3-DPG is sequestered in the inner surface of the particle shell and does not bind to hemoglobin. In areas of low pH, 2,3-DPG is released from the shell and binds to hemoglobin, facilitating oxygen offloading. The role of methylene blue is to inhibit auto-oxidation of hemoglobin.

The last step in synthesis of the particle is crosslinking of the surface, which neutralizes the surface charge, stabilizes the particle, and generates a selective diffusion barrier to nitric oxide. The particle can be lyophilized for extended storage and later reconstituted.

Testing

Tests showed that ErythroMer matches the oxygen binding feature of human RBCs within 10%, a level researchers say should be sufficient to stabilize a bleeding patient until a blood transfusion can be obtained.

Experiments in mice showed that ErythroMer captures oxygen in the lungs and releases it to tissues in a pattern that is indistinguishable from that seen in a control group of mice injected with their own blood.

In rats, ErythroMer effectively resuscitated animals in shock following acute loss of 40% of their blood volume.

So far, tests suggest ErythroMer has overcome barriers that halted the development of previous blood substitutes.

However, Dr Doctor noted that ErythroMer does have its weaknesses. The particles are cleared rapidly from the bloodstream (in 3 to 7 hours), and hemoglobin sourcing presents a challenge. The researchers are now exploring the possibility of using recombinant hemoglobin genetically engineered in yeast.

The team hopes to further optimize ErythroMer’s shell, extend circulation time, confirm the efficacy of ErythroMer in a larger animal model (rabbits), evaluate the impact of the product on the coagulation and immune systems, and scale up production.

If further testing goes well, the researchers estimate that ErythroMer could be ready for use by field medics and emergency responders within 10 to 12 years.

ErythroMer development has been supported by the Children’s Discovery Institute at Washington University and St. Louis Children’s Hospital, the Skandalaris Center at Washington University, and the BioSTL Fundamentals Program.

This research was funded by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences; the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, the US Department of Defense; the American Heart Association; Doris Duke Foundation; and Children’s Discovery Institute.

Lab mice

Photo by Aaron Logan

SAN DIEGO—Researchers have developed artificial red blood cells (RBCs) that appear able to emulate functions of natural red blood cells (RBCs), at least in rodents.

The artificial RBCs, known as ErythroMer, are designed to be freeze-dried, stored at ambient temperatures, and reconstituted with water when needed.

If ErythroMer proves safe and effective in humans, it could represent an alternative to blood transfusions that might be useful in situations where donated blood is difficult to obtain or store.

“There are currently no simple, practical means to bring transfusion to most trauma victims outside of hospitals,” said Allan Doctor, MD, of Washington University in Saint Louis, Missouri.

“ErythroMer would be a blood substitute that a medic can carry in his or her pack and literally take it out, add water, and inject it.”

Dr Doctor presented details on ErythroMer at the 2016 ASH Annual Meeting (abstract 1027).

Design

“Due to significant advances in synthetic chemistry and nanomedicine, we’re now able to encapsulate biologics with programmable polymers to generate nanoparticles that can emulate normal cellular physiology,” Dr Doctor noted.

With ErythroMer, he and his colleagues encapsulated human hemoglobin, methylene blue, and 2,3-DPG in an amphiphilic polymer shell. The polymer and its payload components, through microfluidization, self-assemble into toroids that are about one-fiftieth the size of human RBCs.

ErythroMer is designed to be pH-responsive, so that, in areas of high pH, 2,3-DPG is sequestered in the inner surface of the particle shell and does not bind to hemoglobin. In areas of low pH, 2,3-DPG is released from the shell and binds to hemoglobin, facilitating oxygen offloading. The role of methylene blue is to inhibit auto-oxidation of hemoglobin.

The last step in synthesis of the particle is crosslinking of the surface, which neutralizes the surface charge, stabilizes the particle, and generates a selective diffusion barrier to nitric oxide. The particle can be lyophilized for extended storage and later reconstituted.

Testing

Tests showed that ErythroMer matches the oxygen binding feature of human RBCs within 10%, a level researchers say should be sufficient to stabilize a bleeding patient until a blood transfusion can be obtained.

Experiments in mice showed that ErythroMer captures oxygen in the lungs and releases it to tissues in a pattern that is indistinguishable from that seen in a control group of mice injected with their own blood.

In rats, ErythroMer effectively resuscitated animals in shock following acute loss of 40% of their blood volume.

So far, tests suggest ErythroMer has overcome barriers that halted the development of previous blood substitutes.

However, Dr Doctor noted that ErythroMer does have its weaknesses. The particles are cleared rapidly from the bloodstream (in 3 to 7 hours), and hemoglobin sourcing presents a challenge. The researchers are now exploring the possibility of using recombinant hemoglobin genetically engineered in yeast.

The team hopes to further optimize ErythroMer’s shell, extend circulation time, confirm the efficacy of ErythroMer in a larger animal model (rabbits), evaluate the impact of the product on the coagulation and immune systems, and scale up production.

If further testing goes well, the researchers estimate that ErythroMer could be ready for use by field medics and emergency responders within 10 to 12 years.

ErythroMer development has been supported by the Children’s Discovery Institute at Washington University and St. Louis Children’s Hospital, the Skandalaris Center at Washington University, and the BioSTL Fundamentals Program.

This research was funded by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences; the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, the US Department of Defense; the American Heart Association; Doris Duke Foundation; and Children’s Discovery Institute.

Our January 2017 issue marks the 10-year anniversary of GI & Hepatology News (GIHN), the official newspaper of the AGA Institute. In 2007, the AGA created the newspaper with the intent to communicate current news and emerging trends and technologies in GI. I am honored to serve as the third editor of GIHN, following in the esteemed footsteps of Charles J. Lightdale MD, AGAF, and Colin W. Howden MD, AGAF, who worked diligently to establish the publication’s credibility and quality.

The January 2007 issue of GIHN featured current AGA Institute President Timothy C. Wang, MD, AGAF, on its front page. At the time, he served as the chair of the AGA Future Trends Committee, which predicted emerging forces that would alter our practice, including that computed tomographic colonography would likely become an accepted CRC screening option in a few years (the full report of the committee was published in Gastroenterology 2008:134:597-616). For our 2017 10-year anniversary, we will feature a “Flashback” column, written by myself and our associate editors, that highlights and discusses the most impactful GIHN articles from each year of the previous decade.

John I. Allen, MD, MBA, AGAF

Editor in Chief

Our January 2017 issue marks the 10-year anniversary of GI & Hepatology News (GIHN), the official newspaper of the AGA Institute. In 2007, the AGA created the newspaper with the intent to communicate current news and emerging trends and technologies in GI. I am honored to serve as the third editor of GIHN, following in the esteemed footsteps of Charles J. Lightdale MD, AGAF, and Colin W. Howden MD, AGAF, who worked diligently to establish the publication’s credibility and quality.

The January 2007 issue of GIHN featured current AGA Institute President Timothy C. Wang, MD, AGAF, on its front page. At the time, he served as the chair of the AGA Future Trends Committee, which predicted emerging forces that would alter our practice, including that computed tomographic colonography would likely become an accepted CRC screening option in a few years (the full report of the committee was published in Gastroenterology 2008:134:597-616). For our 2017 10-year anniversary, we will feature a “Flashback” column, written by myself and our associate editors, that highlights and discusses the most impactful GIHN articles from each year of the previous decade.

John I. Allen, MD, MBA, AGAF

Editor in Chief

Our January 2017 issue marks the 10-year anniversary of GI & Hepatology News (GIHN), the official newspaper of the AGA Institute. In 2007, the AGA created the newspaper with the intent to communicate current news and emerging trends and technologies in GI. I am honored to serve as the third editor of GIHN, following in the esteemed footsteps of Charles J. Lightdale MD, AGAF, and Colin W. Howden MD, AGAF, who worked diligently to establish the publication’s credibility and quality.

The January 2007 issue of GIHN featured current AGA Institute President Timothy C. Wang, MD, AGAF, on its front page. At the time, he served as the chair of the AGA Future Trends Committee, which predicted emerging forces that would alter our practice, including that computed tomographic colonography would likely become an accepted CRC screening option in a few years (the full report of the committee was published in Gastroenterology 2008:134:597-616). For our 2017 10-year anniversary, we will feature a “Flashback” column, written by myself and our associate editors, that highlights and discusses the most impactful GIHN articles from each year of the previous decade.

John I. Allen, MD, MBA, AGAF

Editor in Chief

Acute alcoholic hepatitis carries a high risk of mortality, yet only a minority of patients admitted to the hospital with the condition receive appropriate treatment, said the authors of an expert review.

Writing in the January 2017 issue of Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mack C. Mitchell Jr., MD, of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, and Craig J. McClain, MD, of the University of Louisville (Ky.), described the challenges associated with treating acute alcoholic hepatitis and its consequences.

Acute alcohol hepatitis develops in heavy drinkers and presents with rapid onset of malaise, anorexia, tender hepatomegaly, and features of the systemic inflammatory response syndrome. Patients with alcoholic hepatitis also are at high risk of nutritional deficiency, infection, acute kidney injury, and multiorgan failure.
 

The two most widely used therapies are glucocorticoids – generally considered the standard of care for severe alcoholic hepatitis – and the phosphodiesterase inhibitor pentoxifylline (Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2016.08.047).

“Although in its most severe form AH has a high short-term mortality rate if untreated, in 2011, only 28% of more than 1,600 patients admitted to U.S. hospitals were treated with glucocorticoids and 17% with pentoxifylline (PTX), suggesting a lack of widespread confidence in the two most frequently used therapies for AH,” the authors wrote.

Both drugs work by addressing the underlying inflammation that plays a key role in liver injury, but the evidence for both is mixed: A 2008 Cochrane systematic review of 15 trials concluded there was no benefit from glucocorticoids, largely because of substantial variability in bias across the trials, while two meta-analyses of pentoxifylline trials concluded that there were no differences in short-term mortality between those who received it and those who did not.

Some patients are unsuitable for glucocorticoids and others may develop resistance. There is also the possibility that, while glucocorticoids may improve short-term survival, the associated increase in infection risk removes that advantage at 90 days and 1 year after diagnosis. These infections, in turn, often precede the development of acute kidney injury and multiorgan failure.

The authors, however, did suggest that the approach of very high, short-term bursts of glucocorticoids to induce “immune paralysis” – an approach taken for lupus nephritis – might be considered.

They stressed that abstinence was the cornerstone of treatment for acute alcoholic hepatitis, with studies showing that patients with alcoholic hepatitis who resume heavy drinking have significantly worse outcomes than those who don’t.

“Although abstinence is important at all stages, it is particularly important to emphasize abstinence beyond 90 days when many patients are regaining normal functioning,” Dr. Mitchell and Dr. McClain wrote.

Infection, kidney injury, and malnutrition are all significant concerns in patients with acute alcoholic hepatitis.

With respect to infection, the authors said considerable suspicion is required to pick up bacterial and fungal infections, as patients may not always have a fever and an elevated white blood cell count is an unreliable indicator. Infection also can lead to acute kidney injury.

Malnutrition is not only common in patients with alcohol hepatitis, but it has a significant negative impact on recovery. All patients should be encouraged to meet nutritional goals as early as possible, but just how to achieve this is controversial, the authors stressed.

For example, one study suggested that enteral nutrition was as good as glucocorticoids in reducing 28-day mortality, while another found enteral nutrition via nasogastric tube – in addition to glucocorticoids – was no better than glucocorticoids alone. “Whether [nasogastric] tubes should be used to provide enteral nutrition is a subject of controversy,” the authors wrote. “Normal- to high-protein diets are safe and do not increase the risk of encephalopathy in patients with AH.”

No conflicts of interest were declared.

Acute alcoholic hepatitis carries a high risk of mortality, yet only a minority of patients admitted to the hospital with the condition receive appropriate treatment, said the authors of an expert review.

Writing in the January 2017 issue of Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mack C. Mitchell Jr., MD, of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, and Craig J. McClain, MD, of the University of Louisville (Ky.), described the challenges associated with treating acute alcoholic hepatitis and its consequences.

Acute alcohol hepatitis develops in heavy drinkers and presents with rapid onset of malaise, anorexia, tender hepatomegaly, and features of the systemic inflammatory response syndrome. Patients with alcoholic hepatitis also are at high risk of nutritional deficiency, infection, acute kidney injury, and multiorgan failure.
 

The two most widely used therapies are glucocorticoids – generally considered the standard of care for severe alcoholic hepatitis – and the phosphodiesterase inhibitor pentoxifylline (Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2016.08.047).

“Although in its most severe form AH has a high short-term mortality rate if untreated, in 2011, only 28% of more than 1,600 patients admitted to U.S. hospitals were treated with glucocorticoids and 17% with pentoxifylline (PTX), suggesting a lack of widespread confidence in the two most frequently used therapies for AH,” the authors wrote.

Both drugs work by addressing the underlying inflammation that plays a key role in liver injury, but the evidence for both is mixed: A 2008 Cochrane systematic review of 15 trials concluded there was no benefit from glucocorticoids, largely because of substantial variability in bias across the trials, while two meta-analyses of pentoxifylline trials concluded that there were no differences in short-term mortality between those who received it and those who did not.

Some patients are unsuitable for glucocorticoids and others may develop resistance. There is also the possibility that, while glucocorticoids may improve short-term survival, the associated increase in infection risk removes that advantage at 90 days and 1 year after diagnosis. These infections, in turn, often precede the development of acute kidney injury and multiorgan failure.

The authors, however, did suggest that the approach of very high, short-term bursts of glucocorticoids to induce “immune paralysis” – an approach taken for lupus nephritis – might be considered.

They stressed that abstinence was the cornerstone of treatment for acute alcoholic hepatitis, with studies showing that patients with alcoholic hepatitis who resume heavy drinking have significantly worse outcomes than those who don’t.

“Although abstinence is important at all stages, it is particularly important to emphasize abstinence beyond 90 days when many patients are regaining normal functioning,” Dr. Mitchell and Dr. McClain wrote.

Infection, kidney injury, and malnutrition are all significant concerns in patients with acute alcoholic hepatitis.

With respect to infection, the authors said considerable suspicion is required to pick up bacterial and fungal infections, as patients may not always have a fever and an elevated white blood cell count is an unreliable indicator. Infection also can lead to acute kidney injury.

Malnutrition is not only common in patients with alcohol hepatitis, but it has a significant negative impact on recovery. All patients should be encouraged to meet nutritional goals as early as possible, but just how to achieve this is controversial, the authors stressed.

For example, one study suggested that enteral nutrition was as good as glucocorticoids in reducing 28-day mortality, while another found enteral nutrition via nasogastric tube – in addition to glucocorticoids – was no better than glucocorticoids alone. “Whether [nasogastric] tubes should be used to provide enteral nutrition is a subject of controversy,” the authors wrote. “Normal- to high-protein diets are safe and do not increase the risk of encephalopathy in patients with AH.”

No conflicts of interest were declared.

Acute alcoholic hepatitis carries a high risk of mortality, yet only a minority of patients admitted to the hospital with the condition receive appropriate treatment, said the authors of an expert review.

Writing in the January 2017 issue of Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mack C. Mitchell Jr., MD, of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, and Craig J. McClain, MD, of the University of Louisville (Ky.), described the challenges associated with treating acute alcoholic hepatitis and its consequences.

Acute alcohol hepatitis develops in heavy drinkers and presents with rapid onset of malaise, anorexia, tender hepatomegaly, and features of the systemic inflammatory response syndrome. Patients with alcoholic hepatitis also are at high risk of nutritional deficiency, infection, acute kidney injury, and multiorgan failure.
 

The two most widely used therapies are glucocorticoids – generally considered the standard of care for severe alcoholic hepatitis – and the phosphodiesterase inhibitor pentoxifylline (Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2016.08.047).

“Although in its most severe form AH has a high short-term mortality rate if untreated, in 2011, only 28% of more than 1,600 patients admitted to U.S. hospitals were treated with glucocorticoids and 17% with pentoxifylline (PTX), suggesting a lack of widespread confidence in the two most frequently used therapies for AH,” the authors wrote.

Both drugs work by addressing the underlying inflammation that plays a key role in liver injury, but the evidence for both is mixed: A 2008 Cochrane systematic review of 15 trials concluded there was no benefit from glucocorticoids, largely because of substantial variability in bias across the trials, while two meta-analyses of pentoxifylline trials concluded that there were no differences in short-term mortality between those who received it and those who did not.

Some patients are unsuitable for glucocorticoids and others may develop resistance. There is also the possibility that, while glucocorticoids may improve short-term survival, the associated increase in infection risk removes that advantage at 90 days and 1 year after diagnosis. These infections, in turn, often precede the development of acute kidney injury and multiorgan failure.

The authors, however, did suggest that the approach of very high, short-term bursts of glucocorticoids to induce “immune paralysis” – an approach taken for lupus nephritis – might be considered.

They stressed that abstinence was the cornerstone of treatment for acute alcoholic hepatitis, with studies showing that patients with alcoholic hepatitis who resume heavy drinking have significantly worse outcomes than those who don’t.

“Although abstinence is important at all stages, it is particularly important to emphasize abstinence beyond 90 days when many patients are regaining normal functioning,” Dr. Mitchell and Dr. McClain wrote.

Infection, kidney injury, and malnutrition are all significant concerns in patients with acute alcoholic hepatitis.

With respect to infection, the authors said considerable suspicion is required to pick up bacterial and fungal infections, as patients may not always have a fever and an elevated white blood cell count is an unreliable indicator. Infection also can lead to acute kidney injury.

Malnutrition is not only common in patients with alcohol hepatitis, but it has a significant negative impact on recovery. All patients should be encouraged to meet nutritional goals as early as possible, but just how to achieve this is controversial, the authors stressed.

For example, one study suggested that enteral nutrition was as good as glucocorticoids in reducing 28-day mortality, while another found enteral nutrition via nasogastric tube – in addition to glucocorticoids – was no better than glucocorticoids alone. “Whether [nasogastric] tubes should be used to provide enteral nutrition is a subject of controversy,” the authors wrote. “Normal- to high-protein diets are safe and do not increase the risk of encephalopathy in patients with AH.”

No conflicts of interest were declared.

Burnout among psychiatric clinicians can lead to reduced job satisfaction, poorer quality of patient care, and depression.¹ Signs of burnout include a feeling of cynicism (eg, negative attitudes toward patients), overwhelming exhaustion (eg, feeling depleted), and a sense of ineffectiveness (eg, reduced productivity).¹ Workplace variables and other factors that could perpetuate burnout among psychiatrists include, but are not limited to:

• too much work
• chronic staff shortages
• working with difficult patients
• inability to meet self-imposed demands
• a lack of meaningful relationships with colleagues and supervisors.^1,2

The mnemonic REIGNITE provides strategies to reduce the risk of burnout.^1,3

Recognize your limits. Although saying “no” may be difficult for mental health clinicians, saying “yes” too often can be detrimental. Techniques for setting limits without alienating colleagues include:

• declining tasks (“I appreciate you thinking of me to do that, but I can’t complete it right now”)
• delaying an answer (“Let me ponder what you are asking”)
• delegating tasks (“I could really use your help”)
• avoid taking on too much (“I thought that I could do that extra task, but I realize that taking on the additional assignment isn’t going to work out”).

Expand your portfolio. Developing a diverse work portfolio (eg, teaching part-time) could diminish stagnation. Adding regenerative activities (eg, outdoor activities) could be restorative.

Itemize your priorities. Ask yourself what is important to you. Is it work? If so, can work be modified so it continues to be rewarding without resulting in burnout? If it isn’t work, then what is? Money? Family? Evaluating what is important and pursuing those priorities could increase overall life satisfaction.

Go after your passions. What do you like to do aside from work? Do you paint or play a musical instrument? Pursuing hobbies and interests can revitalize your spirit.

Now. We as a profession are notorious for saying to ourselves, “I will get to it (being happy) someday.” We delay happiness until we catch up with work, save enough money, and so on. This approach is unrealistic. It is better to live in the present because there are a finite number of days to seize the day. Focus your energy in the moment.

Interact. Isolating oneself will lead to burnout. If you are in solo practice, connect with other providers or get involved in community activities. If you work with other providers, interact with them in a meaningful manner (eg, don’t complain but rather air your concerns, accept honest feedback, be open to suggestions, and seek assistance; it is acceptable to admit that you can’t do everything).

Take time off and take care of yourself. Although that seems intuitive, psychiatrists, as a group, don’t do a good job of it. Waiting until you are burned out to take a vacation is counterproductive because you will be too drained to enjoy it. Taking care of your physical and mental health is equally important.

Enjoyment in and at work. We make a difference in our patients’ lives throughthe emotional connections we develop with them. By viewing what we do as fulfilling a higher calling, we can learn to enjoy what we do rather than feeling burdened by it. Advocating for better recognition—whether financial, institutional, or social—can create opportunities for personal satisfaction.

Burnout among psychiatric clinicians can lead to reduced job satisfaction, poorer quality of patient care, and depression.¹ Signs of burnout include a feeling of cynicism (eg, negative attitudes toward patients), overwhelming exhaustion (eg, feeling depleted), and a sense of ineffectiveness (eg, reduced productivity).¹ Workplace variables and other factors that could perpetuate burnout among psychiatrists include, but are not limited to:

• too much work
• chronic staff shortages
• working with difficult patients
• inability to meet self-imposed demands
• a lack of meaningful relationships with colleagues and supervisors.^1,2

The mnemonic REIGNITE provides strategies to reduce the risk of burnout.^1,3

Recognize your limits. Although saying “no” may be difficult for mental health clinicians, saying “yes” too often can be detrimental. Techniques for setting limits without alienating colleagues include:

• declining tasks (“I appreciate you thinking of me to do that, but I can’t complete it right now”)
• delaying an answer (“Let me ponder what you are asking”)
• delegating tasks (“I could really use your help”)
• avoid taking on too much (“I thought that I could do that extra task, but I realize that taking on the additional assignment isn’t going to work out”).

Expand your portfolio. Developing a diverse work portfolio (eg, teaching part-time) could diminish stagnation. Adding regenerative activities (eg, outdoor activities) could be restorative.

Itemize your priorities. Ask yourself what is important to you. Is it work? If so, can work be modified so it continues to be rewarding without resulting in burnout? If it isn’t work, then what is? Money? Family? Evaluating what is important and pursuing those priorities could increase overall life satisfaction.

Go after your passions. What do you like to do aside from work? Do you paint or play a musical instrument? Pursuing hobbies and interests can revitalize your spirit.

Now. We as a profession are notorious for saying to ourselves, “I will get to it (being happy) someday.” We delay happiness until we catch up with work, save enough money, and so on. This approach is unrealistic. It is better to live in the present because there are a finite number of days to seize the day. Focus your energy in the moment.

Interact. Isolating oneself will lead to burnout. If you are in solo practice, connect with other providers or get involved in community activities. If you work with other providers, interact with them in a meaningful manner (eg, don’t complain but rather air your concerns, accept honest feedback, be open to suggestions, and seek assistance; it is acceptable to admit that you can’t do everything).

Take time off and take care of yourself. Although that seems intuitive, psychiatrists, as a group, don’t do a good job of it. Waiting until you are burned out to take a vacation is counterproductive because you will be too drained to enjoy it. Taking care of your physical and mental health is equally important.

Enjoyment in and at work. We make a difference in our patients’ lives throughthe emotional connections we develop with them. By viewing what we do as fulfilling a higher calling, we can learn to enjoy what we do rather than feeling burdened by it. Advocating for better recognition—whether financial, institutional, or social—can create opportunities for personal satisfaction.

Burnout among psychiatric clinicians can lead to reduced job satisfaction, poorer quality of patient care, and depression.¹ Signs of burnout include a feeling of cynicism (eg, negative attitudes toward patients), overwhelming exhaustion (eg, feeling depleted), and a sense of ineffectiveness (eg, reduced productivity).¹ Workplace variables and other factors that could perpetuate burnout among psychiatrists include, but are not limited to:

• too much work
• chronic staff shortages
• working with difficult patients
• inability to meet self-imposed demands
• a lack of meaningful relationships with colleagues and supervisors.^1,2

The mnemonic REIGNITE provides strategies to reduce the risk of burnout.^1,3

Recognize your limits. Although saying “no” may be difficult for mental health clinicians, saying “yes” too often can be detrimental. Techniques for setting limits without alienating colleagues include:

• declining tasks (“I appreciate you thinking of me to do that, but I can’t complete it right now”)
• delaying an answer (“Let me ponder what you are asking”)
• delegating tasks (“I could really use your help”)
• avoid taking on too much (“I thought that I could do that extra task, but I realize that taking on the additional assignment isn’t going to work out”).

Expand your portfolio. Developing a diverse work portfolio (eg, teaching part-time) could diminish stagnation. Adding regenerative activities (eg, outdoor activities) could be restorative.

Itemize your priorities. Ask yourself what is important to you. Is it work? If so, can work be modified so it continues to be rewarding without resulting in burnout? If it isn’t work, then what is? Money? Family? Evaluating what is important and pursuing those priorities could increase overall life satisfaction.

Go after your passions. What do you like to do aside from work? Do you paint or play a musical instrument? Pursuing hobbies and interests can revitalize your spirit.

Now. We as a profession are notorious for saying to ourselves, “I will get to it (being happy) someday.” We delay happiness until we catch up with work, save enough money, and so on. This approach is unrealistic. It is better to live in the present because there are a finite number of days to seize the day. Focus your energy in the moment.

Interact. Isolating oneself will lead to burnout. If you are in solo practice, connect with other providers or get involved in community activities. If you work with other providers, interact with them in a meaningful manner (eg, don’t complain but rather air your concerns, accept honest feedback, be open to suggestions, and seek assistance; it is acceptable to admit that you can’t do everything).

Take time off and take care of yourself. Although that seems intuitive, psychiatrists, as a group, don’t do a good job of it. Waiting until you are burned out to take a vacation is counterproductive because you will be too drained to enjoy it. Taking care of your physical and mental health is equally important.

Enjoyment in and at work. We make a difference in our patients’ lives throughthe emotional connections we develop with them. By viewing what we do as fulfilling a higher calling, we can learn to enjoy what we do rather than feeling burdened by it. Advocating for better recognition—whether financial, institutional, or social—can create opportunities for personal satisfaction.

Revisiting delirious mania

After treating a young woman with delirious mania, we were compelled to comment on the case report “Confused and nearly naked after going on spending sprees” (Cases That Test Your Skills, Current Psychiatry. July 2014, p. 56-62).

A young woman with bipolar I disorder and mild intellectual disability was brought to our inpatient psychiatric unit after she disappeared from her home. Her family reported she was not compliant with her medications, and she recently showed deterioration marked by bizarre and violent behaviors for the previous month.

Although her presentation was consistent with earlier manic episodes, additional behaviors indicated an increase in severity. The patient was only oriented to name, was disrobing, had urinary and fecal incontinence, and showed purposeless hyperactivity such as continuously dancing in circles.

Because we thought she was experiencing a severe exacerbation of bipolar disorder, the patient was started on 4 different antipsychotic trials (typical and atypical) and 2 mood stabilizers, all of which did not produce adequate response. Even after augmentation with nightly long-acting benzodiazepines, the patient’s symptoms remained unchanged.

The patient received a diagnosis of delirious mania, with the underlying mechanism being severe catatonia. A literature search revealed electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) and benzodiazepines as first-line treatments, and discouraged use of typical antipsychotics because of an increased risk of neuroleptic malignant syndrome and malignant delirious mania.¹ Because ECT was not available at our facility, we initiated benzodiazepines, while continuing an atypical antipsychotic and mood stabilizer. The patient was discharged after her symptoms improved rapidly.

We agree it is prudent to rule out any medical illnesses that could cause delirium. Interestingly, in our patient a head CT revealed small calcifications suggestive of cysticercosis, which have been seen on imaging since age 13. We suggest that this finding contributed to her disinhibition, prolonged her recovery, and could explain why she did not respond adequately to medications.

Diagnosing and treating delirious mania in our patient was challenging. As mentioned by Davis et al, there is no classification of delirious mania in DSM-5. In addition, there are no large-scale studies to educate psychiatrists about the prevalence and appropriate treatment of this disorder.

Our treatment approach differed from that of Davis et al in that we chose scheduled benzodiazepines rather than antipsychotics to target the patient’s catatonia. However, both patients improved, prompting us to further question the mechanism behind this presentation.

We encourage the addition of delirious mania to the next edition of DSM. Without classification and establishment of this diagnosis, psychiatrists are unlikely to consider this serious and potentially fatal syndrome. Delirious mania is mysterious and rare and its inner workings are not fully elucidated.

Sabina Bera, MD MSc

PGY-2 Psychiatry Resident

Mohammed Molla, MD, DFAPA

Interim Joint Chair and Program Director

University of California Los Angeles-Kern

Psychiatry Training Program
Bakersfield, California

Reference

1. Jacobowski NL, Heckers S, Bobo WV. Delirious mania: detection, diagnosis, and clinical management in the acute setting. J Psychiatr Pract. 2013;19(1):15-28.

Correcting an error

In his informative guest editorial "Forget the myths and help your psychiatric patients quit smoking" (From the Editor, Current Psychiatry. October 2016, p. 23-25), Dr. Anthenelli makes a common statistical error, which may mislead readers, namely, confusing “percentage” with “percentage points.” He reports a difference in the rates of serious neuropsychiatric adverse events between a non-psychiatric cohort (2%) and a psychiatric cohort (6%) as “4%” (p. 25), when the percentage (relative) difference is 300% (ie, 3-fold). The absolute difference in rates is 4 percentage points, which may be what he wanted to report.

David A. Gorelick, MD, PhD

Professor of Psychiatry
Maryland Psychiatric Research Center
University of Maryland
Baltimore, Maryland

Revisiting delirious mania

After treating a young woman with delirious mania, we were compelled to comment on the case report “Confused and nearly naked after going on spending sprees” (Cases That Test Your Skills, Current Psychiatry. July 2014, p. 56-62).

A young woman with bipolar I disorder and mild intellectual disability was brought to our inpatient psychiatric unit after she disappeared from her home. Her family reported she was not compliant with her medications, and she recently showed deterioration marked by bizarre and violent behaviors for the previous month.

Although her presentation was consistent with earlier manic episodes, additional behaviors indicated an increase in severity. The patient was only oriented to name, was disrobing, had urinary and fecal incontinence, and showed purposeless hyperactivity such as continuously dancing in circles.

Because we thought she was experiencing a severe exacerbation of bipolar disorder, the patient was started on 4 different antipsychotic trials (typical and atypical) and 2 mood stabilizers, all of which did not produce adequate response. Even after augmentation with nightly long-acting benzodiazepines, the patient’s symptoms remained unchanged.

The patient received a diagnosis of delirious mania, with the underlying mechanism being severe catatonia. A literature search revealed electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) and benzodiazepines as first-line treatments, and discouraged use of typical antipsychotics because of an increased risk of neuroleptic malignant syndrome and malignant delirious mania.¹ Because ECT was not available at our facility, we initiated benzodiazepines, while continuing an atypical antipsychotic and mood stabilizer. The patient was discharged after her symptoms improved rapidly.

We agree it is prudent to rule out any medical illnesses that could cause delirium. Interestingly, in our patient a head CT revealed small calcifications suggestive of cysticercosis, which have been seen on imaging since age 13. We suggest that this finding contributed to her disinhibition, prolonged her recovery, and could explain why she did not respond adequately to medications.

Diagnosing and treating delirious mania in our patient was challenging. As mentioned by Davis et al, there is no classification of delirious mania in DSM-5. In addition, there are no large-scale studies to educate psychiatrists about the prevalence and appropriate treatment of this disorder.

Our treatment approach differed from that of Davis et al in that we chose scheduled benzodiazepines rather than antipsychotics to target the patient’s catatonia. However, both patients improved, prompting us to further question the mechanism behind this presentation.

We encourage the addition of delirious mania to the next edition of DSM. Without classification and establishment of this diagnosis, psychiatrists are unlikely to consider this serious and potentially fatal syndrome. Delirious mania is mysterious and rare and its inner workings are not fully elucidated.

Sabina Bera, MD MSc

PGY-2 Psychiatry Resident

Mohammed Molla, MD, DFAPA

Interim Joint Chair and Program Director

University of California Los Angeles-Kern

Psychiatry Training Program
Bakersfield, California

Reference

1. Jacobowski NL, Heckers S, Bobo WV. Delirious mania: detection, diagnosis, and clinical management in the acute setting. J Psychiatr Pract. 2013;19(1):15-28.

Correcting an error

In his informative guest editorial "Forget the myths and help your psychiatric patients quit smoking" (From the Editor, Current Psychiatry. October 2016, p. 23-25), Dr. Anthenelli makes a common statistical error, which may mislead readers, namely, confusing “percentage” with “percentage points.” He reports a difference in the rates of serious neuropsychiatric adverse events between a non-psychiatric cohort (2%) and a psychiatric cohort (6%) as “4%” (p. 25), when the percentage (relative) difference is 300% (ie, 3-fold). The absolute difference in rates is 4 percentage points, which may be what he wanted to report.

David A. Gorelick, MD, PhD

Professor of Psychiatry
Maryland Psychiatric Research Center
University of Maryland
Baltimore, Maryland

Revisiting delirious mania

After treating a young woman with delirious mania, we were compelled to comment on the case report “Confused and nearly naked after going on spending sprees” (Cases That Test Your Skills, Current Psychiatry. July 2014, p. 56-62).

A young woman with bipolar I disorder and mild intellectual disability was brought to our inpatient psychiatric unit after she disappeared from her home. Her family reported she was not compliant with her medications, and she recently showed deterioration marked by bizarre and violent behaviors for the previous month.

Although her presentation was consistent with earlier manic episodes, additional behaviors indicated an increase in severity. The patient was only oriented to name, was disrobing, had urinary and fecal incontinence, and showed purposeless hyperactivity such as continuously dancing in circles.

Because we thought she was experiencing a severe exacerbation of bipolar disorder, the patient was started on 4 different antipsychotic trials (typical and atypical) and 2 mood stabilizers, all of which did not produce adequate response. Even after augmentation with nightly long-acting benzodiazepines, the patient’s symptoms remained unchanged.

The patient received a diagnosis of delirious mania, with the underlying mechanism being severe catatonia. A literature search revealed electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) and benzodiazepines as first-line treatments, and discouraged use of typical antipsychotics because of an increased risk of neuroleptic malignant syndrome and malignant delirious mania.¹ Because ECT was not available at our facility, we initiated benzodiazepines, while continuing an atypical antipsychotic and mood stabilizer. The patient was discharged after her symptoms improved rapidly.

We agree it is prudent to rule out any medical illnesses that could cause delirium. Interestingly, in our patient a head CT revealed small calcifications suggestive of cysticercosis, which have been seen on imaging since age 13. We suggest that this finding contributed to her disinhibition, prolonged her recovery, and could explain why she did not respond adequately to medications.

Diagnosing and treating delirious mania in our patient was challenging. As mentioned by Davis et al, there is no classification of delirious mania in DSM-5. In addition, there are no large-scale studies to educate psychiatrists about the prevalence and appropriate treatment of this disorder.

Our treatment approach differed from that of Davis et al in that we chose scheduled benzodiazepines rather than antipsychotics to target the patient’s catatonia. However, both patients improved, prompting us to further question the mechanism behind this presentation.

We encourage the addition of delirious mania to the next edition of DSM. Without classification and establishment of this diagnosis, psychiatrists are unlikely to consider this serious and potentially fatal syndrome. Delirious mania is mysterious and rare and its inner workings are not fully elucidated.

Sabina Bera, MD MSc

PGY-2 Psychiatry Resident

Mohammed Molla, MD, DFAPA

Interim Joint Chair and Program Director

University of California Los Angeles-Kern

Psychiatry Training Program
Bakersfield, California

Reference

1. Jacobowski NL, Heckers S, Bobo WV. Delirious mania: detection, diagnosis, and clinical management in the acute setting. J Psychiatr Pract. 2013;19(1):15-28.

Correcting an error

In his informative guest editorial "Forget the myths and help your psychiatric patients quit smoking" (From the Editor, Current Psychiatry. October 2016, p. 23-25), Dr. Anthenelli makes a common statistical error, which may mislead readers, namely, confusing “percentage” with “percentage points.” He reports a difference in the rates of serious neuropsychiatric adverse events between a non-psychiatric cohort (2%) and a psychiatric cohort (6%) as “4%” (p. 25), when the percentage (relative) difference is 300% (ie, 3-fold). The absolute difference in rates is 4 percentage points, which may be what he wanted to report.

David A. Gorelick, MD, PhD

Professor of Psychiatry
Maryland Psychiatric Research Center
University of Maryland
Baltimore, Maryland

CASE Confusion, hallucinations

Mr. G, age 57, is brought to the emergency department (ED) from a hospice care facility for worsening agitation and psychosis over 2 days. His wife, who accompanies him, describes a 2-month onset of “confusion” with occasional visual hallucinations. She says that at baseline Mr. G was alert and oriented and able to engage appropriately in conversations. The hospice facility administered emergency medications, including unknown dosages of haloperidol and chlorpromazine, the morning before transfer to the ED.

Mr. G has a history of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety, and depression that has been managed for 6 years with several trials of antidepressant monotherapy, including fluoxetine, citalopram, mirtazapine, bupropion, and augmentation using aripiprazole, risperidone, topiramate, and zolpidem. At the time of this hospital presentation, his symptoms are controlled on clonazepam, 2 mg/d, and trazodone, 50 mg/d. For his pain attributed to non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), he receives methadone, 25 mg, 6 times a day, and hydromorphone, 8 mg, every 4 hours as needed, for breakthrough pain. Mr. G underwent a right upper lobectomy 5 years ago and neurosurgery with a right suboccipital craniectomy for right-sided cerebellar metastatic tumor measuring 2 × 1 × 0.6 cm, along with chemotherapy and radiation for metastasis in the brain 1 year ago. His last chemotherapy session was 3 months ago.

In the ED, Mr. G is sedated and oriented only to person and his wife. He is observed mumbling incoherently. Abnormal vital signs and laboratory findings are elevated pulse, 97 beats per minute; mild anemia, 13.5 g/dL hemoglobin and 40.8% hematocrit; an elevated glucose of 136 mg/dL; and small amounts of blood, trace ketones, and hyaline casts in urinalysis. Vital signs, laboratory results, and physical examination are unremarkable, with no focal or sensory neurologic deficits noted.

In addition to psychotropic and pain medication, Mr. G is taking cyclobenzaprine, 5 mg, every 6 hours as needed, for muscle spasms; docusate, 200 mg/d; enoxaparin, 100 mg/1mL, every 12 hours; folic acid, 1 mg/d; gabapentin, 600 mg, 3 times daily; lidocaine ointment, twice daily as needed, for pain; omeprazole, 80 mg/d; ondansetron, 4 mg, every 8 hours as needed, for nausea; and tamsulosin, 0.4 mg/d.

What is your differential diagnosis for Mr. G?

a) brain metastases
b) infection
c) PTSD
d) polypharmacy
e) benzodiazepine withdrawal

The authors’ observations

Altered mental status (AMS), or acute confusional state, describes an individual who fails to interact with environmental stimuli in an appropriate, anticipated manner. The disturbance usually is acute and transient.¹ Often providers struggle to obtain relevant facts about a patient’s history of illness and must use laboratory and diagnostic data to determine the underlying cause of the patient’s disorientation.

Mental status includes 2 components: arousal and awareness. Arousal refers to a person’s wakeful state and how an individual responds to his (her) surroundings. Impairment in arousal can result in variable states including lethargy, drowsiness, and even coma. Awareness, on the other hand, is an individual’s perception of his environment, including orientation to surroundings, executive functioning, and memory. Although arousal level is controlled by the reticular activating system of the brainstem, awareness of consciousness is mediated at the cortical level. Mr. G experienced increased arousal and AMS with a clear change in behavior from his baseline. With increasing frequency of hallucinations and agitated behaviors, several tests must be ordered to determine the etiology of his altered mentation (Table 1).

Which test would you order next?

a) urine drug screen (UDS)
b) chest CT with pulmonary embolism protocol
c) CT of the head
d) blood cultures
e) chest radiography

EVALUATION Awake, still confused

The ED physician orders a UDS, non-contrasted CT of the head, and chest radiography for preliminary workup investigating the cause of Mr. G’s AMS. UDS is negative for illicit substances. The non-contrasted CT of the head shows a stable, right cerebellar hemisphere lesion from a prior lung metastasis. Mr. G’s chest radiography reading describes an ill-defined opacity at the left lung base.

Mr. G is admitted to the medical service and is started on dexamethasone, 8 mg/d, for his NSCLC with brain metastasis. Clonazepam is continued to prevent benzodiazepine withdrawal. The psychiatry and palliative care teams are consulted to determine if Mr. G’s PTSD symptoms and/or opioids are contributing to his AMS and psychosis. After evaluation, the psychiatry team recommends decreasing clonazepam to 0.5 mg, twice daily, starting olanzapine, 5 mg, every 12 hours, for agitation and psychosis involving auditory and visual hallucinations as well as paranoid themes related to food contamination, and using non-pharmacologic interventions for delirium treatment (Table 2). In a prospective, randomized controlled trial of olanzapine vs haloperidol, clinical improvement in delirious states was seen in individuals who received either antipsychotic medication; however, haloperidol was associated with extrapyramidal side effects. Therefore, olanzapine is a safe alternative to haloperidol in delirious patients.²

The psychiatry consult service suspects delirium due to polypharmacy or Mr. G’s metastatic brain lesion. However, other collaborating treatment teams feel that Mr. G’s presentation was precipitated by an exacerbation of PTSD symptoms because of the observed psychotic themes, in addition to metabolic encephalopathy. Acute stress disorder can present with emotional numbing, depersonalization, reduced awareness of surroundings, or dissociative amnesia. However, Mr. G has not experienced PTSD symptoms involving mental status changes with fluctuating orientation in the past nor has he displayed persistent dissociation during outpatient psychiatric care. Therefore, it is unlikely that PTSD is the primary cause of his hospital admission.

The palliative care team recommends switching Mr. G’s pain medications to methadone, 20 mg, every 6 hours, to reduce possibility that opioids are contributing to his delirious state. Mr. G’s medical providers report that the chest radiography is suspicious for pneumonia and start him on levofloxacin, 500 mg/d.

The authors’ observations

DSM-5 criteria for delirium has 4 components:

• disturbance in attention and awareness
• change in cognition
• the disturbance develops over a short period of time
• there is evidence that the disturbance is a direct consequence of a medical condition, medication, or substance, or more than 1 cause.³

Mr. G presented with multi-factorial delirium, and as a result, all underlying contributions, including infection, polypharmacy, brain metastasis, and steroids needed to be considered. Treating delirium requires investigating the underlying cause and keeping the patient safe in the process (Figure). Mr. G was agitated at presentation; therefore, low-dosage olanzapine was initiated to address the imbalance between the cholinergic and dopaminergic systems in the CNS, which are thought to be the mechanism behind delirious presentations.

TREATMENT Delirium resolves

Mr. G slowly responds to multi-modal treatment including decreased opioids and benzodiazepines and the use of low-dosage antipsychotics. He begins to return to baseline with antibiotic administration. By hospital day 5, Mr. G is alert and oriented. He notes resolution of his auditory and visual hallucinations and denies any persistent paranoia or delusions. The medical team observes Mr. G is having difficulty swallowing with meals, and orders a speech therapy evaluation. After assessment, the team suspects that aspiration pneumonia could have precipitated Mr. G’s initial decline and recommends a mechanic diet with thin liquids to reduce the risk of future aspiration.

Mr. G is discharged home in his wife’s care with home hospice to continue end-of-life care. His medication regimen includes olanzapine, 10 mg/d, to continue until his next outpatient appointment, trazodone, 50 mg/d, for depression and PTSD symptoms, and clonazepam is decreased to 0.5 mg, at bedtime, for anxiety.

The authors’ observations

Mr. G’s case highlights the importance of fully evaluating all common underlying causes of delirium. The etiology of delirium is more likely to be missed in medically complex patients or in patients with a history of psychiatric illness. Palliative care patients have several risk factors for delirium, such as benzodiazepine or opioid treatment, dementia, and organic diseases such as brain metastasis.⁶ A recent study assessed the frequency of delirium in cancer patients admitted to an inpatient palliative unit and found that 71% of individuals had a diagnosis of delirium at admission and 26% developed delirium afterward.⁷ Despite the increased likelihood of developing delirium, more than one-half of palliative patients have delirium that is missed by their primary providers.⁸ Similarly, patients with documented psychiatric illness were approximately 2.5 times more likely to have overlooked delirium compared with patients without psychiatric illness.⁹

Risk and prevention

Patients with risk factors for delirium—which includes sedative and narcotic usage, advanced cancer, older age, prolonged hospital stays, surgical procedures, and/or cognitive impairment—should receive interventions to prevent delirium. However, if symptoms of AMS are present, providers should perform a complete workup for underlying causes of delirium. Remembering that individuals with delirium have an impaired ability to voice symptoms, such as dyspnea, dysuria, and headache, clinicians should have a high index of suspicion for delirium in patients at heightened risk.¹⁰

Perhaps most important, teams treating patients at high risk for delirium should employ preventive measures to reduce the development of delirium. Although more studies are needed to clarify the role of drug therapies for preventing delirium, there is strong evidence for several non-pharmacotherapeutic interventions including:

• frequent orientation activities
• early mobilization
• maintaining healthy sleep–wake cycles
• minimizing the use of psychoactive drugs and frequently reviewing the medication regimen
• allowing use of eyeglasses and hearing aids
• treating volume depletion.¹⁰

These preventive measures are important when treating delirium, such as minimizing Mr. G’s use of benzodiazepine and opioids—medications known to contribute to iatrogenic delirium.

A delirium diagnosis portends grave adverse outcomes. Research has shown significant associations with morbidity and mortality, financial and emotional burden, and prolonged hospitalizations. Often, symptoms of delirium persist for months and patients do not recover completely. However, studies have found that when underlying causes are treated effectively, delirium is more likely to be reversible.¹¹

The prompt diagnosis of delirium with good interdisciplinary communication can reduce the risk of these adverse outcomes.¹² Consultation-liaison psychiatrists are well positioned to facilitate the diagnoses of delirium and play a role in educating other health care providers of the importance of prevention, early symptom recognition, full workup, and effective treatment of its underlying causes.

CASE Confusion, hallucinations

Mr. G, age 57, is brought to the emergency department (ED) from a hospice care facility for worsening agitation and psychosis over 2 days. His wife, who accompanies him, describes a 2-month onset of “confusion” with occasional visual hallucinations. She says that at baseline Mr. G was alert and oriented and able to engage appropriately in conversations. The hospice facility administered emergency medications, including unknown dosages of haloperidol and chlorpromazine, the morning before transfer to the ED.

Mr. G has a history of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety, and depression that has been managed for 6 years with several trials of antidepressant monotherapy, including fluoxetine, citalopram, mirtazapine, bupropion, and augmentation using aripiprazole, risperidone, topiramate, and zolpidem. At the time of this hospital presentation, his symptoms are controlled on clonazepam, 2 mg/d, and trazodone, 50 mg/d. For his pain attributed to non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), he receives methadone, 25 mg, 6 times a day, and hydromorphone, 8 mg, every 4 hours as needed, for breakthrough pain. Mr. G underwent a right upper lobectomy 5 years ago and neurosurgery with a right suboccipital craniectomy for right-sided cerebellar metastatic tumor measuring 2 × 1 × 0.6 cm, along with chemotherapy and radiation for metastasis in the brain 1 year ago. His last chemotherapy session was 3 months ago.

In the ED, Mr. G is sedated and oriented only to person and his wife. He is observed mumbling incoherently. Abnormal vital signs and laboratory findings are elevated pulse, 97 beats per minute; mild anemia, 13.5 g/dL hemoglobin and 40.8% hematocrit; an elevated glucose of 136 mg/dL; and small amounts of blood, trace ketones, and hyaline casts in urinalysis. Vital signs, laboratory results, and physical examination are unremarkable, with no focal or sensory neurologic deficits noted.

In addition to psychotropic and pain medication, Mr. G is taking cyclobenzaprine, 5 mg, every 6 hours as needed, for muscle spasms; docusate, 200 mg/d; enoxaparin, 100 mg/1mL, every 12 hours; folic acid, 1 mg/d; gabapentin, 600 mg, 3 times daily; lidocaine ointment, twice daily as needed, for pain; omeprazole, 80 mg/d; ondansetron, 4 mg, every 8 hours as needed, for nausea; and tamsulosin, 0.4 mg/d.

What is your differential diagnosis for Mr. G?

a) brain metastases
b) infection
c) PTSD
d) polypharmacy
e) benzodiazepine withdrawal

The authors’ observations

Altered mental status (AMS), or acute confusional state, describes an individual who fails to interact with environmental stimuli in an appropriate, anticipated manner. The disturbance usually is acute and transient.¹ Often providers struggle to obtain relevant facts about a patient’s history of illness and must use laboratory and diagnostic data to determine the underlying cause of the patient’s disorientation.

Mental status includes 2 components: arousal and awareness. Arousal refers to a person’s wakeful state and how an individual responds to his (her) surroundings. Impairment in arousal can result in variable states including lethargy, drowsiness, and even coma. Awareness, on the other hand, is an individual’s perception of his environment, including orientation to surroundings, executive functioning, and memory. Although arousal level is controlled by the reticular activating system of the brainstem, awareness of consciousness is mediated at the cortical level. Mr. G experienced increased arousal and AMS with a clear change in behavior from his baseline. With increasing frequency of hallucinations and agitated behaviors, several tests must be ordered to determine the etiology of his altered mentation (Table 1).

Which test would you order next?

a) urine drug screen (UDS)
b) chest CT with pulmonary embolism protocol
c) CT of the head
d) blood cultures
e) chest radiography

EVALUATION Awake, still confused

The ED physician orders a UDS, non-contrasted CT of the head, and chest radiography for preliminary workup investigating the cause of Mr. G’s AMS. UDS is negative for illicit substances. The non-contrasted CT of the head shows a stable, right cerebellar hemisphere lesion from a prior lung metastasis. Mr. G’s chest radiography reading describes an ill-defined opacity at the left lung base.

Mr. G is admitted to the medical service and is started on dexamethasone, 8 mg/d, for his NSCLC with brain metastasis. Clonazepam is continued to prevent benzodiazepine withdrawal. The psychiatry and palliative care teams are consulted to determine if Mr. G’s PTSD symptoms and/or opioids are contributing to his AMS and psychosis. After evaluation, the psychiatry team recommends decreasing clonazepam to 0.5 mg, twice daily, starting olanzapine, 5 mg, every 12 hours, for agitation and psychosis involving auditory and visual hallucinations as well as paranoid themes related to food contamination, and using non-pharmacologic interventions for delirium treatment (Table 2). In a prospective, randomized controlled trial of olanzapine vs haloperidol, clinical improvement in delirious states was seen in individuals who received either antipsychotic medication; however, haloperidol was associated with extrapyramidal side effects. Therefore, olanzapine is a safe alternative to haloperidol in delirious patients.²

The psychiatry consult service suspects delirium due to polypharmacy or Mr. G’s metastatic brain lesion. However, other collaborating treatment teams feel that Mr. G’s presentation was precipitated by an exacerbation of PTSD symptoms because of the observed psychotic themes, in addition to metabolic encephalopathy. Acute stress disorder can present with emotional numbing, depersonalization, reduced awareness of surroundings, or dissociative amnesia. However, Mr. G has not experienced PTSD symptoms involving mental status changes with fluctuating orientation in the past nor has he displayed persistent dissociation during outpatient psychiatric care. Therefore, it is unlikely that PTSD is the primary cause of his hospital admission.

The palliative care team recommends switching Mr. G’s pain medications to methadone, 20 mg, every 6 hours, to reduce possibility that opioids are contributing to his delirious state. Mr. G’s medical providers report that the chest radiography is suspicious for pneumonia and start him on levofloxacin, 500 mg/d.

The authors’ observations

DSM-5 criteria for delirium has 4 components:

• disturbance in attention and awareness
• change in cognition
• the disturbance develops over a short period of time
• there is evidence that the disturbance is a direct consequence of a medical condition, medication, or substance, or more than 1 cause.³

Mr. G presented with multi-factorial delirium, and as a result, all underlying contributions, including infection, polypharmacy, brain metastasis, and steroids needed to be considered. Treating delirium requires investigating the underlying cause and keeping the patient safe in the process (Figure). Mr. G was agitated at presentation; therefore, low-dosage olanzapine was initiated to address the imbalance between the cholinergic and dopaminergic systems in the CNS, which are thought to be the mechanism behind delirious presentations.

TREATMENT Delirium resolves

Mr. G slowly responds to multi-modal treatment including decreased opioids and benzodiazepines and the use of low-dosage antipsychotics. He begins to return to baseline with antibiotic administration. By hospital day 5, Mr. G is alert and oriented. He notes resolution of his auditory and visual hallucinations and denies any persistent paranoia or delusions. The medical team observes Mr. G is having difficulty swallowing with meals, and orders a speech therapy evaluation. After assessment, the team suspects that aspiration pneumonia could have precipitated Mr. G’s initial decline and recommends a mechanic diet with thin liquids to reduce the risk of future aspiration.

Mr. G is discharged home in his wife’s care with home hospice to continue end-of-life care. His medication regimen includes olanzapine, 10 mg/d, to continue until his next outpatient appointment, trazodone, 50 mg/d, for depression and PTSD symptoms, and clonazepam is decreased to 0.5 mg, at bedtime, for anxiety.

The authors’ observations

Mr. G’s case highlights the importance of fully evaluating all common underlying causes of delirium. The etiology of delirium is more likely to be missed in medically complex patients or in patients with a history of psychiatric illness. Palliative care patients have several risk factors for delirium, such as benzodiazepine or opioid treatment, dementia, and organic diseases such as brain metastasis.⁶ A recent study assessed the frequency of delirium in cancer patients admitted to an inpatient palliative unit and found that 71% of individuals had a diagnosis of delirium at admission and 26% developed delirium afterward.⁷ Despite the increased likelihood of developing delirium, more than one-half of palliative patients have delirium that is missed by their primary providers.⁸ Similarly, patients with documented psychiatric illness were approximately 2.5 times more likely to have overlooked delirium compared with patients without psychiatric illness.⁹

Risk and prevention

Patients with risk factors for delirium—which includes sedative and narcotic usage, advanced cancer, older age, prolonged hospital stays, surgical procedures, and/or cognitive impairment—should receive interventions to prevent delirium. However, if symptoms of AMS are present, providers should perform a complete workup for underlying causes of delirium. Remembering that individuals with delirium have an impaired ability to voice symptoms, such as dyspnea, dysuria, and headache, clinicians should have a high index of suspicion for delirium in patients at heightened risk.¹⁰

Perhaps most important, teams treating patients at high risk for delirium should employ preventive measures to reduce the development of delirium. Although more studies are needed to clarify the role of drug therapies for preventing delirium, there is strong evidence for several non-pharmacotherapeutic interventions including:

• frequent orientation activities
• early mobilization
• maintaining healthy sleep–wake cycles
• minimizing the use of psychoactive drugs and frequently reviewing the medication regimen
• allowing use of eyeglasses and hearing aids
• treating volume depletion.¹⁰

These preventive measures are important when treating delirium, such as minimizing Mr. G’s use of benzodiazepine and opioids—medications known to contribute to iatrogenic delirium.

A delirium diagnosis portends grave adverse outcomes. Research has shown significant associations with morbidity and mortality, financial and emotional burden, and prolonged hospitalizations. Often, symptoms of delirium persist for months and patients do not recover completely. However, studies have found that when underlying causes are treated effectively, delirium is more likely to be reversible.¹¹

The prompt diagnosis of delirium with good interdisciplinary communication can reduce the risk of these adverse outcomes.¹² Consultation-liaison psychiatrists are well positioned to facilitate the diagnoses of delirium and play a role in educating other health care providers of the importance of prevention, early symptom recognition, full workup, and effective treatment of its underlying causes.

CASE Confusion, hallucinations

Mr. G, age 57, is brought to the emergency department (ED) from a hospice care facility for worsening agitation and psychosis over 2 days. His wife, who accompanies him, describes a 2-month onset of “confusion” with occasional visual hallucinations. She says that at baseline Mr. G was alert and oriented and able to engage appropriately in conversations. The hospice facility administered emergency medications, including unknown dosages of haloperidol and chlorpromazine, the morning before transfer to the ED.

Mr. G has a history of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety, and depression that has been managed for 6 years with several trials of antidepressant monotherapy, including fluoxetine, citalopram, mirtazapine, bupropion, and augmentation using aripiprazole, risperidone, topiramate, and zolpidem. At the time of this hospital presentation, his symptoms are controlled on clonazepam, 2 mg/d, and trazodone, 50 mg/d. For his pain attributed to non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), he receives methadone, 25 mg, 6 times a day, and hydromorphone, 8 mg, every 4 hours as needed, for breakthrough pain. Mr. G underwent a right upper lobectomy 5 years ago and neurosurgery with a right suboccipital craniectomy for right-sided cerebellar metastatic tumor measuring 2 × 1 × 0.6 cm, along with chemotherapy and radiation for metastasis in the brain 1 year ago. His last chemotherapy session was 3 months ago.

In the ED, Mr. G is sedated and oriented only to person and his wife. He is observed mumbling incoherently. Abnormal vital signs and laboratory findings are elevated pulse, 97 beats per minute; mild anemia, 13.5 g/dL hemoglobin and 40.8% hematocrit; an elevated glucose of 136 mg/dL; and small amounts of blood, trace ketones, and hyaline casts in urinalysis. Vital signs, laboratory results, and physical examination are unremarkable, with no focal or sensory neurologic deficits noted.

In addition to psychotropic and pain medication, Mr. G is taking cyclobenzaprine, 5 mg, every 6 hours as needed, for muscle spasms; docusate, 200 mg/d; enoxaparin, 100 mg/1mL, every 12 hours; folic acid, 1 mg/d; gabapentin, 600 mg, 3 times daily; lidocaine ointment, twice daily as needed, for pain; omeprazole, 80 mg/d; ondansetron, 4 mg, every 8 hours as needed, for nausea; and tamsulosin, 0.4 mg/d.

What is your differential diagnosis for Mr. G?

a) brain metastases
b) infection
c) PTSD
d) polypharmacy
e) benzodiazepine withdrawal

The authors’ observations

Altered mental status (AMS), or acute confusional state, describes an individual who fails to interact with environmental stimuli in an appropriate, anticipated manner. The disturbance usually is acute and transient.¹ Often providers struggle to obtain relevant facts about a patient’s history of illness and must use laboratory and diagnostic data to determine the underlying cause of the patient’s disorientation.

Mental status includes 2 components: arousal and awareness. Arousal refers to a person’s wakeful state and how an individual responds to his (her) surroundings. Impairment in arousal can result in variable states including lethargy, drowsiness, and even coma. Awareness, on the other hand, is an individual’s perception of his environment, including orientation to surroundings, executive functioning, and memory. Although arousal level is controlled by the reticular activating system of the brainstem, awareness of consciousness is mediated at the cortical level. Mr. G experienced increased arousal and AMS with a clear change in behavior from his baseline. With increasing frequency of hallucinations and agitated behaviors, several tests must be ordered to determine the etiology of his altered mentation (Table 1).

Which test would you order next?

a) urine drug screen (UDS)
b) chest CT with pulmonary embolism protocol
c) CT of the head
d) blood cultures
e) chest radiography

EVALUATION Awake, still confused

The ED physician orders a UDS, non-contrasted CT of the head, and chest radiography for preliminary workup investigating the cause of Mr. G’s AMS. UDS is negative for illicit substances. The non-contrasted CT of the head shows a stable, right cerebellar hemisphere lesion from a prior lung metastasis. Mr. G’s chest radiography reading describes an ill-defined opacity at the left lung base.

Mr. G is admitted to the medical service and is started on dexamethasone, 8 mg/d, for his NSCLC with brain metastasis. Clonazepam is continued to prevent benzodiazepine withdrawal. The psychiatry and palliative care teams are consulted to determine if Mr. G’s PTSD symptoms and/or opioids are contributing to his AMS and psychosis. After evaluation, the psychiatry team recommends decreasing clonazepam to 0.5 mg, twice daily, starting olanzapine, 5 mg, every 12 hours, for agitation and psychosis involving auditory and visual hallucinations as well as paranoid themes related to food contamination, and using non-pharmacologic interventions for delirium treatment (Table 2). In a prospective, randomized controlled trial of olanzapine vs haloperidol, clinical improvement in delirious states was seen in individuals who received either antipsychotic medication; however, haloperidol was associated with extrapyramidal side effects. Therefore, olanzapine is a safe alternative to haloperidol in delirious patients.²

The psychiatry consult service suspects delirium due to polypharmacy or Mr. G’s metastatic brain lesion. However, other collaborating treatment teams feel that Mr. G’s presentation was precipitated by an exacerbation of PTSD symptoms because of the observed psychotic themes, in addition to metabolic encephalopathy. Acute stress disorder can present with emotional numbing, depersonalization, reduced awareness of surroundings, or dissociative amnesia. However, Mr. G has not experienced PTSD symptoms involving mental status changes with fluctuating orientation in the past nor has he displayed persistent dissociation during outpatient psychiatric care. Therefore, it is unlikely that PTSD is the primary cause of his hospital admission.

The palliative care team recommends switching Mr. G’s pain medications to methadone, 20 mg, every 6 hours, to reduce possibility that opioids are contributing to his delirious state. Mr. G’s medical providers report that the chest radiography is suspicious for pneumonia and start him on levofloxacin, 500 mg/d.

The authors’ observations

DSM-5 criteria for delirium has 4 components:

• disturbance in attention and awareness
• change in cognition
• the disturbance develops over a short period of time
• there is evidence that the disturbance is a direct consequence of a medical condition, medication, or substance, or more than 1 cause.³

Mr. G presented with multi-factorial delirium, and as a result, all underlying contributions, including infection, polypharmacy, brain metastasis, and steroids needed to be considered. Treating delirium requires investigating the underlying cause and keeping the patient safe in the process (Figure). Mr. G was agitated at presentation; therefore, low-dosage olanzapine was initiated to address the imbalance between the cholinergic and dopaminergic systems in the CNS, which are thought to be the mechanism behind delirious presentations.

TREATMENT Delirium resolves

Mr. G slowly responds to multi-modal treatment including decreased opioids and benzodiazepines and the use of low-dosage antipsychotics. He begins to return to baseline with antibiotic administration. By hospital day 5, Mr. G is alert and oriented. He notes resolution of his auditory and visual hallucinations and denies any persistent paranoia or delusions. The medical team observes Mr. G is having difficulty swallowing with meals, and orders a speech therapy evaluation. After assessment, the team suspects that aspiration pneumonia could have precipitated Mr. G’s initial decline and recommends a mechanic diet with thin liquids to reduce the risk of future aspiration.

Mr. G is discharged home in his wife’s care with home hospice to continue end-of-life care. His medication regimen includes olanzapine, 10 mg/d, to continue until his next outpatient appointment, trazodone, 50 mg/d, for depression and PTSD symptoms, and clonazepam is decreased to 0.5 mg, at bedtime, for anxiety.

The authors’ observations

Mr. G’s case highlights the importance of fully evaluating all common underlying causes of delirium. The etiology of delirium is more likely to be missed in medically complex patients or in patients with a history of psychiatric illness. Palliative care patients have several risk factors for delirium, such as benzodiazepine or opioid treatment, dementia, and organic diseases such as brain metastasis.⁶ A recent study assessed the frequency of delirium in cancer patients admitted to an inpatient palliative unit and found that 71% of individuals had a diagnosis of delirium at admission and 26% developed delirium afterward.⁷ Despite the increased likelihood of developing delirium, more than one-half of palliative patients have delirium that is missed by their primary providers.⁸ Similarly, patients with documented psychiatric illness were approximately 2.5 times more likely to have overlooked delirium compared with patients without psychiatric illness.⁹

Risk and prevention

Patients with risk factors for delirium—which includes sedative and narcotic usage, advanced cancer, older age, prolonged hospital stays, surgical procedures, and/or cognitive impairment—should receive interventions to prevent delirium. However, if symptoms of AMS are present, providers should perform a complete workup for underlying causes of delirium. Remembering that individuals with delirium have an impaired ability to voice symptoms, such as dyspnea, dysuria, and headache, clinicians should have a high index of suspicion for delirium in patients at heightened risk.¹⁰

Perhaps most important, teams treating patients at high risk for delirium should employ preventive measures to reduce the development of delirium. Although more studies are needed to clarify the role of drug therapies for preventing delirium, there is strong evidence for several non-pharmacotherapeutic interventions including:

• frequent orientation activities
• early mobilization
• maintaining healthy sleep–wake cycles
• minimizing the use of psychoactive drugs and frequently reviewing the medication regimen
• allowing use of eyeglasses and hearing aids
• treating volume depletion.¹⁰

These preventive measures are important when treating delirium, such as minimizing Mr. G’s use of benzodiazepine and opioids—medications known to contribute to iatrogenic delirium.

A delirium diagnosis portends grave adverse outcomes. Research has shown significant associations with morbidity and mortality, financial and emotional burden, and prolonged hospitalizations. Often, symptoms of delirium persist for months and patients do not recover completely. However, studies have found that when underlying causes are treated effectively, delirium is more likely to be reversible.¹¹

The prompt diagnosis of delirium with good interdisciplinary communication can reduce the risk of these adverse outcomes.¹² Consultation-liaison psychiatrists are well positioned to facilitate the diagnoses of delirium and play a role in educating other health care providers of the importance of prevention, early symptom recognition, full workup, and effective treatment of its underlying causes.