The purpose of this guideline is to present evidence-based and consensus-based recommendations for the prevention and treatment of postoperative delirium. The cornerstones of the guideline are the preoperative identification and handling of patients at risk, adequate intraoperative care, postoperative detection of delirium and management of delirious patients. The scope of this guideline is not to cover ICU delirium. Considering that many medical disciplines are involved in the treatment of surgical patients, a team-based approach should be implemented into daily practice. This guideline is aimed to promote knowledge and education in the preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative setting not only among anaesthesiologists but also among all other healthcare professionals involved in the care of surgical patients.

Intensive care survivors often experience post-intensive care sequelae, which are frequently gathered together under the term “post-intensive care syndrome” (PICS). The consequences of PICS on quality of life, health-related costs and hospital readmissions are real public health problems. In the present Viewpoint, we summarize current knowledge and gaps in our understanding of PICS and approaches to management.

Introduction: There is increasing evidence that deep sedation is detrimental to critically ill patients. The aim of this study was to examine effects of deep sedation during the early period after ICU admission on short- and long-term survival.Methods: In this observational, matched-pair analysis, patients receiving mechanical ventilation that were admitted to ICUs of a tertiary university hospital in six consecutive years were grouped as either lightly or deeply sedated within the first 48 hours after ICU admission. The Richmond Agitation-Sedation Score (RASS) was used to assess sedation depth (light sedation: −2 to 0; deep: −3 or below). Multivariate Cox regression was conducted to investigate the impact of early deep sedation within the first 48 hours of admission on in-hospital and two-year follow-up survival.Results: In total, 1,884 patients met inclusion criteria out of which 27.2% (n = 513) were deeply sedated. Deeply sedated patients had longer ventilation times, increased length of stay and higher rates of mortality. Early deep sedation was associated with a hazard ratio of 1.661 (95% CI: 1.074 to 2.567;P= 0.022) for in-hospital survival and 1.866 (95% CI: 1.351 to 2.576;P<0.001) for two-year follow-up survival.Conclusions: Early deep sedation during the first 48 hours of intensive care treatment was associated with decreased in-hospital and two-year follow-up survival. Since early deep sedation is a modifiable risk factor, this data shows an urgent need for prospective clinical trials focusing on light sedation in the early phase of ICU treatment.

Background: There is no consensus on the instruments for diagnosis of post-intensive care syndrome (PICS). We present a proposal for a set of outcome measurement instruments of PICS in outpatient care. Methods: We conducted a three-round, semi-structured consensus-seeking process with medical experts, followed each by exploratory feasibility investigations with intensive care unit survivors (n₁ = 5; n₂ = 5; n₃ = 7). Fourteen participants from nine stakeholder groups participated in the first and second consensus meeting. In the third consensus meeting, a core group of six clinical researchers refined the final outcome measurement instrument set proposal. Results: We suggest an outcome measurement instrument set used in a two-step process. First step: Screening with brief tests covering PICS domains of (1) mental health (Patient Health Questionnaire-4 (PHQ-4)), (2) cognition (MiniCog, Animal Naming), (3) physical function (Timed Up-and-Go (TUG), handgrip strength), and (4) health-related quality of life (HRQoL) (EQ-5D-5L). Single items measure subjective health before and after the intensive care unit stay. If patients report new or worsened health problems after intensive care unit discharge and show relevant impairment in at least one of the screening tests, a second extended assessment follows: (1) Mental health (Patient Health Questionnaire-8 (PHQ-8), Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale-7 (GAD-7), Impact of Event Scale – revised (IES-R)); (2) cognition (Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS), Trail Making Test (TMT) A and B); (3) physical function (2-Minute Walk Test (2-MWT), handgrip strength, Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB)); and (4) HRQoL (EQ-5D-5L, 12-Item WHO Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0)). Conclusions: We propose an outcome measurement instrument set used in a two-step measurement of PICS, combining performance-based and patient-reported outcome measures. First-step screening is brief, free-of-charge, and easily applicable by health care professionals across different sectors. If indicated, specialized healthcare providers can perform the extended, second-step assessment. Usage of the first-step screening of our suggested outcome measurement instrument set in outpatient clinics with subsequent transfer to specialists is recommended for all intensive care unit survivors. This may increase awareness and reduce the burden of PICS. Trial registration: This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT04175236; first posted 22 November 2019).

Background: Frailty is a frequent and underdiagnosed functional syndrome involving reduced physiological reserves and an increased vulnerability against stressors, with severe individual and socioeconomic consequences. A routine frailty assessment was implemented at our preoperative anaesthesia clinic to identify patients at risk. Objective: This study examines the relationship between frailty status and the incidence of in-hospital postoperative complications in elderly surgical patients across several surgical disciplines. Design: Retrospective observational analysis. Setting: Single center, major tertiary care university hospital. Data collection took place between June 2016 and March 2017. Patients: Patients 65 years old or older were evaluated for frailty using Fried’s 5-point frailty assessment prior to elective non-cardiac surgery. Patients were classified into non-frail (0 criteria, reference group), pre-frail (1–2 positive criteria) and frail (3–5 positive criteria) groups. Main outcome measures: The incidence of postoperative complications was assessed until discharge from the hospital, using the roster from the National VA Surgical Quality Improvement Program. Propensity score matching and logistic regression analysis were performed. Results: From 1186 elderly patients, 46.9% were classified as pre-frail (n = 556), and 11.4% as frail (n = 135). The rate of complications were significantly higher in the pre-frail (34.7%) and frail groups (47.4%), as compared to the non-frail group (27.5%). Similarly, length of stay (non-frail: 5.0 [3.0;7.0], pre-frail: 7.0 [3.0;9.0], frail 8.0 [4.5;12.0]; p < 0.001) and discharges to care facilities (non-frail:1.6%, pre-frail: 7.4%, frail: 17.8%); p < 0.001) were significantly associated with frailty status. After propensity score matching and logistic regression analysis, the risk for developing postoperative complications was approximately two-fold for pre-frail (OR 1.78; 95% CI 1.04–3.05) and frail (OR 2.08; 95% CI 1.21–3.60) patients. Conclusions: The preoperative frailty assessment of elderly patients identified pre-frail and frail subgroups to have the highest rate of postoperative complications, regardless of age, surgical discipline, and surgical risk. Significantly increased length of hospitalisation and discharges to care facilities were also observed. Implementation of routine frailty assessments appear to be an effective tool in identifying patients with increased risk. Now future studies are needed to investigate whether patients benefit from optimization of patient counselling, process planning, and risk reduction protocols based on the application of risk stratification.