Should the CIWA-Ar be the standard monitoring strategy for alcohol withdrawal syndrome in the intensive care unit?

Table 1 Characteristics of intensive care unit (ICU) patients treated for alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS)

	All (n = 97)
Age years, mean (sd)	49.9 (12.0)
Male, no. (%)	79 (81.4)
Race, no. (%)
American Indian/Alaska Native	11 (11.3)
Black	11 (11.3)
White	70 (72.2)
Other	5 (5.2)
Latino/Hispanic Ethnicity, no. (%)	11 (11.3)
Non-English primary language, no. (%)	7 (7.2)
Single, no. (%)	75 (77.3)
Homeless, no. (%)	26 (26.8)
Admission Severity of Illness, no. (%)
Extreme	34 (35.1)
Major	37 (38.1)
Moderate	24 (24.7)
Minor	2 (2.1)
Intubated (“breathing tube” for mechanical ventilation)	37 (38.1)
Prior-year hospitalization with AWS, no. (%)	19 (19.6)
Positive serum/urine alcohol level,^a no. (%)	58 (59.8)
AWS was the primary reason for admission, no. (%)	5 (5.2)
Admitting service, no. (%)
Medical ICU	49 (50.5)
Trauma ICU	24 (24.7)
Neurological ICU	24 (24.7)
Admission^b CIWA-Ar assessment, no. (%)	54 (55.7)
Admission^b CIWA-Ar category, no. (%)^c
Mild AWS (CIWA-Ar score ≤ 8)	28 (51.9)
Moderate AWS (CIWA-Ar score 9–19)	20 (37.0)
Severe AWS (CIWA-Ar score ≥ 20)	6 (11.1)
Admission^b RASS assessment, no. (%)	91 (93.8)
Admission^b RASS category, no. (%)^d
Oversedation (RASS score − 3 to − 5)	34 (37.4)
Optimal sedation (RASS score − 2 to 0)	31 (34.1)
Undersedation (RASS score + 1 to + 4)	26 (28.6)

CIWA-Ar Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment for Alcohol-Revised, RASS Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale
^aAssessment completed within 24 h of hospital presentation
^bAssessment completed within 24 h of ICU admission
^cDenominator used to calculate percentages was the number of patients with a CIWA-Ar assessment (n = 54)
^dDenominator used to calculate percentages was the number of patients with a RASS assessment (n = 91)

ISSN: 1940-0640