Skip to main content
Full access
Regular Articles
Published Online: 12 January 2018

Catatonia Under-Diagnosis in the General Hospital

Publication: The Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences

Abstract

Catatonia is under-diagnosed in psychiatric settings. No studies have explored the under-diagnosis of catatonia in general hospitals. The authors conducted a retrospective chart review using DSM-5 criteria to diagnose catatonia in medical inpatients between 2011 and 2013. Of 133 case subjects meeting DSM-5 criteria for catatonia retrospectively, 79 had never been diagnosed and 54 had a documented diagnosis. Multiple logistic regression revealed that psychiatry consultation significantly decreased the odds of under-diagnosis of catatonia, whereas presence of agitation, grimacing, or echolalia increased the likelihood of under-diagnosis. Under-diagnosed case subjects received significantly lower doses of lorazepam, and increased mortality during admission and increased length of hospital stay both fell short of statistical significance in this group. Catatonia appears to be frequently under-diagnosed in the general hospital, and psychiatry consultation services play a crucial role in its detection and treatment. Strategies to improve recognition and treatment of catatonia should be implemented.
Catatonia is a neuropsychiatric syndrome characterized by particular motor and behavioral signs and symptoms1 that can manifest as a consequence of many neurologic, psychiatric, and/or general medical conditions.24 Research studies have found the prevalence of catatonia to be 5%−18% on inpatient psychiatric units,58 12% in drug-naïve patients with first episode psychosis,9 3.3% on a neurology/neuropsychiatric tertiary care inpatient unit,10 3.8% on the intensive care unit,11 1.6% to 1.8% on psychiatry consultation-liaison services,12,13 and 8.9% in elderly patients referred for psychiatric consultation.14 Depending on which catatonic signs are more prominent on exam, catatonia can be classified into retarded, excited, or mixed type.5,15
Several studies have found that psychiatrists and other physicians significantly tend to under-recognize catatonia. A prospective study found that research teams identified catatonia in inpatient psychiatric floors at a 9:1 ratio compared with routine clinical psychiatric services.7 A retrospective chart review identified 18 case subjects out of 101 meeting criteria for catatonia in an inpatient child and adolescent psychiatric unit, and only two of these case subjects were properly diagnosed with catatonia.16
Another study in the general hospital identified catatonia in older adults referred for psychiatric consultation, and in none of those 10 cases did the consulting physician raise catatonia as a concern or indication for the consult.14 A study found that catatonic signs were frequent in patients diagnosed with brain hypoxia, but a diagnosis of catatonia was never made.17 In an educational needs assessment study by our group, significant knowledge gaps about catatonia were identified in resident physicians, more so for internal medicine residents compared with psychiatry residents.18
Catatonia and delirium are both causes of altered mental status in medical inpatients,19 and recent studies have found high comorbidity between them.20 A prospective study using the DSM-521 criteria and validated catatonia rating scales found that catatonia was present in at least 12% of patients with delirium.22 In a recent study, 81% of the cases of catatonia due to a neurologic condition were also diagnosed with delirium,10 and according to a study by our group, the suspicion of comorbid delirium is the main driver of physicians ordering a more thorough medical workup for patients with catatonia.23
Current literature suggests that the diagnosis of catatonia is challenging because it requires physical examination24 and clinical suspicion.25 Some research studies have found a high discriminating value of the DSM-IV criteria for the detection of catatonia,1,9 and the Bush Francis Catatonia Rating Scale (BFCRS) continues to be the most commonly used validated scale for the characterization of catatonia.26,27
Catatonia is known to be often reversible when adequately detected and treated with lorazepam and/or electroconvulsive therapy (ECT),5,28 but its under-recognition and subsequent lack of treatment might lead to dangerous medical complications.29,30 Moreover, the treatment with antipsychotics is associated with an increased risk for development of malignant catatonic features or neuroleptic malignant syndrome (NMS) in patients with catatonia or a history of catatonia.31 Thus, awareness about catatonia for all clinicians is relevant to improve patient care. Recently, guidelines for preventing common medical complications of catatonic states have been published.32
To date, no studies have systematically studied whether catatonia is under-diagnosed in the general hospital and what factors might be contributing to under-diagnosis. Here we present a retrospective study that explores whether cases of catatonia were not diagnosed in a general hospital, examines potential clinical factors contributing to under-diagnosis, explores differences in management, and investigates for potential consequences in clinical outcomes related to under-diagnosis.

Methods

An initial study by our group23 detected 54 cases of inpatients who were diagnosed with catatonia by the treating clinicians and met DSM-5 criteria for catatonia retrospectively at the University of Chicago between 2011 and 2013. After institutional review board approval was obtained, another retrospective chart review was conducted of all adult inpatients at the University of Chicago between 2011 and 2013. In order to obtain charts with potentially under-diagnosed catatonia, we ideated a list of 38 keywords describing catatonia-related signs and used the electronic medical record to select the cases for review.
The presence of three or more distinct keywords describing catatonic-related signs in the progress notes was used to identify cases for review. Charts were reviewed for evidence of catatonia during hospital admission by use, retrospectively, of DSM-5 criteria. Case subjects with a documented clinical diagnosis of catatonia were not reviewed again, since they were already included in the diagnosed group.
Initially, authors J.R.L. and M.M. reviewed separately all the notes of the selected charts to see if the case was a possible episode of catatonia as described by the DSM-5. During the initial chart review, the words echolalia and echopraxia were also searched in every chart, since they define DSM-5 criteria and had not been included in the initial list of catatonia-related keywords. All cases in which at least one reviewer identified possible catatonia were reviewed again independently by authors J.R.L. and M.M. in order to detail the DSM-5 criteria met during the episode. Only case subjects with three or more documented DSM-5 criteria were included in the study.
Each reviewer used a standardized sheet and only attributed the clinical signs to catatonia when there was no alternative better explanation. For example, the presence of grimacing documented to be related to pain, mutism due to aphasia or intubation, stupor due to coma, and decerebrate or ictal posturing were not considered to be signs of catatonia. Sociodemographic and clinical data, including the total number of Bush Francis Catatonia Screening Instrument criteria met, were obtained for all case subjects who met inclusion criteria.

Statistical Analysis

We first ran a series of univariate analyses to explore what factors significantly differed between diagnosed and under-diagnosed cases. T-tests were used to compare continuous variables, and Chi-square tests or Fisher exact test were used to compare discrete variables between the diagnosed and the under-diagnosed groups. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to look for differences between the groups in variables not following normal distribution (e.g., total number of catatonic signs). The univariate results were followed up with a multiple logistic regression predicting under-diagnosis of catatonia to test which factors remained statistically significant after controlling for other potential factors. Finally, analyses examined whether under-diagnosis was related to treatment and/or to clinical outcomes.

Results

Selection of Charts

Fifty-four case subjects had a diagnosis of catatonia and were included in the diagnosed group, and 1,082 had three or more catatonia-related keywords and had not been diagnosed. Table 1 presents the frequencies of catatonia-related keywords among the 1,082 charts with three or more catatonia-related keywords. After initial review, 276 cases were flagged by one or both reviewers as potential catatonia cases, with an agreement rate of 79%. After final review, 79 cases that had not been previously diagnosed were found to meet three or more DSM-5 criteria for catatonia retrospectively, and were classified as the under-diagnosed group. Table 2 presents examples of catatonic signs that were not attributed to catatonia by the treating clinicians.
TABLE 1. Potentially Catatonia-Related Keywords in Undiagnosed Charts (N=1,082)
Catatonia-Related SignNumber of ChartsCatatonia-Related SignNumber of Charts
Rigidity724Stupor99
Ambitendency0Excitement16
Pillow sign present0Oppositionism0
Stereotypies3Catalepsy0
Resistance to positioning1Waxy flexibility6
Bizarre behavior45Echophenomena0
Posture held against gravity0Mitgehen0
Stereotypy5Gegenhalten7
Non-goal-directed movements0Automatic obedience0
Agitation1,015Immobility311
Mannerism12Grimacing512
Posturing167Strange posture0
Abnormal behavior42Poor cooperation62
Ignoring the medical staff0Negativism4
Staring213Mutism17
Purposeless movement11Perseveration202
Repeating examiner’s speech0Mimicking speech0
Odd behavior48Strange behavior32
Verbigeration1Opposition to movement0
TABLE 2. Examples of Exact Chart Quotes Describing DSM-5 Criterion A for Catatonia in the Under-Diagnosed Group
Examples of Catatonic Signs Described in the Chart Suggesting CatatoniaDSM-5 Criteria Met
“Not easily arousable”; “immobile in no distress”; “minimally interactive.”Stupor
“Maintains his neck flexed.”Catalepsy
“Initial resistance to repositioning”; “resistance at the beginning that decreases as motion continues.”Waxy flexibility
“Nonverbal despite able to track writer”; “mute”; “severely decreased verbal output.”Mutism
“Keeps closing eyes, unable to examine pupils”; “does not allow others to examine her”; “pushing away staff.”Negativism
“Making fists unable to open by examiner”; “arms and legs stiff but not contracted.”Posturing
“Singing during interview”; “putting her bra on through her feet.”Mannerism
“Shaking head side to side constantly”; “perseverates on words.”Stereotypy
“Unexplained agitation”; “at times combative.”Agitation
“Shaking head side to side constantly and grimacing”; “odd facial expression”; “smiling inappropriately at times”; “continuously grimacing and hyperactive.”Grimacing
“Delirium with echolalia with poor response to haloperidol”; “responds to name with repeat speech.”Echolalia
“Patient raised arms when I showed my arms raised.”Echopraxia

Clinical Characteristics and Differences Between the Groups

Characteristics of the groups in our study can be found in Table 3. The characteristics of the diagnosed group have been previously published.23 Univariate comparisons showed that, compared with diagnosed cases, under-diagnosed cases were significantly older (p<0.001), less likely to be African American (p=0.007), more often evaluated by neurology or neurosurgery services (p<0.001), less often evaluated by psychiatry service (p<0.001), more likely to be seen in medical inpatient settings versus the emergency department (p<0.001), had retrospective etiology of catatonia more often attributed to medical conditions (p=0.002), and had higher proportion of EEG tests completed (p<0.001) and abnormal EEG results (p=0.016). The presence of grimacing (p<0.001), agitation (p=0.025), and echolalia (p=0.008) symptoms were more common in the under-diagnosed group.
TABLE 3. Characteristics of Case Subjects Meeting DSM-5 Criteria for Catatonia
Characteristics of the Sample and Main Results of the StudyDiagnosed Catatonia (N=54)aUnder-Diagnosed Catatonia (N=79)p
 MeanSDMeanSD 
Age (years)49.617.759.517.8<0.001
 N%N% 
African American458043570.007
Female gender366741520.090
Past psychiatric history315737470.231
Psychiatry consultation51942937<0.001
Neurology or neurosurgery service evaluation25466177<0.001
Tone exam documented427768860.214
Suspected delirium during episode295446580.605
Suspected neuroleptic malignant syndrome12680.240
Dopamine D2 receptor antagonist exposure325942530.487
EEG completed24445873<0.001
Abnormal EEG findings187555950.016
Clinical setting     
Emergency department213979 
Inpatient medical floor or intensive care unit33617291<0.001
Catatonic signs (DSM-5)     
Mutism478761770.155
Negativism417655700.425
Stupor387052660.582
Agitation376967850.025
Posturing224125320.281
Stereotypy152830380.222
Waxy flexibility61113160.257
Echolalia71327340.008
Echopraxia611340.097
Grimacing6113139<0.001
Catalepsy611450.147
Mannerism611340.097
 MeanSDMeanSD 
Total DSM-5 criteria met4.31.54.71.50.190
Total Bush Francis Catatonia Rating Scale Screening Instrument score criteria met5.41.65.720.332
Etiology of catatonia     
 N%N% 
Catatonia due to a medical condition29546481 
Catatonia due to a psychiatric disorder20371013 
Unspecified etiology of catatonia59560.002
a
Some data have been previously published by our group.23
In contrast, under-diagnosis of catatonia was not related to presence of suspected delirium (p=0.605) or NMS (p=0.240) and there were no significant differences in the distribution of the number of catatonic signs between the groups (U statistic 19.5; p=0.569), as shown in Figure 1.
FIGURE 1. Distribution of Total Number of Catatonic Signs Between Groupsa
a In DSM-5, three or more of 12 catatonia signs are established as a requirement for meeting criterion A. No case subject met more than nine signs, and no significant differences were found between the diagnosed and under-diagnosed groups.

Multiple Logistic Regression Predicting Under-Diagnosis of Catatonia

Multiple logistic regression analysis was next conducted using predictors that were significant at p<0.05 in the univariate comparisons (Table 4), with the exception of abnormal EEG results. This variable was excluded given that case subjects who did not receive the test (N=51, 38.3% of the sample) necessarily had missing data. Results revealed that the presence of a psychiatric consultation during the episode significantly decreased the likelihood of under-diagnosis of catatonia (odds ratio [OR]=0.02, 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.01–0.11, p<0.001), while the presence of grimacing (OR=6.56, 95% CI=1.86–23.16, p=0.004), agitation (OR=5.53, 95% CI=1.25–24.49, p=0.024), or echolalia (OR=4.33, 95% CI=1.32–14.24, p=0.016) significantly increased the likelihood of under-diagnosis. Age, race, setting, EEG testing, neurology or neurosurgery evaluation, and etiology of catatonia did not significantly predict under-diagnosis after controlling for other factors.
TABLE 4. Results From Multiple Logistic Regression Predicting Under-Diagnosis of Catatonia
VariableAdjusted Odds Ratio95% CIp
Age (years)1.010.97–1.050.604
African American0.560.18–1.750.316
Psychiatry consultation during episode0.020.01–0.11< 0.001
Neurology team evaluation1.610.40–6.530.503
EEG done during episode0.980.23–4.150.974
Clinical settinga2.210.42–11.530.347
Catatonia due to a medical condition0.270.05–1.410.120
Unspecified etiology of catatonia0.420.06–2.920.382
Agitation5.531.25–24.490.024
Grimacing6.561.86–23.160.004
Echolalia4.331.32–14.240.016
a
For purposes of multiple logistic regression calculation, emergency department was defined as 0 and inpatient medical floor as 1.

Treatment and Clinical Outcomes

Treatment characteristics and clinical outcomes for the groups can be found in Table 5. None of our study case subjects received ECT. Univariate comparisons showed that no differences were found in rates of lorazepam treatment between the groups, with 50% of the sample not receiving any lorazepam. Among those who received lorazepam during the admission, total doses received were significantly lower in the under-diagnosed group (mean=0.4, SD=0.5 mg/day versus mean=1.3, SD=1.3 mg/day, p=0.004). The use of standing lorazepam treatment was also significantly less frequent in the under-diagnosed group (5% versus 28%, p<0.001).
TABLE 5. Outcome Differences Between Diagnosed and Under-Diagnosed Catatonia
OutcomeDiagnosedUnder-Diagnosedpa
 N%N% 
Received lorazepam during episode295438480.526
Received standing lorazepam dose during episode152845<0.001
 MeanSDMeanSD 
Total dose of lorazepam receivedb1.31.30.40.50.004
Length of hospital stay (inpatient)c15.914.321.520.20.068
 N%N% 
Mortality during episode2410130.122
a
Data in bold indicate statistical significance.
b
Data indicate doses in mg/day (total mg received during admission/days of admission), including only those who received lorazepam.
c
Data indicate medical floor case subjects only (N=105, of whom 33 are diagnosed and 72 under-diagnosed).
Higher mortality rates during admission in the under-diagnosed group nearly reached statistical significance (13% versus 4% p=0.061, one-tailed). For those case subjects in our sample who were admitted to the general hospital as inpatients (N=105, 33 diagnosed and 72 under-diagnosed), higher length of stay in the under-diagnosed group fell short of statistical significance (mean=21.5, SD=20.2 days versus mean=15.9, SD=14.3 days, p=0.087, based on t test with log-transformed data).

Discussion

This study is the first, to our knowledge, to estimate the proportion of under-diagnosed catatonia in the general hospital and to find potential factors contributing to the under-diagnoses. Of the 133 case subjects who retrospectively met three or more DSM-5 criteria for catatonia in the general hospital over a 3-year period, the majority (N=79, 59%) were not diagnosed with catatonia during admission. Under-diagnosed catatonia was more frequent in the presence of agitation, echolalia, or grimacing; conversely, completion of a psychiatric consultation during the episode substantially decreased the likelihood of under-diagnosis of catatonia.
Case subjects meeting DSM-5 criteria for catatonia retrospectively who received a psychiatry consultation during admission had greater than 44 times the odds of being diagnosed with catatonia compared with those who did not receive psychiatric consultation. This finding supports the crucial role of psychiatry consultation teams in detecting catatonia in the general hospital. However, more than one-third (37%) of under-diagnosed case subjects in our sample did receive a psychiatric consult, which suggests, in agreement with previous literature,7,16 that under-recognition was frequent among case subjects evaluated by the psychiatry team and supports the need for greater recognition of catatonia across disciplines.
Our findings also suggest that under-recognition of catatonia may relate to physician unawareness of the heterogeneous cluster of signs and symptoms that constitute this syndrome. In particular, this study is the first to suggest that clinicians might often not consider agitation, grimacing, and echolalia to be attributable to catatonia. While these results warrant replication in other studies, there is indirect partial support for our findings from prior literature. A study of drug-naïve patients with first-episode psychosis found that agitation and grimacing were the signs of catatonia least correlated to other catatonic signs,9 and case reports have shown under-detection of catatonia in agitated patients.33,34 Thus, clinicians should be aware of the possibility of unexplained agitation being secondary to an underlying catatonic state.
The prevalence of grimacing and echolalia also independently predicted under-diagnosis of catatonia. One explanation for these results is that these clinical signs may be more likely than other signs of catatonia to be attributed to other conditions. For example, grimacing is a common clinical sign for pain, and treating physicians may attribute it to other medical conditions and not recognize it as a symptom of catatonia in their differential diagnoses. Echolalia is found in multiple neuropsychiatric disorders, including autism, dementia, and Tourette’s syndrome.
Of note, one study35 reviewing the clinical characteristics of nonconvulsive status epilepticus (NCSE) presentations found that echolalia, mutism (defined as aphasia/interrupted speech in the study), automatisms, catalepsy, staring, and increased tone are frequent features in patients with NCSE. Thus, NCSE seems to share clinical features with catatonia, in that it presents frequently with delirium in the elderly and tends to respond to treatment with GABA A receptor agonists such as lorazepam or midazolam. Indeed, the association of NCSE with catatonic presentations has been suggested by prior literature.36,37 It has also been argued that, in comparison to classic psychiatric literature, modern research on catatonia has focused more on motor rather than verbal signs of catatonia, including echolalia and verbigeration.38 Our study suggests that there is a need for increased awareness of both verbal and nonverbal signs of catatonia, and that excited catatonia might be more frequently missed than retarded catatonia, given that agitation and grimacing are more frequently associated with excited catatonia.15
Interestingly, there were no significant group differences in variables like mean number of symptoms or distribution of number of symptoms, suggesting that it is the patterning of specific symptoms and not the overall number of symptoms that predicts under-diagnosis. There were no differences in rates of suspected delirium or NMS between groups, which suggests that these might not be factors driving the under-diagnosis. Of note, a high proportion of abnormal EEG findings were found in our sample, as have been reported in patients with catatonia regardless of an underlying medical or psychiatric etiology.39 Our findings support prior literature showing that an abnormal EEG does not preclude the diagnosis of catatonia.
We also found limited evidence for demographic differences between groups. There was no difference between diagnosed and under-diagnosed groups in gender or past history of psychiatric diagnosis. Although age and race were initially significant in the univariate analyses, follow-up analyses (not shown) revealed that this was due to confounds with psychiatric consultations. Specifically, younger patients and African American patients were more likely to receive a psychiatric consultation. Similarly, these follow-up analyses revealed that neurology team evaluation and EEG tests were less common when a psychiatry consultation was requested, and all but two of the emergency department cases were seen by psychiatry consultants. Thus, when all of the factors were considered in the multiple regression simultaneously, only psychiatric consultation and the three clinical signs had significant, independent effects on under-diagnosis.
Finally, we note that there were some clinically relevant differences between groups in treatment received and clinical outcomes. First, a similar proportion of diagnosed and under-diagnosed cases received treatment with lorazepam during the episode, likely because lorazepam is widely used in our hospital for agitation management. However, under-diagnosis was related to lower daily doses of lorazepam received and lower rate of standing lorazepam treatment. Lorazepam is an effective treatment for catatonia, but high doses of lorazepam for several days or longer might be needed to treat catatonia effectively.5,28,40 Thus, our study suggests that under-diagnosed cases received suboptimal treatment.
Moreover, even in diagnosed cases, the lorazepam treatment rates, standing lorazepam treatment rates, and average doses were relatively small, suggesting suboptimal treatment even when the syndrome is recognized. Suspected delirium comorbidity might explain suboptimal treatment among diagnosed cases, since in a secondary analysis of our data we found that treated case subjects with suspected comorbid delirium received significantly fewer total lorazepam doses than those without delirium only in the diagnosed group (N=17, mean=0.7, SD=0.7 mg/day versus N=12, mean=2, SD=1.6 mg/day, p=0.006). This finding suggests that clinicians might be reluctant to give optimal lorazepam doses in patients with catatonia and delirium, and that more evidence is needed on how to manage catatonia in the presence of delirium.
Although the data suggest that under-diagnosed catatonia case subjects have increased mortality during admission and increased length of stay, this was not statistically significant. Our study might have been underpowered to detect differences in mortality, given that less than 10% of the sample died during admission. Regarding length of stay, differences should be interpreted with more caution, since we did not compare differences in specific disposition among case subjects who did not die, such as a transfer to psychiatric hospital for catatonia management. However, we also suspect that our study might have been underpowered to detect differences in length of stay related to under-diagnosis of catatonia.
Overall, our findings suggest that under-diagnosis of catatonia might have played a role in increasing likelihood of poorer hospital outcomes. Future studies with larger samples could examine the effects of under-diagnosis on clinical outcomes.

Limitations

Results should be viewed in the context of several limitations. Because the study was based on retrospective chart review, we cannot be certain whether our under-diagnosed cases were truly catatonic. In fact, the BFCRS has not been validated as a tool to detect catatonia retrospectively.
While all of the diagnosed case subjects received a diagnosis of catatonia during admission, none of the subjects in the under-diagnosed group had a standardized catatonia exam, such as a BFCRS score, documented. However, since we could only find charts with documented symptoms, it is likely that there were more cases of catatonia with unrecognized and/or undocumented symptoms, and our sample represents an under-estimation of catatonia under-diagnosis. Better knowledge of catatonia by all physicians might help improve documentation of catatonic signs. We also acknowledge that our diagnosed and under-diagnosed groups might have differed on other factors that were not measured, such as degree of medical severity, which could confound our findings with regard to clinical outcomes. Finally, we note that the study was done in a single urban academic medical institution; thus, results may not generalize to hospitals in other settings.

Conclusions

A significant number of cases of catatonia in the general hospital might not be properly diagnosed and might be suboptimally treated. Consultation-liaison psychiatrists have a crucial role in the diagnosis and treatment of catatonia in the general hospital, and should implement liaison and educational strategies to increase the knowledge about catatonic signs, such as unexplained agitation, grimacing, or echolalia. Improving detection and treatment of catatonia could help improve clinical outcomes of patients with this reversible syndrome in the general hospital.

References

1.
Wijemanne S, Jankovic J: Movement disorders in catatonia. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2015; 86: 825–832
2.
Smith JH, Smith VD, Philbrick KL, et al: Catatonic disorder due to a general medical or psychiatric condition. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci 2012; 24:198–207
3.
Carroll BT, Anfinson TJ, Kennedy JC, et al: Catatonic disorder due to general medical conditions. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci 1994; 6:122–133
4.
Carroll BT: Catatonia on the consultation-liaison service. Psychosomatics 1992; 33:310–315
5.
Fink M, Taylor MA: Catatonia: A Clinician’s Guide to Diagnosis and Treatment. Cambridge, United Kingdom, Cambridge University Press, 2003
6.
Stuivenga M, Morrens M: Prevalence of the catatonic syndrome in an acute inpatient sample. Front Psychiatry 2014; 5:174
7.
Van der Heijden FMMA, Tuinier S, Arts NJM, et al: Catatonia: disappeared or under-diagnosed? Psychopathology 2005; 38:3–8
8.
Dutt A, Grover S, Chakrabarti S, et al: Phenomenology and treatment of catatonia: a descriptive study from North India. Indian J Psychiatry 2011; 53:36–40
9.
Peralta V, Campos MS, De Jalon EG, et al: DSM-IV catatonia signs and criteria in first-episode, drug-naive, psychotic patients: psychometric validity and response to antipsychotic medication. Schizophr Res 2010; 118:168–175
10.
Espinola-Nadurille M, Ramirez-Bermudez J, Fricchione GL, et al: Catatonia in neurologic and psychiatric patients at a tertiary neurological center. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2016; 28:124–130
11.
Rizos DV, Peritogiannis V, Gkogkos C: Catatonia in the intensive care unit. Gen Hosp Psychiatry 2011; 33:e1–e2
12.
Cottencin O, Warembourg F, De Chouly de Lenclave MB, et al: Catatonia and consultation-liaison psychiatry study of 12 cases. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry 2007; 31:1170–1176
13.
Carroll BT, Spetie L: Catatonia on the consultation-liaison service: a replication study. Int J Psychiatry Med 1994; 24:329–337
14.
Jaimes-Albornoz W, Serra-Mestres J: Prevalence and clinical correlations of catatonia in older adults referred to a liaison psychiatry service in a general hospital. Gen Hosp Psychiatry 2013; 35:512–516
15.
Morrison JR: Catatonia: retarded and excited types. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1973; 28:39–41
16.
Ghaziuddin N, Dhossche D, Marcotte K: Retrospective chart review of catatonia in child and adolescent psychiatric patients. Acta Psychiatr Scand 2012; 125:33–38
17.
Quinn DK, Abbott CC: Catatonia after cerebral hypoxia: do the usual treatments apply? Psychosomatics 2014; 55:525–535
18.
Cooper JJ, Roig Llesuy J: Catatonia education: needs assessment and brief online intervention. Acad Psychiatry 2017; 41:360–363
19.
Peritogiannis V, Bolosi M, Lixouriotis C, et al: Recent insights on prevalence and correlations of hypoactive delirium. Behav Neurol 2015;2015:416792.
20.
Oldham MA, Lee HB: Catatonia vis-à-vis delirium: the significance of recognizing catatonia in altered mental status. Gen Hosp Psychiatry 2015; 37:554–559
21.
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th ed. Washington, DC, American Psychiatric Publishing, 2013
22.
Grover S, Ghosh A, Ghormode D: Do patients of delirium have catatonic features? An exploratory study. Psychiatry Clin Neurosci 2014; 68:644–651
23.
Llesuy JR, Coffey MJ, Jacobson KC, et al:. Suspected delirium predicts the thoroughness of catatonia evaluation. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2017; 29: 148–154
24.
Azzam PN, Gopalan P, Brown JR, et al: Physical examination for the academic psychiatrist: primer and common clinical scenarios. Acad Psychiatry 2016; 40:321–327
25.
Rosebush PI, Mazurek MF: Catatonia; in Psychiatry for Neurologists. Edited by Jests DV, Friedman JH. Totowa, NJ, Humana Press, 2006
26.
Bush G, Fink M, Petrides G, et al: Catatonia. I. Rating scale and standardized examination. Acta Psychiatr Scand 1996; 93:129–136
27.
Sienaert P, Rooseleer J, De Fruyt J: Measuring catatonia: a systematic review of rating scales. J Affect Disord 2011; 135:1–9
28.
Rosebush PI, Hildebrand AM, Furlong BG, et al: Catatonic syndrome in a general psychiatric inpatient population: frequency, clinical presentation, and response to lorazepam. J Clin Psychiatry 1990; 51:357–362
29.
McCall WV, Mann SC, Shelp FE, et al: Fatal pulmonary embolism in the catatonic syndrome: two case reports and a literature review. J Clin Psychiatry 1995; 56:21–25
30.
Swartz C, Galang RL: Adverse outcome with delay in identification of catatonia in elderly patients. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry 2001; 9:78–80
31.
Lang FU, Lang S, Becker T, et al: Neuroleptic malignant syndrome or catatonia? Trying to solve the catatonic dilemma. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 2015; 232:1–5
32.
Clinebell K, Azzam PN, Gopalan P, et al: Guidelines for preventing common medical complications of catatonia: case report and literature review. J Clin Psychiatry 2014; 75:644–651
33.
Luykx JJ, Post EH, van der Erf M, et al: Agitation after minor trauma: combativeness as a cardinal catatonic feature. BMJ Case Rep. 2013; 2013:bcr2012008217
34.
Cottencin O, Thomas P, Vaiva G, et al: A case of agitated catatonia. Pharmacopsychiatry 1999; 32:38–40
35.
Woodford HJ, George J, Jackson M: Non-convulsive status epilepticus: a practical approach to diagnosis in confused older people. Postgrad Med J 2015; 91:655–661
36.
Lim J, Yagnik P, Schraeder P, et al: Ictal catatonia as a manifestation of nonconvulsive status epilepticus. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1986; 49:833–836
37.
Carboncini MC, Piarulli A, Virgillito A, et al: A case of post-traumatic minimally conscious state reversed by midazolam: clinical aspects and neurophysiological correlates. Restor Neurol Neurosci 2014; 32:767–787
38.
Ungvari GS, White E, Pang AH: Psychopathology of catatonic speech disorders and the dilemma of catatonia: a selective review. Aust N Z J Psychiatry 1995; 29:653–660
39.
Carroll BT, Boutros NN: Clinical electroencephalograms in patients with catatonic disorders. Clin Electroencephalogr 1995; 26:60–64
40.
Sienaert P, Dhossche DM, Vancampfort D, et al: A clinical review of the treatment of catatonia. Front Psychiatry 2014; 5:181

Information & Authors

Information

Published In

Go to The Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences
Go to The Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences
The Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences
Pages: 145 - 151
PubMed: 29325478

History

Received: 19 June 2017
Revision received: 4 September 2017
Accepted: 13 September 2017
Published online: 12 January 2018
Published in print: Spring 2018

Keywords

  1. Catatonia
  2. Consultation/Liaison Neuropsychiatry
  3. Diagnosis and Classification in Neuropsychiatry
  4. Mental Status Assessment
  5. Drug/Psychotherapy Treatment of Neuropsychiatric Disorders

Authors

Details

Joan Roig Llesuy, M.D. [email protected]
From the Department of Psychiatry, New York University School of Medicine, New York (JRL); and the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neuroscience, University of Chicago, Chicago (MM, KCJ, JJC).
Michel Medina, M.D.
From the Department of Psychiatry, New York University School of Medicine, New York (JRL); and the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neuroscience, University of Chicago, Chicago (MM, KCJ, JJC).
Kristen C. Jacobson, Ph.D.
From the Department of Psychiatry, New York University School of Medicine, New York (JRL); and the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neuroscience, University of Chicago, Chicago (MM, KCJ, JJC).
Joseph J. Cooper, M.D.
From the Department of Psychiatry, New York University School of Medicine, New York (JRL); and the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neuroscience, University of Chicago, Chicago (MM, KCJ, JJC).

Notes

Send correspondence to Dr. Roig Llesuy; email: [email protected]
Previously presented in part at the Annual Meeting of the American Neuropsychiatric Association, San Diego, March 2016.

Competing Interests

The authors report no financial relationships with commercial interests.

Metrics & Citations

Metrics

Citations

Export Citations

If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.

For more information or tips please see 'Downloading to a citation manager' in the Help menu.

Format
Citation style
Style
Copy to clipboard

View Options

View options

PDF/EPUB

View PDF/EPUB

Login options

Already a subscriber? Access your subscription through your login credentials or your institution for full access to this article.

Personal login Institutional Login Open Athens login
Purchase Options

Purchase this article to access the full text.

PPV Articles - Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences

PPV Articles - Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences

Not a subscriber?

Subscribe Now / Learn More

PsychiatryOnline subscription options offer access to the DSM-5-TR® library, books, journals, CME, and patient resources. This all-in-one virtual library provides psychiatrists and mental health professionals with key resources for diagnosis, treatment, research, and professional development.

Need more help? PsychiatryOnline Customer Service may be reached by emailing [email protected] or by calling 800-368-5777 (in the U.S.) or 703-907-7322 (outside the U.S.).

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share article link

Share