Management and outcomes in critically ill nonagenarian versus octogenarian patients.

BACKGROUND: Intensive care unit (ICU) patients age 90 years or older represent a growing subgroup and place a huge financial burden on health care resources despite the benefit being unclear. This leads to ethical problems. The present investigation assessed the differences in outcome between nonagenarian and octogenarian ICU patients. METHODS: We included 7900 acutely admitted older critically ill patients from two large, multinational studies. The primary outcome was 30-day-mortality, and the secondary outcome was ICU-mortality. Baseline characteristics consisted of frailty assessed by the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS), ICU-management, and outcomes were compared between octogenarian (80-89.9 years) and nonagenarian (> 90 years) patients. We used multilevel logistic regression to evaluate differences between octogenarians and nonagenarians. RESULTS: The nonagenarians were 10% of the entire cohort. They experienced a higher percentage of frailty (58% vs 42%; p < 0.001), but lower SOFA scores at admission (6 + 5 vs. 7 + 6; p < 0.001). ICU-management strategies were different. Octogenarians required higher rates of organ support and nonagenarians received higher rates of life-sustaining treatment limitations (40% vs. 33%; p < 0.001). ICU mortality was comparable (27% vs. 27%; p = 0.973) but a higher 30-day-mortality (45% vs. 40%; p = 0.029) was seen in the nonagenarians. After multivariable adjustment nonagenarians had no significantly increased risk for 30-day-mortality (aOR 1.25 (95% CI 0.90-1.74; p = 0.19)). CONCLUSION: After adjustment for confounders, nonagenarians demonstrated no higher 30-day mortality than octogenarian patients. In this study, being age 90 years or more is no particular risk factor for an adverse outcome. This should be considered- together with illness severity and pre-existing functional capacity - to effectively guide triage decisions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03134807 and NCT03370692

The impact of frailty on ICU and 30-day mortality and the level of care in very elderly patients (≥ 80 years)

Purpose: Very old critical ill patients are a rapid expanding group in the ICU. Indications for admission, triage criteria and level of care are frequently discussed for such patients. However, most relevant outcome studies in this group frequently find an increased mortality and a reduced quality of life in survivors. The main objective was to study the impact of frailty compared with other variables with regards to short-term outcome in the very old ICU population.Methods: A transnational prospective cohort study from October 2016 to May 2017 with 30 days follow-up was set up by the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. In total 311 ICUs from 21 European countries participated. The ICUs included the first consecutive 20 very old (≥ 80 years) patients admitted to the ICU within a 3-month inclusion period. Frailty, SOFA score and therapeutic procedures were registered, in addition to limitations of care. For measurement of frailty the Clinical Frailty Scale was used at ICU admission. The main outcomes were ICU and 30-day mortality and survival at 30 days.Results: A total of 5021 patients with a median age of 84 years (IQR 81–86 years) were included in the final analysis, 2404 (47.9%) were women. Admission was classified as acute in 4215 (83.9%) of the patients. Overall ICU and 30-day mortality rates were 22.1% and 32.6%. During ICU stay 23.8% of the patients did not receive specific ICU procedures: ventilation, vasoactive drugs or renal replacement therapy. Frailty (values ≥ 5) was found in 43.1% and was independently related to 30-day survival (HR 1.54; 95% CI 1.38–1.73) for frail versus non-frail.Conclusions: Among very old patients (≥ 80 years) admitted to the ICU, the consecutive classes in Clinical Frailty Scale were inversely associated with short-term survival. The scale had a very low number of missing data. These findings provide support to add frailty to the clinical assessment in this patient group.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (ID: NCT03134807).</p

Correction to : Withholding or withdrawing of life-sustaining therapy in older adults (≥ 80 years) admitted to the intensive care unit

In the original publication Dr Patrick Meybohm of the Department of Anaesthesiology, Intensive Care Medicine and Pain Therapy, Frankfurt University Hospital, Frankfurt, Germany was inadvertently omitted from the list of investigators

Sepsis at ICU admission does not decrease 30-day survival in very old patients: a post-hoc analysis of the VIP1 multinational cohort study

Background The number of intensive care patients aged ≥ 80 years (Very old Intensive Care Patients; VIPs) is growing. VIPs have high mortality and morbidity and the benefits of ICU admission are frequently questioned. Sepsis incidence has risen in recent years and identification of outcomes is of considerable public importance. We aimed to determine whether VIPs admitted for sepsis had different outcomes than those admitted for other acute reasons and identify potential prognostic factors for 30-day survival. Results This prospective study included VIPs with Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores ≥ 2 acutely admitted to 307 ICUs in 21 European countries. Of 3869 acutely admitted VIPs, 493 (12.7%) [53.8% male, median age 83 (81–86) years] were admitted for sepsis. Sepsis was defined according to clinical criteria; suspected or demonstrated focus of infection and SOFA score ≥ 2 points. Compared to VIPs admitted for other acute reasons, VIPs admitted for sepsis were younger, had a higher SOFA score (9 vs. 7, p < 0.0001), required more vasoactive drugs [82.2% vs. 55.1%, p < 0.0001] and renal replacement therapies [17.4% vs. 9.9%; p < 0.0001], and had more life-sustaining treatment limitations [37.3% vs. 32.1%; p = 0.02]. Frailty was similar in both groups. Unadjusted 30-day survival was not significantly different between the two groups. After adjustment for age, gender, frailty, and SOFA score, sepsis had no impact on 30-day survival [HR 0.99 (95% CI 0.86–1.15), p = 0.917]. Inverse-probability weight (IPW)-adjusted survival curves for the first 30 days after ICU admission were similar for acute septic and non-septic patients [HR: 1.00 (95% CI 0.87–1.17), p = 0.95]. A matched-pair analysis in which patients with sepsis were matched with two control patients of the same gender with the same age, SOFA score, and level of frailty was also performed. A Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified on the matched pairs showed that 30-day survival was similar in both groups [57.2% (95% CI 52.7–60.7) vs. 57.1% (95% CI 53.7–60.1), p = 0.85]. Conclusions After adjusting for organ dysfunction, sepsis at admission was not independently associated with decreased 30-day survival in this multinational study of 3869 VIPs. Age, frailty, and SOFA score were independently associated with survival

A comparison of very old patients admitted to intensive care unit after acute versus elective surgery or intervention

Background: We aimed to evaluate differences in outcome between patients admitted to intensive care unit (ICU) after elective versus acute surgery in a multinational cohort of very old patients (80 years; VIP). Predictors of mortality, with special emphasis on frailty, were assessed. Methods: In total, 5063 VIPs were induded in this analysis, 922 were admitted after elective surgery or intervention, 4141 acutely, with 402 after acute surgery. Differences were calculated using Mann-Whitney-U test and Wilcoxon test. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression were used to assess associations with mortality. Results: Compared patients admitted after acute surgery, patients admitted after elective surgery suffered less often from frailty as defined as CFS (28% vs 46%; p 4) was associated with significantly increased mortality both in elective surgery patients (7% vs 12%; p = 0.01), in acute surgery (7% vs 12%; p = 0.02). Conclusions: VIPs admitted to ICU after elective surgery evidenced favorable outcome over patients after acute surgery even after correction for relevant confounders. Frailty might be used to guide clinicians in risk stratification in both patients admitted after elective and acute surgery. (C) 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved

Sex-specific outcome disparities in very old patients admitted to intensive care medicine: a propensity matched analysis

Female and male very elderly intensive patients (VIPs) might differ in characteristics and outcomes. We aimed to compare female versus male VIPs in a large, multinational collective of VIPs with regards to outcome and predictors of mortality. In total, 7555 patients were included in this analysis, 3973 (53%) male and 3582 (47%) female patients. The primary endpoint was 30-day-mortality. Baseline characteristics, data on management and geriatric scores including frailty assessed by Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) were documented. Two propensity scores (for being male) were obtained for consecutive matching, score 1 for baseline characteristics and score 2 for baseline characteristics and ICU management. Male VIPs were younger (83 ± 5 vs. 84 ± 5; p  4; 38% versus 49%; p < 0.001) but evidenced higher SOFA (7 ± 6 versus 6 ± 6 points; p < 0.001) scores. After propensity score matching, no differences in baseline characteristics could be observed. In the paired analysis, the mortality in male VIPs was higher (mean difference 3.34% 95%CI 0.92–5.76%; p = 0.007) compared to females. In both multivariable logistic regression models correcting for propensity score 1 (aOR 1.15 95%CI 1.03–1.27; p = 0.007) and propensity score 2 (aOR 1.15 95%CI 1.04–1.27; p = 0.007) male sex was independently associated with higher odds for 30-day-mortality. Of note, male gender was not associated with ICU mortality (OR 1.08 95%CI 0.98–1.19; p = 0.14). Outcomes of elderly intensive care patients evidenced independent sex differences. Male sex was associated with adverse 30-day-mortality but not ICU-mortality. Further research to identify potential sex-specific risk factors after ICU discharge is warranted

Publisher Correction: Sex-specific outcome disparities in very old patients admitted to intensive care medicine: a propensity matched analysis

This article is freely available online. Click on the 'Additional Link' above to access the full-text via the publisher's site.Published version, accepted version, submitted versio

Prosafe: a european endeavor to improve quality of critical care medicine in seven countries

BACKGROUND: long-lasting shared research databases are an important source of epidemiological information and can promote comparison between different healthcare services. Here we present ProsaFe, an advanced international research network in intensive care medicine, with the focus on assessing and improving the quality of care. the project involved 343 icUs in seven countries. all patients admitted to the icU were eligible for data collection. MetHoDs: the ProsaFe network collected data using the same electronic case report form translated into the corresponding languages. a complex, multidimensional validation system was implemented to ensure maximum data quality. individual and aggregate reports by country, region, and icU type were prepared annually. a web-based data-sharing system allowed participants to autonomously perform different analyses on both own data and the entire database. RESULTS: The final analysis was restricted to 262 general ICUs and 432,223 adult patients, mostly admitted to Italian units, where a research network had been active since 1991. organization of critical care medicine in the seven countries was relatively similar, in terms of staffing, case mix and procedures, suggesting a common understanding of the role of critical care medicine. conversely, icU equipment differed, and patient outcomes showed wide variations among countries. coNclUsioNs: ProsaFe is a permanent, stable, open access, multilingual database for clinical benchmarking, icU self-evaluation and research within and across countries, which offers a unique opportunity to improve the quality of critical care. its entry into routine clinical practice on a voluntary basis is testimony to the success and viability of the endeavor

Management and outcomes in critically ill nonagenarian versus octogenarian patients

Background: Intensive care unit (ICU) patients age 90 years or older represent a growing subgroup and place a huge financial burden on health care resources despite the benefit being unclear. This leads to ethical problems. The present investigation assessed the differences in outcome between nonagenarian and octogenarian ICU patients. Methods: We included 7900 acutely admitted older critically ill patients from two large, multinational studies. The primary outcome was 30-day-mortality, and the secondary outcome was ICU-mortality. Baseline characteristics consisted of frailty assessed by the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS), ICU-management, and outcomes were compared between octogenarian (80-89.9 years) and nonagenarian (>= 90 years) patients. We used multilevel logistic regression to evaluate differences between octogenarians and nonagenarians. Results: The nonagenarians were 10% of the entire cohort. They experienced a higher percentage of frailty (58% vs 42%; p < 0.001), but lower SOFA scores at admission (6 +/- 5 vs. 7 +/- 6; p < 0.001). ICU-management strategies were different. Octogenarians required higher rates of organ support and nonagenarians received higher rates of life-sustaining treatment limitations (40% vs. 33%; p < 0.001). ICU mortality was comparable (27% vs. 27%; p = 0.973) but a higher 30-day-mortality (45% vs. 40%; p = 0.029) was seen in the nonagenarians. After multivariable adjustment nonagenarians had no significantly increased risk for 30-day-mortality (aOR 1.25 (95% CI 0.90-1.74; p = 0.19)). Conclusion: After adjustment for confounders, nonagenarians demonstrated no higher 30-day mortality than octogenarian patients. In this study, being age 90 years or more is no particular risk factor for an adverse outcome. This should be considered- together with illness severity and pre-existing functional capacity - to effectively guide triage decisions