Validation of the patient assessment of chronic illness care (PACIC) short form scale in heart transplant recipients: The international cross-sectional bright study

Background: Transplant recipients are chronically ill patients, who require lifelong follow-up to manage co-morbidities and prevent graft loss. This necessitates a system of care that is congruent with the Chronic Care Model. The eleven-item self-report Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) scale assesses whether chronic care is congruent with the Chronic Care Model, yet its validity for heart transplant patients has not been tested. Methods: We tested the validity of the English version of the PACIC, and compared the similarity of the internal structure of the PACIC across English-speaking countries (USA, Canada, Australia and United Kingdom) and across six languages (French, German, Dutch, Spanish, Italian and Portuguese). This was done using data from the cross-sectional international BRIGHT study that included 1378 heart transplant patients from eleven countries across 4 continents. To test the validity of the instrument, confirmatory factor analyses to check the expected unidimensional internal structure, and relations to other variables, were performed. Results: Main analyses confirmed the validity of the English PACIC version for heart transplant patients. Exploratory analyses across English-speaking countries and languages also confirmed the single factorial dimension, except in Italian and Spanish. Conclusion: This scale could help healthcare providers monitor level of chronic illness management and improve transplantation care. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov ID: NCT01608477, first patient enrolled in March 2012, registered retrospectively: May 30, 2012

Increased 30-Day Mortality in Very Old ICU Patients with COVID-19 Compared to Patients with Respiratory Failure without COVID-19

Purpose: The number of patients ≥ 80 years admitted into critical care is increasing. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) added another challenge for clinical decisions for both admission and limitation of life-sustaining treatments (LLST). We aimed to compare the characteristics and mortality of very old critically ill patients with or without COVID-19 with a focus on LLST. Methods: Patients 80 years or older with acute respiratory failure were recruited from the VIP2 and COVIP studies. Baseline patient characteristics, interventions in intensive care unit (ICU) and outcomes (30-day survival) were recorded. COVID patients were matched to non-COVID patients based on the following factors: age (± 2 years), Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score (± 2 points), clinical frailty scale (± 1 point), gender and region on a 1:2 ratio. Specific ICU procedures and LLST were compared between the cohorts by means of cumulative incidence curves taking into account the competing risk of discharge and death. Results: 693 COVID patients were compared to 1393 non-COVID patients. COVID patients were younger, less frail, less severely ill with lower SOFA score, but were treated more often with invasive mechanical ventilation (MV) and had a lower 30-day survival. 404 COVID patients could be matched to 666 non-COVID patients. For COVID patients, withholding and withdrawing of LST were more frequent than for non-COVID and the 30-day survival was almost half compared to non-COVID patients. Conclusion: Very old COVID patients have a different trajectory than non-COVID patients. Whether this finding is due to a decision policy with more active treatment limitation or to an inherent higher risk of death due to COVID-19 is unclear.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio