Delirium in older COVID-19 patients:Evaluating risk factors and outcomes

Objectives: A high incidence of delirium has been reported in older patients with Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We aimed to identify determinants of delirium, including the Clinical Frailty Scale, in hospitalized older patients with COVID-19. Furthermore, we aimed to study the association of delirium independent of frailty with in-hospital outcomes in older COVID-19 patients. Methods: This study was performed within the framework of the multi-center COVID-OLD cohort study and included patients aged ≥60 years who were admitted to the general ward because of COVID-19 in the Netherlands between February and May 2020. Data were collected on demographics, co-morbidity, disease severity, and geriatric parameters. Prevalence of delirium during hospital admission was recorded based on delirium screening using the Delirium Observation Screening Scale (DOSS) which was scored three times daily. A DOSS score ≥3 was followed by a delirium assessment by the ward physician In-hospital outcomes included length of stay, discharge destination, and mortality. Results: A total of 412 patients were included (median age 76, 58% male). Delirium was present in 82 patients. In multivariable analysis, previous episode of delirium (Odds ratio [OR] 8.9 [95% CI 2.3–33.6] p = 0.001), and pre-existent memory problems (OR 7.6 [95% CI 3.1–22.5] p < 0.001) were associated with increased delirium risk. Clinical Frailty Scale was associated with increased delirium risk (OR 1.63 [95%CI 1.40–1.90] p < 0.001) in univariable analysis, but not in multivariable analysis. Patients who developed delirium had a shorter symptom duration and lower levels of C-reactive protein upon presentation, whereas vital parameters did not differ. Patients who developed a delirium had a longer hospital stay and were more often discharged to a nursing home. Delirium was associated with mortality (OR 2.84 [95% CI1.71–4.72] p < 0.001), but not in multivariable analyses. Conclusions: A previous delirium and pre-existent memory problems were associated with delirium risk in COVID-19. Delirium was not an independent predictor of mortality after adjustment for frailty

Characteristics and outcomes of older patients hospitalised for COVID-19 in the first and second wave of the pandemic in The Netherlands:the COVID-OLD study

BACKGROUND: as the coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic progressed diagnostics and treatment changed. OBJECTIVE: to investigate differences in characteristics, disease presentation and outcomes of older hospitalised COVID-19 patients between the first and second pandemic wave in The Netherlands. METHODS: this was a multicentre retrospective cohort study in 16 hospitals in The Netherlands including patients aged ≥ 70 years, hospitalised for COVID-19 in Spring 2020 (first wave) and Autumn 2020 (second wave). Data included Charlson comorbidity index (CCI), disease severity and Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS). Main outcome was in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: a total of 1,376 patients in the first wave (median age 78 years, 60% male) and 946 patients in the second wave (median age 79 years, 61% male) were included. There was no relevant difference in presence of comorbidity (median CCI 2) or frailty (median CFS 4). Patients in the second wave were admitted earlier in the disease course (median 6 versus 7 symptomatic days; P < 0.001). In-hospital mortality was lower in the second wave (38.1% first wave versus 27.0% second wave; P < 0.001). Mortality risk was 40% lower in the second wave compared with the first wave (95% confidence interval: 28–51%) after adjustment for differences in patient characteristics, comorbidity, symptomatic days until admission, disease severity and frailty. CONCLUSIONS: compared with older patients hospitalised in the first COVID-19 wave, patients in the second wave had lower in-hospital mortality, independent of risk factors for mortality. The better prognosis likely reflects earlier diagnosis, the effect of improvement in treatment and is relevant for future guidelines and treatment decisions

COVID-19 symptoms at hospital admission vary with age and sex: results from the ISARIC prospective multinational observational study

Background: The ISARIC prospective multinational observational study is the largest cohort of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. We present relationships of age, sex, and nationality to presenting symptoms. Methods: International, prospective observational study of 60 109 hospitalized symptomatic patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 recruited from 43 countries between 30 January and 3 August 2020. Logistic regression was performed to evaluate relationships of age and sex to published COVID-19 case definitions and the most commonly reported symptoms. Results: ‘Typical’ symptoms of fever (69%), cough (68%) and shortness of breath (66%) were the most commonly reported. 92% of patients experienced at least one of these. Prevalence of typical symptoms was greatest in 30- to 60-year-olds (respectively 80, 79, 69%; at least one 95%). They were reported less frequently in children (≤ 18 years: 69, 48, 23; 85%), older adults (≥ 70 years: 61, 62, 65; 90%), and women (66, 66, 64; 90%; vs. men 71, 70, 67; 93%, each P &lt; 0.001). The most common atypical presentations under 60 years of age were nausea and vomiting and abdominal pain, and over 60 years was confusion. Regression models showed significant differences in symptoms with sex, age and country. Interpretation: This international collaboration has allowed us to report reliable symptom data from the largest cohort of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Adults over 60 and children admitted to hospital with COVID-19 are less likely to present with typical symptoms. Nausea and vomiting are common atypical presentations under 30 years. Confusion is a frequent atypical presentation of COVID-19 in adults over 60 years. Women are less likely to experience typical symptoms than men

Atypical presentation of COVID-19 in older patients is associated with frailty but not with adverse outcomes

Purpose: Older patients with COVID-19 can present with atypical complaints, such as falls or delirium. In other diseases, such an atypical presentation is associated with worse clinical outcomes. However, it is not known whether this extends to COVID-19. We aimed to study the association between atypical presentation of COVID-19, frailty and adverse outcomes, as well as the incidence of atypical presentation. Methods: We conducted a retrospective observational multi-center cohort study in eight hospitals in the Netherlands. We included patients aged ≥ 70 years hospitalized with COVID-19 between February 2020 until May 2020. Atypical presentation of COVID-19 was defined as presentation without fever, cough and/or dyspnea. We collected data concerning symptoms on admission, demographics and frailty parameters [e.g., Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) and Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS)]. Outcome data included Intensive Care Unit (ICU) admission, discharge destination and 30-day mortality. Results: We included 780 patients, 9.5% (n = 74) of those patients had an atypical presentation. Patients with an atypical presentation were older (80 years, IQR 76–86 years; versus 79 years, IQR 74–84, p = 0.044) and were more often classified as severely frail (CFS 6–9) compared to patients with a typical presentation (47.6% vs 28.7%, p = 0.004). Overall, there was no significant difference in 30-day mortality between the two groups in univariate analysis (32.4% vs 41.5%; p = 0.173) or in multivariate analysis [OR 0.59 (95% CI 0.34–1.0); p = 0.058]. Conclusions: In this study, patients with an atypical presentation of COVID-19 were more frail compared to patients with a typical presentation. Contrary to our expectations, an atypical presentation was not associated with worse outcomes

Respiratory support in patients with severe COVID-19 in the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection (ISARIC) COVID-19 study: a prospective, multinational, observational study

Background: Up to 30% of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 require advanced respiratory support, including high-flow nasal cannulas (HFNC), non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIV), or invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). We aimed to describe the clinical characteristics, outcomes and risk factors for failing non-invasive respiratory support in patients treated with severe COVID-19 during the first two years of the pandemic in high-income countries (HICs) and low middle-income countries (LMICs). Methods: This is a multinational, multicentre, prospective cohort study embedded in the ISARIC-WHO COVID-19 Clinical Characterisation Protocol. Patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who required hospital admission were recruited prospectively. Patients treated with HFNC, NIV, or IMV within the first 24 h of hospital admission were included in this study. Descriptive statistics, random forest, and logistic regression analyses were used to describe clinical characteristics and compare clinical outcomes among patients treated with the different types of advanced respiratory support. Results: A total of 66,565 patients were included in this study. Overall, 82.6% of patients were treated in HIC, and 40.6% were admitted to the hospital during the first pandemic wave. During the first 24 h after hospital admission, patients in HICs were more frequently treated with HFNC (48.0%), followed by NIV (38.6%) and IMV (13.4%). In contrast, patients admitted in lower- and middle-income countries (LMICs) were less frequently treated with HFNC (16.1%) and the majority received IMV (59.1%). The failure rate of non-invasive respiratory support (i.e. HFNC or NIV) was 15.5%, of which 71.2% were from HIC and 28.8% from LMIC. The variables most strongly associated with non-invasive ventilation failure, defined as progression to IMV, were high leukocyte counts at hospital admission (OR [95%CI]; 5.86 [4.83–7.10]), treatment in an LMIC (OR [95%CI]; 2.04 [1.97–2.11]), and tachypnoea at hospital admission (OR [95%CI]; 1.16 [1.14–1.18]). Patients who failed HFNC/NIV had a higher 28-day fatality ratio (OR [95%CI]; 1.27 [1.25–1.30]). Conclusions: In the present international cohort, the most frequently used advanced respiratory support was the HFNC. However, IMV was used more often in LMIC. Higher leucocyte count, tachypnoea, and treatment in LMIC were risk factors for HFNC/NIV failure. HFNC/NIV failure was related to worse clinical outcomes, such as 28-day mortality. Trial registration This is a prospective observational study; therefore, no health care interventions were applied to participants, and trial registration is not applicable

Respiratory support in patients with severe COVID-19 in the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection (ISARIC) COVID-19 study: a prospective, multinational, observational study

International audienceBackground: Up to 30% of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 require advanced respiratory support, including high-flow nasal cannulas (HFNC), non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIV), or invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). We aimed to describe the clinical characteristics, outcomes and risk factors for failing non-invasive respiratory support in patients treated with severe COVID-19 during the first two years of the pandemic in high-income countries (HICs) and low middle-income countries (LMICs).Methods: This is a multinational, multicentre, prospective cohort study embedded in the ISARIC-WHO COVID-19 Clinical Characterisation Protocol. Patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who required hospital admission were recruited prospectively. Patients treated with HFNC, NIV, or IMV within the first 24 h of hospital admission were included in this study. Descriptive statistics, random forest, and logistic regression analyses were used to describe clinical characteristics and compare clinical outcomes among patients treated with the different types of advanced respiratory support.Results: A total of 66,565 patients were included in this study. Overall, 82.6% of patients were treated in HIC, and 40.6% were admitted to the hospital during the first pandemic wave. During the first 24 h after hospital admission, patients in HICs were more frequently treated with HFNC (48.0%), followed by NIV (38.6%) and IMV (13.4%). In contrast, patients admitted in lower- and middle-income countries (LMICs) were less frequently treated with HFNC (16.1%) and the majority received IMV (59.1%). The failure rate of non-invasive respiratory support (i.e. HFNC or NIV) was 15.5%, of which 71.2% were from HIC and 28.8% from LMIC. The variables most strongly associated with non-invasive ventilation failure, defined as progression to IMV, were high leukocyte counts at hospital admission (OR [95%CI]; 5.86 [4.83-7.10]), treatment in an LMIC (OR [95%CI]; 2.04 [1.97-2.11]), and tachypnoea at hospital admission (OR [95%CI]; 1.16 [1.14-1.18]). Patients who failed HFNC/NIV had a higher 28-day fatality ratio (OR [95%CI]; 1.27 [1.25-1.30]).Conclusions: In the present international cohort, the most frequently used advanced respiratory support was the HFNC. However, IMV was used more often in LMIC. Higher leucocyte count, tachypnoea, and treatment in LMIC were risk factors for HFNC/NIV failure. HFNC/NIV failure was related to worse clinical outcomes, such as 28-day mortality. Trial registration This is a prospective observational study; therefore, no health care interventions were applied to participants, and trial registration is not applicable