Cost of intensive care in a Norwegian University hospital 1997–1999

AIM: The present study was performed in order to document costs of intensive care in a Norwegian university hospital and to perform an average cost-effectiveness study using the expected remaining life-years in survivors after 18 months. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients admitted to the general intensive care unit (ICU) at Haukeland University Hospital from 1997 to 1999 were followed up to 18 months post ICU using data from the Norwegian Peoples' registry. Our ICU patients have a further mortality equal to the average population in Norway from that time. By creating an age-matched and sex-matched sample of the general Norwegian population equal to survivors 18 months after ICU treatment, we could find the expected further survival time for each ICU survivor. Direct and indirect ICU expenses in the study period were retrieved using a 'top-down' method. Outcome assessment was performed using the total ICU expenses in the period divided by the sum of the life expectancy (years) in survivors after 18 months. RESULTS: The total ICU costs (converted to 2001 values) were € 16,697,415, excluding the costs of radiology and the use of operating theatres, which were both impossible to retrieve. A total of 1051 patients were treated, of whom 60.9% survived up to 18 months. Further total life expectancies were 24,428 years. The average costs of an ICU day and stay per patient were € 2601 and € 14,223, respectively, and the average cost per year of survival per patient was € 684. DISCUSSION: The absolute costs were found to be higher than recent European ICU studies reporting on the cost of ICU treatment. However, the price of a further life-year in survivors was lower and was comparable with other medical treatment

Long-term survival and quality of life after intensive care for patients 80 years of age or older

Background: Comparison of survival and quality of life in a mixed ICU population of patients 80 years of age or older with a matched segment of the general population. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed survival of ICU patients ≥80 years admitted to the Haukeland University Hospital in 2000–2012. We prospectively used the EuroQol-5D to compare the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) between survivors at follow-up and an age- and gender-matched general population. Follow-up was 1–13.8 years. Results: The included 395 patients (mean age 83.8 years, 61.0 % males) showed an overall survival of 75.9 (ICU), 59.5 (hospital), and 42.0 % 1 year after the ICU. High ICU mortality was predicted by age, mechanical ventilator support, SAPS II, maximum SOFA, and multitrauma with head injury. High hospital mortality was predicted by an unplanned surgical admission. One-year mortality was predicted by respiratory failure and isolated head injury. We found no differences in HRQOL at follow-up between survivors (n = 58) and control subjects (n = 179) or between admission categories. Of the ICU non-survivors, 63.2 % died within 2 days after ICU admission (n = 60), and 68.3 % of these had life-sustaining treatment (LST) limitations. LST limitations were applied for 71.3 % (n = 114) of the hospital non-survivors (ICU 70.5 % (n = 67); post-ICU 72.3 % (n = 47)). Conclusions: Overall 1-year survival was 42.0 %. Survival rates beyond that were comparable to those of the general octogenarian population. Among survivors at follow-up, HRQOL was comparable to that of the age- and sex-matched general population. Patients admitted for planned surgery had better short- and long-term survival rates than those admitted for medical reasons or unplanned surgery for 3 years after ICU admittance. The majority of the ICU non-survivors died within 2 days, and most of these had LST limitation decisions

Thrombocytopaenia in the critically ill

publishedVersio

Validation of a point-of-care capillary lactate measuring device (Lactate Pro 2)

Background The measurement of lactate in emergency medical services has the potential for earlier detection of shock and can be performed with a point-of-care handheld device. Validation of a point-of-care handheld device is required for prehospital implementation. Aim The primary aim was to validate the accuracy of Lactate Pro 2 in healthy volunteers and in haemodynamically compromised intensive care patients. The secondary aim was to evaluate which sample site, fingertip or earlobe, is most accurate compared to arterial lactate. Methods Arterial, venous and capillary blood samples from fingertips and earlobes were collected from intensive care patients and healthy volunteers. Arterial and venous blood lactate samples were analysed on a stationary hospital blood gas analyser (ABL800 Flex) as the reference device and compared to the Lactate Pro 2. We used the Bland-Altman method to calculate the limits of agreement and used mixed effect models to compare instruments and sample sites. A total of 49 intensive care patients with elevated lactate and 11 healthy volunteers with elevated lactate were included. Results There was no significant difference in measured lactate between Lactate Pro 2 and the reference method using arterial blood in either the healthy volunteers or the intensive care patients. Capillary lactate measurement in the fingertip and earlobe of intensive care patients was 47% (95% CI (29 to 68%), p < 0.001) and 27% (95% CI (11 to 45%), p < 0.001) higher, respectively, than the corresponding arterial blood lactate. In the healthy volunteers, we found that capillary blood lactate in the fingertip was 14% higher than arterial blood lactate (95% CI (4 to 24%), p = 0.003) and no significant difference between capillary blood lactate in the earlobe and arterial blood lactate. Conclusion Our results showed that the handheld Lactate Pro 2 had good agreement with the reference method using arterial blood in both intensive care patients and healthy volunteers. However, we found that the agreement was poorer using venous blood in both groups. Furthermore, the earlobe may be a better sample site than the fingertip in intensive care patients.publishedVersio

Length of hospital stay and risk of intensive care admission and in-hospital death among COVID-19 patients in Norway: a register-based cohort study comparing patients fully vaccinated with an mRNA vaccine to unvaccinated patients

Objectives We estimated the length of stay (LoS) in hospital and the intensive care unit (ICU) and risk of admission to ICU and in-hospital death among COVID-19 patients ≥18 years in Norway who had been fully vaccinated with an mRNA vaccine (at least two doses or one dose and previous SARS-CoV-2 infection), compared to unvaccinated patients. Methods Using national registry data, we analyzed SARS-CoV-2–positive patients hospitalized in Norway between 1 February and 30 November 2021, with COVID-19 as the main cause of hospitalization. We ran Cox proportional hazards models adjusting for vaccination status, age, sex, county of residence, regional health authority, date of admission, country of birth, virus variant, and underlying risk factors. Results We included 716 fully vaccinated patients (crude overall median LoS: 5.2 days; admitted to ICU: 103 (14%); in-hospital death: 86 (13%)) and 2487 unvaccinated patients (crude overall median LoS: 5.0 days; admitted to ICU: 480 (19%); in-hospital death: 102 (4%)). In adjusted models, fully vaccinated patients had a shorter overall LoS in hospital (adjusted log hazard ratios (aHR) for discharge: 1.61, 95% CI: 1.24–2.08), shorter LoS without ICU (aHR: 1.27, 95% CI: 1.07–1.52), and lower risk of ICU admission (aHR: 0.50, 95% CI: 0.37–0.69) compared to unvaccinated patients. We observed no difference in the LoS in ICU or in risk of in-hospital death between fully vaccinated and unvaccinated patients. Discussion Fully vaccinated patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in Norway have a shorter LoS and lower risk of ICU admission than unvaccinated patients. These findings can support patient management and ongoing capacity planning in hospitals.publishedVersio

No difference in risk of hospitalization between reported cases of the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant and Alpha variant in Norway

Objectives To estimate the risk of hospitalization among reported cases of the Delta variant of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) compared with the Alpha variant in Norway, and the risk of hospitalization by vaccination status. Methods A cohort study was conducted on laboratory-confirmed cases of SARS-CoV-2 in Norway, diagnosed between 3 May and 15 August 2021. Adjusted risk ratios (aRR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using multi-variable log-binomial regression, accounting for variant, vaccination status, demographic characteristics, week of sampling and underlying comorbidities. Results In total, 7977 cases of the Delta variant and 12,078 cases of the Alpha variant were included in this study. Overall, 347 (1.7%) cases were hospitalized. The aRR of hospitalization for the Delta variant compared with the Alpha variant was 0.97 (95% CI 0.76–1.23). Partially vaccinated cases had a 72% reduced risk of hospitalization (95% CI 59–82%), and fully vaccinated cases had a 76% reduced risk of hospitalization (95% CI 61–85%) compared with unvaccinated cases. Conclusions No difference was found between the risk of hospitalization for Delta cases and Alpha cases in Norway. The results of this study support the notion that partially and fully vaccinated cases are highly protected against hospitalization with coronavirus disease 2019.publishedVersio

A descriptive study of the surge response and outcomes of ICU patients with COVID-19 during first wave in Nordic countries

Abstract Background We sought to provide a description of surge response strategies and characteristics, clinical management and outcomes of patients with severe COVID-19 in the intensive care unit (ICU) during the first wave of the pandemic in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden. Methods Representatives from the national ICU registries for each of the five countries provided clinical data and a description of the strategies to allocate ICU resources and increase the ICU capacity during the pandemic. All adult patients admitted to the ICU for COVID-19 disease during the first wave of COVID-19 were included. The clinical characteristics, ICU management and outcomes of individual countries were described with descriptive statistics. Results Most countries more than doubled their ICU capacity during the pandemic. For patients positive for SARS-CoV-2, the ratio of requiring ICU admission for COVID-19 varied substantially (1.6-6.7%). Apart from age (proportion of patients aged 65 years or over between 29-62%), baseline characteristics, chronic comorbidity burden and acute presentations of COVID-19 disease were similar among the five countries. While utilization of invasive mechanical ventilation was high (59-85%) in all countries, the proportion of patients receiving renal replacement therapy (7-26%) and various experimental therapies for COVID-19 disease varied substantially (e.g. use of hydroxychloroquine 0-85%). Crude ICU mortality ranged from 11% to 33%. Conclusion There was substantial variability in the critical care response in Nordic ICUs to the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic, including usage of experimental medications. While ICU mortality was low in all countries, the observed variability warrants further attention.Peer reviewe

Reduced risk of hospitalisation among reported COVID-19 cases infected with the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.1 variant compared with the Delta variant, Norway, December 2021 to January 2022

We included 39,524 COVID-19 Omicron and 51,481 Delta cases reported in Norway from December 2021 to January 2022. We estimated a 73% reduced risk of hospitalisation (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.27; 95% confidence interval: 0.20–0.36) for Omicron compared with Delta. Compared with unvaccinated groups, Omicron cases who had completed primary two-dose vaccination 7–179 days before diagnosis had a lower reduced risk than Delta (66% vs 93%). People vaccinated with three doses had a similar risk reduction (86% vs 88%).publishedVersio

Increased risk of hospitalisation and intensive care admission associated with reported cases of SARS-CoV-2 variants B.1.1.7 and B.1.351 in Norway, December 2020-May 2021

Introduction Since their emergence, SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VOC) B.1.1.7 and B.1.351 have spread worldwide. We estimated the risk of hospitalisation and admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for infections with B.1.1.7 and B.1.351 in Norway, compared to infections with non-VOC. Materials and methods Using linked individual-level data from national registries, we conducted a cohort study on laboratory-confirmed cases of SARS-CoV-2 in Norway diagnosed between 28 December 2020 and 2 May 2021. Variants were identified based on whole genome sequencing, partial sequencing by Sanger sequencing or PCR screening for selected targets. The outcome was hospitalisation or ICU admission. We calculated adjusted risk ratios (aRR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using multivariable binomial regression to examine the association between SARS-CoV-2 variants B.1.1.7 and B.1.351 with i) hospital admission and ii) ICU admission compared to non-VOC. Results We included 23,169 cases of B.1.1.7, 548 B.1.351 and 4,584 non-VOC. Overall, 1,017 cases were hospitalised (3.6%) and 206 admitted to ICU (0.7%). B.1.1.7 was associated with a 1.9-fold increased risk of hospitalisation (aRR 95%CI 1.6–2.3) and a 1.8-fold increased risk of ICU admission (aRR 95%CI 1.2–2.8) compared to non-VOC. Among hospitalised cases, no difference was found in the risk of ICU admission between B.1.1.7 and non-VOC. B.1.351 was associated with a 2.4-fold increased risk of hospitalisation (aRR 95%CI 1.7–3.3) and a 2.7-fold increased risk of ICU admission (aRR 95%CI 1.2–6.5) compared to non-VOC. Discussion Our findings add to the growing evidence of a higher risk of severe disease among persons infected with B.1.1.7 or B.1.351. This highlights the importance of prevention and control measures to reduce transmission of these VOC in society, particularly ongoing vaccination programmes, and preparedness plans for hospital surge capacity.publishedVersio

Respiratory dysfunction three months after severe COVID-19 is associated with gut microbiota alterations

Background: Although coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is primarily a respiratory infection, mounting evidence suggests that the gastrointestinal (GI) tract is involved in the disease, with gut barrier dysfunction and gut microbiota alterations being related to disease severity. Whether these alterations persist and are related to long-term respiratory dysfunction remains unknown. Methods: Plasma was collected during hospital admission and after three months from the NOR-Solidarity trial (n = 181) and analysed for markers of gut barrier dysfunction and inflammation. At the three-month follow-up, pulmonary function was assessed by measuring the diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO ). Rectal swabs for gut microbiota analyses were collected (n = 97) and analysed by sequencing the 16S rRNA gene. Results: Gut microbiota diversity was reduced in COVID-19 patients with respiratory dysfunction, defined as DLCO below the lower limit of normal three months after hospitalisation. These patients also had an altered global gut microbiota composition, with reduced relative abundance of 20 bacterial taxa and increased abundance of five taxa, including Veillonella, potentially linked to fibrosis. During hospitalisation, increased plasma levels of lipopolysaccharide-binding protein (LBP) were strongly associated with respiratory failure, defined as pO2 /fiO2 -(P/F ratio)Respiratory dysfunction three months after severe COVID-19 is associated with gut microbiota alterationsacceptedVersio