The COVISIT international survey

Funding Information: This project was conducted without funding. Guy Francois is an employee of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM) and as such his time working on the project and access to SurveyMonkey platform was supported by ESICM.Alexis Tabah has nothing to disclose, Muhammed Elhadi has nothing to disclose, Emma Ballard has nothing to disclose, Andrea Cortegiani has nothing to disclose, Maurizio Cecconi reports personal fees from Edwards Lifesciences, Directed Systems, Takeshi Unoki has nothing to disclose, Laurą Galarza has nothing to disclose, Regis Goulart Rosa has received research grants from the Brazilian Ministry of Health to conduct studies on the topic of ICU visiting policies, Francois Barbier reported consulting and lecture fees, conference invitation from MSD and lecture fees from BioMérieux, Elie Azoulay reports receiving fees for lectures from Gilead, Pfizer, Baxter, and Alexion. His research group has been supported by Ablynx, Fisher & Payckle, Jazz Pharma, and MSD, outside the submitted work, Kevin B Laupland has nothing to disclose, Nathalie Ssi Yan Kai has nothing to disclose, Marlies Ostermann has nothing to disclose, Guy Francois has nothing to disclose, Jan J De Waele reports grants from Research Foundation Flanders, during the conduct of the study; other from Pfizer, other from MSD, outside the submitted work, Kirsten Fiest has nothing to disclose, Peter Spronk has nothing to disclose, Julie Benbenishty has nothing to disclose, Mariangela Pellegrini has nothing to disclose, Louise Rose is a co-founder of Life Lines, a philanthropic COVID-19 rapid response project that received charitable donations to enable provision of 4G enabled Android tablets and a bespoke virtual visiting solution to ICUs across the UK. LR has no financial or commercial interests in Life Lines or the virtual visiting solution. Major philanthropic contributors to Life Lines include Google, True Colours and the Gatsby Trust. British Telecom contributed in-kind time and resources to facilitate the supply of 4G enabled tablets to UK ICUs. Funding Information: Alexis Tabah has nothing to disclose, Muhammed Elhadi has nothing to disclose, Emma Ballard has nothing to disclose, Andrea Cortegiani has nothing to disclose, Maurizio Cecconi reports personal fees from Edwards Lifesciences, Directed Systems, Takeshi Unoki has nothing to disclose, Laurą Galarza has nothing to disclose, Regis Goulart Rosa has received research grants from the Brazilian Ministry of Health to conduct studies on the topic of ICU visiting policies, Francois Barbier reported consulting and lecture fees, conference invitation from MSD and lecture fees from BioMérieux, Elie Azoulay reports receiving fees for lectures from Gilead, Pfizer, Baxter, and Alexion. His research group has been supported by Ablynx , Fisher & Payckle, Jazz Pharma, and MSD, outside the submitted work, Kevin B Laupland has nothing to disclose, Nathalie Ssi Yan Kai has nothing to disclose, Marlies Ostermann has nothing to disclose, Guy Francois has nothing to disclose, Jan J De Waele reports grants from Research Foundation Flanders, during the conduct of the study; other from Pfizer, other from MSD, outside the submitted work, Kirsten Fiest has nothing to disclose, Peter Spronk has nothing to disclose, Julie Benbenishty has nothing to disclose, Mariangela Pellegrini has nothing to disclose, Louise Rose is a co-founder of Life Lines, a philanthropic COVID-19 rapid response project that received charitable donations to enable provision of 4G enabled Android tablets and a bespoke virtual visiting solution to ICUs across the UK. LR has no financial or commercial interests in Life Lines or the virtual visiting solution. Major philanthropic contributors to Life Lines include Google, True Colours and the Gatsby Trust. British Telecom contributed in-kind time and resources to facilitate the supply of 4G enabled tablets to UK ICUs. Publisher Copyright: © 2022 Elsevier Inc.Background: During the COVID-19 pandemic, intensive care units (ICU) introduced restrictions to in-person family visiting to safeguard patients, healthcare personnel, and visitors. Methods: We conducted a web-based survey (March–July 2021) investigating ICU visiting practices before the pandemic, at peak COVID-19 ICU admissions, and at the time of survey response. We sought data on visiting policies and communication modes including use of virtual visiting (videoconferencing). Results: We obtained 667 valid responses representing ICUs in all continents. Before the pandemic, 20% (106/525) had unrestricted visiting hours; 6% (30/525) did not allow in-person visiting. At peak, 84% (558/667) did not allow in-person visiting for patients with COVID-19; 66% for patients without COVID-19. This proportion had decreased to 55% (369/667) at time of survey reporting. A government mandate to restrict hospital visiting was reported by 53% (354/646). Most ICUs (55%, 353/615) used regular telephone updates; 50% (306/667) used telephone for formal meetings and discussions regarding prognosis or end-of-life. Virtual visiting was available in 63% (418/667) at time of survey. Conclusions: Highly restrictive visiting policies were introduced at the initial pandemic peaks, were subsequently liberalized, but without returning to pre-pandemic practices. Telephone became the primary communication mode in most ICUs, supplemented with virtual visits.publishersversionpublishe

Consent is a confounding factor in a prospective observational study of critically ill elderly patients.

During analysis of a prospective multinational observation study of critically ill patients ≥80 years of age, the VIP2 study, we also studied the effects of differences in country consent for study inclusion. This is a post hoc analysis where the ICUs were analyzed according to requirement for study consent. Group A: ICUs in countries with no requirement for consent at admission but with deferred consent in survivors. Group B: ICUs where some form of active consent at admission was necessary either from the patient or surrogates. Patients' characteristics, the severity of disease and outcome variables were compared. Totally 3098 patients were included from 21 countries. The median age was 84 years (IQR 81-87). England was not included because of changing criteria for consent during the study period. Group A (7 countries, 1200 patients), and group B (15 countries, 1898 patients) were comparable with age and gender distribution. Cognition was better preserved prior to admission in group B. Group A suffered from more organ dysfunction at admission compared to group B with Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score median 8 and 6 respectively. ICU survival was lower in group A, 66.2% compared to 78.4% in group B (p<0.001). We hence found profound effects on outcomes according to differences in obtaining consent for this study. It seems that the most severely ill elderly patients were less often recruited to the study in group B. Hence the outcome measured as survival was higher in this group. We therefore conclude that consent likely is an important confounding factor for outcome evaluation in international studies focusing on old patients

Sex-specific outcomes in COVID-19: missing pieces of the puzzle

publishersversioninpres

In reply: Sex-specific outcomes in COVID-19: missing pieces of the puzzle.

publishersversioninpres

Association of chronic heart failure with mortality in old intensive care patients suffering from Covid-19

Funding: This study was endorsed by the ESICM. Free support for running the electronic database was granted from the Department of Epidemiology, Aarhus University, Denmark. The support of the study in France by a grant from ‘Fondation Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris pour la recherche’ is greatly appreciated. In Norway, the study was supported by a grant from the Health Region West. In addition, the study was supported by a grant from the European Open Science Cloud (EOSC). EOSCsecretariat.eu has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Framework Programme called H2020-INFRAEOSC-05-2018-2019, Grant Agreement Number 831644. This work was supported by the Forschungskommission of the Medical Faculty of the Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, No. 2018-32 to G.W. and No. 2020-21 to R.R.B. for a Clinician Scientist Track. Open access funding was enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. No (industry) sponsorship has been received for this investigator-initiated study.AIMS: Chronic heart failure (CHF) is a major risk factor for mortality in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This prospective international multicentre study investigates the role of pre-existing CHF on clinical outcomes of critically ill old (≥70 years) intensive care patients with COVID-19. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with pre-existing CHF were subclassified as having ischaemic or non-ischaemic cardiac disease; patients with a documented ejection fraction (EF) were subclassified according to heart failure EF: reduced (HFrEF, n = 132), mild (HFmrEF, n = 91), or preserved (HFpEF, n = 103). Associations of heart failure characteristics with the 30 day mortality were analysed in univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses. Pre-existing CHF was reported in 566 of 3917 patients (14%). Patients with CHF were older, frailer, and had significantly higher SOFA scores on admission. CHF patients showed significantly higher crude 30 day mortality [60% vs. 48%, P < 0.001; odds ratio 1.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.5-2.3] and 3 month mortality (69% vs. 56%, P < 0.001). After multivariate adjustment for confounders (SOFA, age, sex, and frailty), no independent association of CHF with mortality remained [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.2, 95% CI 0.5-1.5; P = 0.137]. More patients suffered from pre-existing ischaemic than from non-ischaemic disease [233 vs. 328 patients (n = 5 unknown aetiology)]. There were no differences in baseline characteristics between ischaemic and non-ischaemic disease or between HFrEF, HFmrEF, and HFpEF. Crude 30 day mortality was significantly higher in HFrEF compared with HFpEF (64% vs. 48%, P = 0.042). EF as a continuous variable was not independently associated with 30 day mortality (aOR 0.98, 95% CI 0.9-1.0; P = 0.128). CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill older COVID-19 patients, pre-existing CHF was not independently associated with 30 day mortality. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04321265.publishersversionepub_ahead_of_prin

Consent is a confounding factor in a prospective observational study of critically ill elderly patients.

During analysis of a prospective multinational observation study of critically ill patients ≥80 years of age, the VIP2 study, we also studied the effects of differences in country consent for study inclusion. This is a post hoc analysis where the ICUs were analyzed according to requirement for study consent. Group A: ICUs in countries with no requirement for consent at admission but with deferred consent in survivors. Group B: ICUs where some form of active consent at admission was necessary either from the patient or surrogates. Patients' characteristics, the severity of disease and outcome variables were compared. Totally 3098 patients were included from 21 countries. The median age was 84 years (IQR 81-87). England was not included because of changing criteria for consent during the study period. Group A (7 countries, 1200 patients), and group B (15 countries, 1898 patients) were comparable with age and gender distribution. Cognition was better preserved prior to admission in group B. Group A suffered from more organ dysfunction at admission compared to group B with Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score median 8 and 6 respectively. ICU survival was lower in group A, 66.2% compared to 78.4% in group B (p<0.001). We hence found profound effects on outcomes according to differences in obtaining consent for this study. It seems that the most severely ill elderly patients were less often recruited to the study in group B. Hence the outcome measured as survival was higher in this group. We therefore conclude that consent likely is an important confounding factor for outcome evaluation in international studies focusing on old patients

Treatment of anastomotic leak after oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer:large, collaborative, observational TENTACLE cohort study

Background: Anastomotic leak is a severe complication after oesophagectomy. Anastomotic leak has diverse clinical manifestations and the optimal treatment strategy is unknown. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of treatment strategies for different manifestations of anastomotic leak after oesophagectomy. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was performed in 71 centres worldwide and included patients with anastomotic leak after oesophagectomy (2011-2019). Different primary treatment strategies were compared for three different anastomotic leak manifestations: interventional versus supportive-only treatment for local manifestations (that is no intrathoracic collections; well perfused conduit); drainage and defect closure versus drainage only for intrathoracic manifestations; and oesophageal diversion versus continuity-preserving treatment for conduit ischaemia/necrosis. The primary outcome was 90-day mortality. Propensity score matching was performed to adjust for confounders. Results: Of 1508 patients with anastomotic leak, 28.2 per cent (425 patients) had local manifestations, 36.3 per cent (548 patients) had intrathoracic manifestations, 9.6 per cent (145 patients) had conduit ischaemia/necrosis, 17.5 per cent (264 patients) were allocated after multiple imputation, and 8.4 per cent (126 patients) were excluded. After propensity score matching, no statistically significant differences in 90-day mortality were found regarding interventional versus supportive-only treatment for local manifestations (risk difference 3.2 per cent, 95 per cent c.i. -1.8 to 8.2 per cent), drainage and defect closure versus drainage only for intrathoracic manifestations (risk difference 5.8 per cent, 95 per cent c.i. -1.2 to 12.8 per cent), and oesophageal diversion versus continuity-preserving treatment for conduit ischaemia/necrosis (risk difference 0.1 per cent, 95 per cent c.i. -21.4 to 1.6 per cent). In general, less morbidity was found after less extensive primary treatment strategies. Conclusion: Less extensive primary treatment of anastomotic leak was associated with less morbidity. A less extensive primary treatment approach may potentially be considered for anastomotic leak. Future studies are needed to confirm current findings and guide optimal treatment of anastomotic leak after oesophagectomy.</p

Twelve-month observational study of children with cancer in 41 countries during the COVID-19 pandemic

Introduction Childhood cancer is a leading cause of death. It is unclear whether the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted childhood cancer mortality. In this study, we aimed to establish all-cause mortality rates for childhood cancers during the COVID-19 pandemic and determine the factors associated with mortality. Methods Prospective cohort study in 109 institutions in 41 countries. Inclusion criteria: children &lt;18 years who were newly diagnosed with or undergoing active treatment for acute lymphoblastic leukaemia, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, Hodgkin lymphoma, retinoblastoma, Wilms tumour, glioma, osteosarcoma, Ewing sarcoma, rhabdomyosarcoma, medulloblastoma and neuroblastoma. Of 2327 cases, 2118 patients were included in the study. The primary outcome measure was all-cause mortality at 30 days, 90 days and 12 months. Results All-cause mortality was 3.4% (n=71/2084) at 30-day follow-up, 5.7% (n=113/1969) at 90-day follow-up and 13.0% (n=206/1581) at 12-month follow-up. The median time from diagnosis to multidisciplinary team (MDT) plan was longest in low-income countries (7 days, IQR 3-11). Multivariable analysis revealed several factors associated with 12-month mortality, including low-income (OR 6.99 (95% CI 2.49 to 19.68); p&lt;0.001), lower middle income (OR 3.32 (95% CI 1.96 to 5.61); p&lt;0.001) and upper middle income (OR 3.49 (95% CI 2.02 to 6.03); p&lt;0.001) country status and chemotherapy (OR 0.55 (95% CI 0.36 to 0.86); p=0.008) and immunotherapy (OR 0.27 (95% CI 0.08 to 0.91); p=0.035) within 30 days from MDT plan. Multivariable analysis revealed laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (OR 5.33 (95% CI 1.19 to 23.84); p=0.029) was associated with 30-day mortality. Conclusions Children with cancer are more likely to die within 30 days if infected with SARS-CoV-2. However, timely treatment reduced odds of death. This report provides crucial information to balance the benefits of providing anticancer therapy against the risks of SARS-CoV-2 infection in children with cancer

Early mobilisation in critically ill COVID-19 patients:a subanalysis of the ESICM-initiated UNITE-COVID observational study

Background Early mobilisation (EM) is an intervention that may improve the outcome of critically ill patients. There is limited data on EM in COVID-19 patients and its use during the first pandemic wave. Methods This is a pre-planned subanalysis of the ESICM UNITE-COVID, an international multicenter observational study involving critically ill COVID-19 patients in the ICU between February 15th and May 15th, 2020. We analysed variables associated with the initiation of EM (within 72 h of ICU admission) and explored the impact of EM on mortality, ICU and hospital length of stay, as well as discharge location. Statistical analyses were done using (generalised) linear mixed-effect models and ANOVAs. Results Mobilisation data from 4190 patients from 280 ICUs in 45 countries were analysed. 1114 (26.6%) of these patients received mobilisation within 72 h after ICU admission; 3076 (73.4%) did not. In our analysis of factors associated with EM, mechanical ventilation at admission (OR 0.29; 95% CI 0.25, 0.35; p = 0.001), higher age (OR 0.99; 95% CI 0.98, 1.00; p &lt;= 0.001), pre-existing asthma (OR 0.84; 95% CI 0.73, 0.98; p = 0.028), and pre-existing kidney disease (OR 0.84; 95% CI 0.71, 0.99; p = 0.036) were negatively associated with the initiation of EM. EM was associated with a higher chance of being discharged home (OR 1.31; 95% CI 1.08, 1.58; p = 0.007) but was not associated with length of stay in ICU (adj. difference 0.91 days; 95% CI - 0.47, 1.37, p = 0.34) and hospital (adj. difference 1.4 days; 95% CI - 0.62, 2.35, p = 0.24) or mortality (OR 0.88; 95% CI 0.7, 1.09, p = 0.24) when adjusted for covariates. Conclusions Our findings demonstrate that a quarter of COVID-19 patients received EM. There was no association found between EM in COVID-19 patients' ICU and hospital length of stay or mortality. However, EM in COVID-19 patients was associated with increased odds of being discharged home rather than to a care facility

A world-wide study on delirium assessments and presence of protocols

Acknowledgement of collaborative authors: The “WDAD Study Team” comprises of 158 non-author collaborators. They are listed in Appendix 1a in the Supplementary Data. The authors would like to gratefully acknowledge the many participating clinicians for supporting the 2023 WDAD Study Team and survey. They are named in Appendix 1b in the Supplementary Data.Peer reviewe