Weekends affect mortality risk and chance of discharge in critically ill patients: a retrospective study in the Austrian registry for intensive care.

BACKGROUND: In this study, we primarily investigated whether ICU admission or ICU stay at weekends (Saturday and Sunday) is associated with a different risk of ICU mortality or chance of ICU discharge than ICU admission or ICU stay on weekdays (Monday to Friday). Secondarily, we analysed whether weekend ICU admission or ICU stay influences risk of hospital mortality or chance of hospital discharge. METHODS: A retrospective study was performed for all adult patients admitted to 119 ICUs participating in the benchmarking project of the Austrian Centre for Documentation and Quality Assurance in Intensive Care (ASDI) between 2012 and 2015. Readmissions to the ICU during the same hospital stay were excluded. RESULTS: In a multivariable competing risk analysis, a strong weekend effect was observed. Patients admitted to ICUs on Saturday or Sunday had a higher mortality risk after adjustment for severity of illness by Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) 3, year, month of the year, type of admission, ICU, and weekday of death or discharge. Hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) for death in the ICU following admission on a Saturday or Sunday compared with Wednesday were 1.15 (1.08-1.23) and 1.11 (1.03-1.18), respectively. Lower hazard ratios were observed for dying on a Saturday (0.93 (0.87-1.00)) or Sunday (0.85 (0.80-0.91)) compared with Wednesday. This is probably related to the reduced chance of being discharged from the ICU at the weekend (0.63 (0.62-064) for Saturday and 0.56 (0.55-0.57) for Sunday). Similar results were found for hospital mortality and hospital discharge following ICU admission. CONCLUSIONS: Patients admitted to ICUs at weekends are at increased risk of death in both the ICU and the hospital even after rigorous adjustment for severity of illness. Conversely, death in the ICU and discharge from the ICU are significantly less likely at weekends

SAPS 3—From evaluation of the patient to evaluation of the intensive care unit. Part 1: Objectives, methods and cohort description

OBJECTIVE: Risk adjustment systems now in use were developed more than a decade ago and lack prognostic performance. Objective of the SAPS 3 study was to collect data about risk factors and outcomes in a heterogeneous cohort of intensive care unit (ICU) patients, in order to develop a new, improved model for risk adjustment. DESIGN: Prospective multicentre, multinational cohort study. PATIENTS AND SETTING: A total of 19,577 patients consecutively admitted to 307 ICUs from 14 October to 15 December 2002. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Data were collected at ICU admission, on days 1, 2 and 3, and the last day of the ICU stay. Data included sociodemographics, chronic conditions, diagnostic information, physiological derangement at ICU admission, number and severity of organ dysfunctions, length of ICU and hospital stay, and vital status at ICU and hospital discharge. Data reliability was tested with use of kappa statistics and intraclass-correlation coefficients, which were >0.85 for the majority of variables. Completeness of the data was also satisfactory, with 1 [0–3] SAPS II parameter missing per patient. Prognostic performance of the SAPS II was poor, with significant differences between observed and expected mortality rates for the overall cohort and four (of seven) defined regions, and poor calibration for most tested subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: The SAPS 3 study was able to provide a high-quality multinational database, reflecting heterogeneity of current ICU case-mix and typology. The poor performance of SAPS II in this cohort underscores the need for development of a new risk adjustment system for critically ill patients. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: Electronic supplementary material is included in the online fulltext version of this article and accessible for authorised users: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00134-005-2762-

Elective surgery cancellations due to the COVID-19 pandemic: global predictive modelling to inform surgical recovery plans.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted routine hospital services globally. This study estimated the total number of adult elective operations that would be cancelled worldwide during the 12 weeks of peak disruption due to COVID-19. METHODS: A global expert response study was conducted to elicit projections for the proportion of elective surgery that would be cancelled or postponed during the 12 weeks of peak disruption. A Bayesian β-regression model was used to estimate 12-week cancellation rates for 190 countries. Elective surgical case-mix data, stratified by specialty and indication (surgery for cancer versus benign disease), were determined. This case mix was applied to country-level surgical volumes. The 12-week cancellation rates were then applied to these figures to calculate the total number of cancelled operations. RESULTS: The best estimate was that 28 404 603 operations would be cancelled or postponed during the peak 12 weeks of disruption due to COVID-19 (2 367 050 operations per week). Most would be operations for benign disease (90·2 per cent, 25 638 922 of 28 404 603). The overall 12-week cancellation rate would be 72·3 per cent. Globally, 81·7 per cent of operations for benign conditions (25 638 922 of 31 378 062), 37·7 per cent of cancer operations (2 324 070 of 6 162 311) and 25·4 per cent of elective caesarean sections (441 611 of 1 735 483) would be cancelled or postponed. If countries increased their normal surgical volume by 20 per cent after the pandemic, it would take a median of 45 weeks to clear the backlog of operations resulting from COVID-19 disruption. CONCLUSION: A very large number of operations will be cancelled or postponed owing to disruption caused by COVID-19. Governments should mitigate against this major burden on patients by developing recovery plans and implementing strategies to restore surgical activity safely

Association of immediate versus delayed extubation of patients admitted to intensive care units postoperatively and outcomes: A retrospective study.

Aim of this studyThis study seeks to investigate, whether extubation of tracheally intubated patients admitted to intensive care units (ICU) postoperatively either immediately at the day of admission (day 1) or delayed at the first postoperative day (day 2) is associated with differences in outcomes.Materials and methodsWe performed a retrospective analysis of data from an Austrian ICU registry. Adult patients admitted between January 1st, 2012 and December 31st, 2019 following elective and emergency surgery, who were intubated at the day 1 and were extubated at day 1 or day 2, were included. We performed logistic regression analyses for in-hospital mortality and over-sedation or agitation following extubation.Results52 982 patients constituted the main study population. 1 231 (3.3%) patients extubated at day 1 and 958 (5.9%) at day 2 died in hospital, 464 (1.3%) patients extubated at day 1 and 613 (3.8%) at day 2 demonstrated agitation or over-sedation after extubation during ICU stay; OR (95% CI) for in-hospital mortality were OR 1.17 (1.01-1.35, p = 0.031) and OR 2.15 (1.75-2.65, pConclusionsWe conclude that immediate extubation as soon as deemed feasible by clinicians is associated with favourable outcomes and may thus be considered preferable in tracheally intubated patients admitted to ICU postoperatively

Nationwide analysis of hospital admissions and outcomes of patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection in Austria in 2020 and 2021

Abstract This retrospective study evaluated temporal and regional trends of patient admissions to hospitals, intensive care units (ICU), and intermediate care units (IMCU) as well as outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic in Austria. We analysed anonymous data from patients admitted to Austrian hospitals with COVID-19 between January 1st, 2020 and December 31st, 2021. We performed descriptive analyses and logistic regression analyses for in-hospital mortality, IMCU or ICU admission, and in-hospital mortality following ICU admission. 68,193 patients were included, 8304 (12.3%) were primarily admitted to ICU, 3592 (5.3%) to IMCU. Hospital mortality was 17.3%; risk factors were male sex (OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.60–1.75, p < 0.001) and high age (OR 7.86, 95% CI 7.07–8.74, p < 0.001 for 90+ vs. 60–64 years). Mortality was higher in the first half of 2020 (OR 1.15, 95% CI 1.04–1.27, p = 0.01) and the second half of 2021 (OR 1.11, 95% CI 1.05–1.17, p < 0.001) compared to the second half of 2020 and differed regionally. ICU or IMCU admission was most likely between 55 and 74 years, and less likely in younger and older age groups. We find mortality in Austrian COVID-19-patients to be almost linearly associated with age, ICU admission to be less likely in older individuals, and outcomes to differ between regions and over time

SAPS 3--From evaluation of the patient to evaluation of the intensive care unit. Part 2 : Development of a prognostic model for hospital mortality at ICU admission

OBJECTIVE: To develop a model to assess severity of illness and predict vital status at hospital discharge based on ICU admission data. DESIGN: Prospective multicentre, multinational cohort study. PATIENTS AND SETTING: A total of 16,784 patients consecutively admitted to 303 intensive care units from 14 October to 15 December 2002. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: ICU admission data (recorded within +/-1 h) were used, describing: prior chronic conditions and diseases; circumstances related to and physiologic derangement at ICU admission. Selection of variables for inclusion into the model used different complementary strategies. For cross-validation, the model-building procedure was run five times, using randomly selected four fifths of the sample as a development- and the remaining fifth as validation-set. Logistic regression methods were then used to reduce complexity of the model. Final estimates of regression coefficients were determined by use of multilevel logistic regression. Variables selection and weighting were further checked by bootstraping (at patient level and at ICU level). Twenty variables were selected for the final model, which exhibited good discrimination (aROC curve 0.848), without major differences across patient typologies. Calibration was also satisfactory (Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test H=10.56, p=0.39, C=14.29, p=0.16). Customized equations for major areas of the world were computed and demonstrate a good overall goodness-of-fit. CONCLUSIONS: The SAPS 3 admission score is able to predict vital status at hospital discharge with use of data recorded at ICU admission. Furthermore, SAPS 3 conceptually dissociates evaluation of the individual patient from evaluation of the ICU and thus allows them to be assessed at their respective reference levels

Year in review in intensive care medicine, 2005. III. Nutrition, pediatric and neonatal critical care, and experimental

This review intends to summarize all articles published in Intensive Care Medicine in 2005, grouped by specific topics

Variations in end-of-life practices in intensive care units worldwide (Ethicus-2): a prospective observational study.

BACKGROUND End-of-life practices vary among intensive care units (ICUs) worldwide. Differences can result in variable use of disproportionate or non-beneficial life-sustaining interventions across diverse world regions. This study investigated global disparities in end-of-life practices. METHODS In this prospective, multinational, observational study, consecutive adult ICU patients who died or had a limitation of life-sustaining treatment (withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining therapy and active shortening of the dying process) during a 6-month period between Sept 1, 2015, and Sept 30, 2016, were recruited from 199 ICUs in 36 countries. The primary outcome was the end-of-life practice as defined by the end-of-life categories: withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining therapy, active shortening of the dying process, or failed cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Patients with brain death were included in a separate predefined end-of-life category. Data collection included patient characteristics, diagnoses, end-of-life decisions and their timing related to admission and discharge, or death, with comparisons across different regions. Patients were studied until death or 2 months from the first limitation decision. FINDINGS Of 87 951 patients admitted to ICU, 12 850 (14·6%) were included in the study population. The number of patients categorised into each of the different end-of-life categories were significantly different for each region (p<0·001). Limitation of life-sustaining treatment occurred in 10 401 patients (11·8% of 87 951 ICU admissions and 80·9% of 12 850 in the study population). The most common limitation was withholding life-sustaining treatment (5661 [44·1%]), followed by withdrawing life-sustaining treatment (4680 [36·4%]). More treatment withdrawing was observed in Northern Europe (1217 [52·8%] of 2305) and Australia/New Zealand (247 [45·7%] of 541) than in Latin America (33 [5·8%] of 571) and Africa (21 [13·0%] of 162). Shortening of the dying process was uncommon across all regions (60 [0·5%]). One in five patients with treatment limitations survived hospitalisation. Death due to failed CPR occurred in 1799 (14%) of the study population, and brain death occurred in 650 (5·1%). Failure of CPR occurred less frequently in Northern Europe (85 [3·7%] of 2305), Australia/New Zealand (23 [4·3%] of 541), and North America (78 [8·5%] of 918) than in Africa (106 [65·4%] of 162), Latin America (160 [28·0%] of 571), and Southern Europe (590 [22·5%] of 2622). Factors associated with treatment limitations were region, age, and diagnoses (acute and chronic), and country end-of-life legislation. INTERPRETATION Limitation of life-sustaining therapies is common worldwide with regional variability. Withholding treatment is more common than withdrawing treatment. Variations in type, frequency, and timing of end-of-life decisions were observed. Recognising regional differences and the reasons behind these differences might help improve end-of-life care worldwide. FUNDING None