Who gets the ventilator? A multicentre survey of intensivists' opinions of triage during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic

Background The COVID-19 pandemic has caused a shortage of intensive care resources. Intensivists' opinion of triage and ventilator allocation during the COVID-19 pandemic is not well described. Methods This was a survey concerning patient numbers, bed capacity, triage guidelines, and three virtual cases involving ventilator allocations. Physicians from 400 ICUs in a research network were invited to participate. Preferences were assessed with a five-point Likert scale. Additionally, age, gender, work experience, geography, and religion were recorded. Results Of 437 responders 31% were female. The mean age was 44.4 (SD 11.1) with a mean ICU experience of 13.7 (SD 10.5) years. Respondents were mostly European (88%). Sixty-six percent had triage guidelines available. Younger patients and caretakers of children were favoured for ventilator allocation although this was less clear if this involved withdrawal of the ventilator from another patient. Decisions did not differ with ICU experience, gender, religion, or guideline availability. Consultation of colleagues or an ethical committee decreased with age and male gender. Conclusion Intensivists appeared to prioritise younger patients for ventilator allocation. The tendency to consult colleagues about triage decreased with age and male gender. Many found such tasks to be not purely medical and that authorities should assume responsibility for triage during resource scarcity.publishedVersio

The impact of age-related syndromes on ICU process and outcomes in very old patients

In this narrative review, we describe the most important age-related "syndromes" found in the old ICU patients. The syndromes are frailty, comorbidity, cognitive decline, malnutrition, sarcopenia, loss of functional autonomy, immunosenescence and inflam-ageing. The underlying geriatric condition, together with the admission diagnosis and the acute severity contribute to the short-term, but also to the long-term prognosis. Besides mortality, functional status and quality of life are major outcome variables. The geriatric assessment is a key tool for long-term qualitative outcome, while immediate severity accounts for acute mortality. A poor functional baseline reduces the chances of a successful outcome following ICU. This review emphasises the importance of using a geriatric assessment and considering the older patient as a whole, rather than the acute illness in isolation, when making decisions regarding intensive care treatment

Critical care beyond organ support: the importance of geriatric rehabilitation

Very old critically ill patients pose a growing challenge for intensive care. Critical illness and the burden of treatment in the intensive care unit (ICU) can lead to a long-lasting decline of functional and cognitive abilities, especially in very old patients. Multi-complexity and increased vulnerability to stress in these patients may lead to new and worsening disabilities, requiring careful assessment, prevention and rehabilitation. The potential for rehabilitation, which is crucial for optimal functional outcomes, requires a systematic, multi-disciplinary approach and careful long-term planning during and following ICU care. We describe this process and provide recommendations and checklists for comprehensive and timely assessments in the context of transitioning patients from ICU to post-ICU and acute hospital care, and review the barriers to the provision of good functional outcomes

Limiting life-sustaining treatment for very old ICU patients: cultural challenges and diverse practices

BACKGROUND: Decisions about life-sustaining therapy (LST) in the intensive care unit (ICU) depend on predictions of survival as well as the expected functional capacity and self-perceived quality of life after discharge, especially in very old patients. However, prognostication for individual patients in this cohort is hampered by substantial uncertainty which can lead to a large variability of opinions and, eventually, decisions about LST. Moreover, decision-making processes are often embedded in a framework of ethical and legal recommendations which may vary between countries resulting in divergent management strategies. METHODS: Based on a vignette scenario of a multi-morbid 87-year-old patient, this article illustrates the spectrum of opinions about LST among intensivsts with a special interest in very old patients, from ten countries/regions, representing diverse cultures and healthcare systems. RESULTS: This survey of expert opinions and national recommendations demonstrates shared principles in the management of very old ICU patients. Some guidelines also acknowledge cultural differences between population groups. Although consensus with families should be sought, shared decision-making is not formally required or practised in all countries. CONCLUSIONS: This article shows similarities and differences in the decision-making for LST in very old ICU patients and recommends strategies to deal with prognostic uncertainty. Conflicts should be anticipated in situations where stakeholders have different cultural beliefs. There is a need for more collaborative research and training in this field

Prognosticating the outcome of intensive care in older patients—a narrative review

Prognosis determines major decisions regarding treatment for critically ill patients. Statistical models have been developed to predict the probability of survival and other outcomes of intensive care. Although they were trained on the characteristics of large patient cohorts, they often do not represent very old patients (age ≥ 80 years) appropriately. Moreover, the heterogeneity within this particular group impairs the utility of statistical predictions for informing decision-making in very old individuals. In addition to these methodological problems, the diversity of cultural attitudes, available resources as well as variations of legal and professional norms limit the generalisability of prediction models, especially in patients with complex multi-morbidity and pre-existing functional impairments. Thus, current approaches to prognosticating outcomes in very old patients are imperfect and can generate substantial uncertainty about optimal trajectories of critical care in the individual. This article presents the state of the art and new approaches to predicting outcomes of intensive care for these patients. Special emphasis has been given to the integration of predictions into the decision-making for individual patients. This requires quantification of prognostic uncertainty and a careful alignment of decisions with the preferences of patients, who might prioritise functional outcomes over survival. Since the performance of outcome predictions for the individual patient may improve over time, time-limited trials in intensive care may be an appropriate way to increase the confidence in decisions about life-sustaining treatment

The role of clinical phenotypes in decisions to limit life-sustaining treatment for very old patients in the ICU

BACKGROUND: Limiting life-sustaining treatment (LST) in the intensive care unit (ICU) by withholding or withdrawing interventional therapies is considered appropriate if there is no expectation of beneficial outcome. Prognostication for very old patients is challenging due to the substantial biological and functional heterogeneity in that group. We have previously identified seven phenotypes in that cohort with distinct patterns of acute and geriatric characteristics. This study investigates the relationship between these phenotypes and decisions to limit LST in the ICU. METHODS: This study is a post hoc analysis of the prospective observational VIP2 study in patients aged 80 years or older admitted to ICUs in 22 countries. The VIP2 study documented demographic, acute and geriatric characteristics as well as organ support and decisions to limit LST in the ICU. Phenotypes were identified by clustering analysis of admission characteristics. Patients who were assigned to one of seven phenotypes (n = 1268) were analysed with regard to limitations of LST. RESULTS: The incidence of decisions to withhold or withdraw LST was 26.5% and 8.1%, respectively. The two phenotypes describing patients with prominent geriatric features and a phenotype representing the oldest old patients with low severity of the critical condition had the largest odds for withholding decisions. The discriminatory performance of logistic regression models in predicting limitations of LST after admission to the ICU was the best after combining phenotype, ventilatory support and country as independent variables. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical phenotypes on ICU admission predict limitations of LST in the context of cultural norms (country). These findings can guide further research into biases and preferences involved in the decision-making about LST. Trial registration Clinical Trials NCT03370692 registered on 12 December 2017

Differences in mortality in critically ill elderly patients during the second COVID-19 surge in Europe

The primary aim of this study was to assess the outcome of elderly intensive care unit (ICU) patients treated during the spring and autumn COVID-19 surges in Europe. This was a prospective European observational study (the COVIP study) in ICU patients aged 70 years and older admitted with COVID-19 disease from March to December 2020 to 159 ICUs in 14 European countries. An electronic database was used to register a number of parameters including: SOFA score, Clinical Frailty Scale, co-morbidities, usual ICU procedures and survival at 90 days. The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04321265). In total, 2625 patients were included, 1327 from the first and 1298 from the second surge. Median age was 74 and 75 years in surge 1 and 2, respectively. SOFA score was higher in the first surge (median 6 versus 5, p < 0.0001). The PaO/FiO ratio at admission was higher during surge 1, and more patients received invasive mechanical ventilation (78% versus 68%, p < 0.0001). During the first 15 days of treatment, survival was similar during the first and the second surge. Survival was lower in the second surge after day 15 and differed after 30 days (57% vs 50%) as well as after 90 days (51% vs 40%). An unexpected, but significant, decrease in 30-day and 90-day survival was observed during the second surge in our cohort of elderly ICU patients. The reason for this is unclear. Our main concern is whether the widespread changes in practice and treatment of COVID-19 between the two surges have contributed to this increased mortality in elderly patients. Further studies are urgently warranted to provide more evidence for current practice in elderly patients. , registered March 19th, 2020. The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13054-021-03739-7

Variations in end-of-life care practices in older critically ill patients with COVID-19 in Europe

BACKGROUND: Previous studies reported regional differences in end-of-life care (EoLC) for critically ill patients in Europe. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this post-hoc analysis of the prospective multi-centre COVIP study was to investigate variations in EoLC practices among older patients in intensive care units during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. METHODS: A total of 3105 critically ill patients aged 70 years and older were enrolled in this study (Central Europe: n = 1573; Northern Europe: n = 821; Southern Europe: n = 711). Generalised estimation equations were used to calculate adjusted odds ratios (aOR) to population averages. Data were adjusted for patient-specific variables (demographic, disease-specific) and health economic data (GDP, health expenditure per capita). The primary outcome was any treatment limitation, and 90-day-mortality was a secondary outcome. RESULTS: The frequency of the primary endpoint (treatment limitation) was highest in Northern Europe (48%), intermediate in Central Europe (39%), and lowest in Southern Europe (24%). The likelihood for treatment limitations was lower in Southern than in Central Europe (aOR 0.39; 95%CI 0.21-0.73; p = 0.004), even after multivariable adjustment, whereas no statistically significant differences were observed between Northern and Central Europe (aOR 0.57; 95%CI 0.27-1.22; p = 0.15). After multivariable adjustment, no statistically relevant mortality differences were found between Northern and Central Europe (aOR 1.29; 95%CI 0.80-2.09; p = 0.30) or between Southern and Central Europe (aOR 1.07; 95%CI 0.66-1.73; p = 0.78). CONCLUSION: This study shows a north-to-south gradient in rates of treatment limitation in Europe, highlighting the heterogeneity of EoLC practices across countries. However, mortality rates were not affected by these results. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.publishersversionepub_ahead_of_prin

The association of the Activities of Daily Living and the outcome of old intensive care patients suffering from COVID-19

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. This study was endorsed by the ESICM. Free support for running the electronic database and was granted from the dep. of Epidemiology, University of Aarhus, Denmark. Bruno et al. Annals of Intensive Care (2022) 12:26 Page 10 of 11 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 Programme call H2020-INFRAEOSC-05-2018-2019, grant agreement number 831644. This work was supported by the Collaborative Research Center SFB 1116 (German Research Foundation, DFG) and by the Forschungskommission of the Medical Faculty of the Heinrich-Heine-University Düsseldorf and No. 2020–21 to RRB for a Clinician Scientist Track. No (industry) sponsorship has been received for this investigator-initiated study.PURPOSE: Critically ill old intensive care unit (ICU) patients suffering from Sars-CoV-2 disease (COVID-19) are at increased risk for adverse outcomes. This post hoc analysis investigates the association of the Activities of Daily Living (ADL) with the outcome in this vulnerable patient group. METHODS: The COVIP study is a prospective international observational study that recruited ICU patients ≥ 70 years admitted with COVID-19 (NCT04321265). Several parameters including ADL (ADL; 0 = disability, 6 = no disability), Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS), SOFA score, intensive care treatment, ICU- and 3-month survival were recorded. A mixed-effects Weibull proportional hazard regression analyses for 3-month mortality adjusted for multiple confounders. RESULTS: This pre-specified analysis included 2359 patients with a documented ADL and CFS. Most patients evidenced independence in their daily living before hospital admission (80% with ADL = 6). Patients with no frailty and no disability showed the lowest, patients with frailty (CFS ≥ 5) and disability (ADL < 6) the highest 3-month mortality (52 vs. 78%, p < 0.001). ADL was independently associated with 3-month mortality (ADL as a continuous variable: aHR 0.88 (95% CI 0.82-0.94, p < 0.001). Being "disable" resulted in a significant increased risk for 3-month mortality (aHR 1.53 (95% CI 1.19-1.97, p 0.001) even after adjustment for multiple confounders. CONCLUSION: Baseline Activities of Daily Living (ADL) on admission provides additional information for outcome prediction, although most critically ill old intensive care patients suffering from COVID-19 had no restriction in their ADL prior to ICU admission. Combining frailty and disability identifies a subgroup with particularly high mortality. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04321265.publishersversionpublishe

A retrospective cohort study comparing differences in 30-day mortality among critically ill patients aged ≥ 70 years treated in European tax-based healthcare systems (THS) versus social health insurance systems.

In Europe, tax-based healthcare systems (THS) and social health insurance systems (SHI) coexist. We examined differences in 30-day mortality among critically ill patients aged ≥ 70 years treated in intensive care units in a THS or SHI. Retrospective cohort study. 2406 (THS n = 886; SHI n = 1520) critically ill ≥ 70 years patients in 129 ICUs. Generalized estimation equations with robust standard errors were chosen to create population average adjusted odds ratios (aOR). Data were adjusted for patient-specific variables, organ support and health economic data. The primary outcome was 30-day-mortality. Numerical differences between SHI and THS in SOFA scores (6 ± 3 vs. 5 ± 3; p = 0.002) were observed, but clinical frailty scores were similar (> 4; 17% vs. 14%; p = 0.09). Higher rates of renal replacement therapy (18% vs. 11%; p < 0.001) were found in SHI (aOR 0.61 95%CI 0.40-0.92; p = 0.02). No differences regarding intubation rates (68% vs. 70%; p = 0.33), vasopressor use (67% vs. 67%; p = 0.90) and 30-day-mortality rates (47% vs. 50%; p = 0.16) were found. Mortality remained similar between both systems after multivariable adjustment and sensitivity analyses. The retrospective character of this study. Baseline risk and mortality rates were similar between SHI and THS. The type of health care system does not appear to have played a role in the intensive care treatment of critically ill patients ≥ 70 years with COVID-19 in Europe