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

Noninvasive ventilation in COVID-19 patients aged ≥ 70 years-a prospective multicentre cohort study.

BACKGROUND Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) is a promising alternative to invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) with a particular importance amidst the shortage of intensive care unit (ICU) beds during the COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to evaluate the use of NIV in Europe and factors associated with outcomes of patients treated with NIV. METHODS This is a substudy of COVIP study-an international prospective observational study enrolling patients aged ≥ 70 years with confirmed COVID-19 treated in ICU. We enrolled patients in 156 ICUs across 15 European countries between March 2020 and April 2021.The primary endpoint was 30-day mortality. RESULTS Cohort included 3074 patients, most of whom were male (2197/3074, 71.4%) at the mean age of 75.7 years (SD 4.6). NIV frequency was 25.7% and varied from 1.1 to 62.0% between participating countries. Primary NIV failure, defined as need for endotracheal intubation or death within 30 days since ICU admission, occurred in 470/629 (74.7%) of patients. Factors associated with increased NIV failure risk were higher Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score (OR 3.73, 95% CI 2.36-5.90) and Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) on admission (OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.06-2.00). Patients initially treated with NIV (n = 630) lived for 1.36 fewer days (95% CI - 2.27 to - 0.46 days) compared to primary IMV group (n = 1876). CONCLUSIONS Frequency of NIV use varies across European countries. Higher severity of illness and more severe frailty were associated with a risk of NIV failure among critically ill older adults with COVID-19. Primary IMV was associated with better outcomes than primary NIV. Clinical Trial Registration NCT04321265 , registered 19 March 2020, https://clinicaltrials.gov

Diabetes mellitus is associated with 90-day mortality in old critically ill COVID-19 patients: a multicenter prospective observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Several studies have found an association between diabetes mellitus, disease severity and outcome in COVID-19 patients. Old critically ill patients are particularly at risk. This study aimed to investigate the impact of diabetes mellitus on 90-day mortality in a high-risk cohort of critically ill patients over 70 years of age. METHODS: This multicentre international prospective cohort study was performed in 151 ICUs across 26 countries. We included patients ≥ 70 years of age with a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection admitted to the intensive care unit from 19th March 2020 through 15th July 2021. Patients were categorized into two groups according to the presence of diabetes mellitus. Primary outcome was 90-day mortality. Kaplan-Meier overall survival curves until day 90 were analysed and compared using the log-rank test. Mixed-effect Weibull regression models were computed to investigate the influence of diabetes mellitus on 90-day mortality. RESULTS: This study included 3420 patients with a median age of 76 years were included. Among these, 37.3% (n = 1277) had a history of diabetes mellitus. Patients with diabetes showed higher rates of frailty (32% vs. 18%) and several comorbidities including chronic heart failure (20% vs. 11%), hypertension (79% vs. 59%) and chronic kidney disease (25% vs. 11%), but not of pulmonary comorbidities (22% vs. 22%). The 90-day mortality was significantly higher in patients with diabetes than those without diabetes (64% vs. 56%, p < 0.001). The association of diabetes and 90-day mortality remained significant (HR 1.18 [1.06-1.31], p = 0.003) after adjustment for age, sex, SOFA-score and other comorbidities in a Weibull regression analysis. CONCLUSION: Diabetes mellitus was a relevant risk factor for 90-day mortality in old critically ill patients with COVID-19. STUDY REGISTRATION: NCT04321265, registered March 19th, 2020

Outcomes of patients aged ≥80 years with respiratory failure initially treated with non-invasive ventilation in European intensive care units before and during COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) has been commonly used to treat acute respiratory failure due to COVID-19. In this study we aimed to compare outcomes of older critically ill patients treated with NIV before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We analysed a merged cohort of older adults admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) due to respiratory failure. Patients were enrolled into one of two prospective observational studies: before COVID-19 (VIP2-2018 to 2019) and admitted due to COVID-19 (COVIP-March 2020 to January 2023). The outcomes included: 30-day mortality, intubation rate and NIV failure (death or intubation within 30 days). RESULTS: The final cohort included 1986 patients (1292 from VIP2, 694 from COVIP) with a median age of 83 years. NIV was used as a primary mode of respiratory support in 697 participants (35.1%). ICU admission due to COVID-19 was associated with an increased 30-day mortality (65.5% vs. 36.5%, HR 2.18, 95% CI 1.71 to 2.77), more frequent intubation (36.9% vs. 17.5%, OR 2.63, 95% CI 1.74 to 3.99) and NIV failure (76.2% vs. 45.3%, OR 4.21, 95% CI 2.84 to 6.34) compared to non-COVID causes of respiratory failure. Sensitivity analysis after exclusion of patients in whom life supporting treatment limitation was introduced during primary NIV confirmed higher 30-day mortality in patients with COVID-19 (52.5% vs. 23.4%, HR 2.64, 95% CI 1.83 to 3.80). CONCLUSION: The outcomes of patients aged ≥80 years treated with NIV during COVID-19 pandemic were worse compared then those treated with NIV in the pre-pandemic era

Increased 30-Day Mortality in Very Old ICU Patients with COVID-19 Compared to Patients with Respiratory Failure without COVID-19

Purpose: The number of patients ≥ 80 years admitted into critical care is increasing. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) added another challenge for clinical decisions for both admission and limitation of life-sustaining treatments (LLST). We aimed to compare the characteristics and mortality of very old critically ill patients with or without COVID-19 with a focus on LLST. Methods: Patients 80 years or older with acute respiratory failure were recruited from the VIP2 and COVIP studies. Baseline patient characteristics, interventions in intensive care unit (ICU) and outcomes (30-day survival) were recorded. COVID patients were matched to non-COVID patients based on the following factors: age (± 2 years), Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score (± 2 points), clinical frailty scale (± 1 point), gender and region on a 1:2 ratio. Specific ICU procedures and LLST were compared between the cohorts by means of cumulative incidence curves taking into account the competing risk of discharge and death. Results: 693 COVID patients were compared to 1393 non-COVID patients. COVID patients were younger, less frail, less severely ill with lower SOFA score, but were treated more often with invasive mechanical ventilation (MV) and had a lower 30-day survival. 404 COVID patients could be matched to 666 non-COVID patients. For COVID patients, withholding and withdrawing of LST were more frequent than for non-COVID and the 30-day survival was almost half compared to non-COVID patients. Conclusion: Very old COVID patients have a different trajectory than non-COVID patients. Whether this finding is due to a decision policy with more active treatment limitation or to an inherent higher risk of death due to COVID-19 is unclear.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Sarilumab in patients admitted to hospital with severe or critical COVID-19: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial

Background: Elevated proinflammatory cytokines are associated with greater COVID-19 severity. We aimed to assess safety and efficacy of sarilumab, an interleukin-6 receptor inhibitor, in patients with severe (requiring supplemental oxygen by nasal cannula or face mask) or critical (requiring greater supplemental oxygen, mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal support) COVID-19. Methods: We did a 60-day, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multinational phase 3 trial at 45 hospitals in Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, Russia, and Spain. We included adults (≥18 years) admitted to hospital with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and pneumonia, who required oxygen supplementation or intensive care. Patients were randomly assigned (2:2:1 with permuted blocks of five) to receive intravenous sarilumab 400 mg, sarilumab 200 mg, or placebo. Patients, care providers, outcome assessors, and investigators remained masked to assigned intervention throughout the course of the study. The primary endpoint was time to clinical improvement of two or more points (seven point scale ranging from 1 [death] to 7 [discharged from hospital]) in the modified intention-to-treat population. The key secondary endpoint was proportion of patients alive at day 29. Safety outcomes included adverse events and laboratory assessments. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04327388; EudraCT, 2020-001162-12; and WHO, U1111-1249-6021. Findings: Between March 28 and July 3, 2020, of 431 patients who were screened, 420 patients were randomly assigned and 416 received placebo (n=84 [20%]), sarilumab 200 mg (n=159 [38%]), or sarilumab 400 mg (n=173 [42%]). At day 29, no significant differences were seen in median time to an improvement of two or more points between placebo (12·0 days [95% CI 9·0 to 15·0]) and sarilumab 200 mg (10·0 days [9·0 to 12·0]; hazard ratio [HR] 1·03 [95% CI 0·75 to 1·40]; log-rank p=0·96) or sarilumab 400 mg (10·0 days [9·0 to 13·0]; HR 1·14 [95% CI 0·84 to 1·54]; log-rank p=0·34), or in proportions of patients alive (77 [92%] of 84 patients in the placebo group; 143 [90%] of 159 patients in the sarilumab 200 mg group; difference −1·7 [−9·3 to 5·8]; p=0·63 vs placebo; and 159 [92%] of 173 patients in the sarilumab 400 mg group; difference 0·2 [−6·9 to 7·4]; p=0·85 vs placebo). At day 29, there were numerical, non-significant survival differences between sarilumab 400 mg (88%) and placebo (79%; difference +8·9% [95% CI −7·7 to 25·5]; p=0·25) for patients who had critical disease. No unexpected safety signals were seen. The rates of treatment-emergent adverse events were 65% (55 of 84) in the placebo group, 65% (103 of 159) in the sarilumab 200 mg group, and 70% (121 of 173) in the sarilumab 400 mg group, and of those leading to death 11% (nine of 84) were in the placebo group, 11% (17 of 159) were in the sarilumab 200 mg group, and 10% (18 of 173) were in the sarilumab 400 mg group. Interpretation: This trial did not show efficacy of sarilumab in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 and receiving supplemental oxygen. Adequately powered trials of targeted immunomodulatory therapies assessing survival as a primary endpoint are suggested in patients with critical COVID-19. Funding: Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals

Relationship between the Clinical Frailty Scale and short-term mortality in patients ≥ 80 years old acutely admitted to the ICU: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) is frequently used to measure frailty in critically ill adults. There is wide variation in the approach to analysing the relationship between the CFS score and mortality after admission to the ICU. This study aimed to evaluate the influence of modelling approach on the association between the CFS score and short-term mortality and quantify the prognostic value of frailty in this context. METHODS: We analysed data from two multicentre prospective cohort studies which enrolled intensive care unit patients ≥ 80 years old in 26 countries. The primary outcome was mortality within 30-days from admission to the ICU. Logistic regression models for both ICU and 30-day mortality included the CFS score as either a categorical, continuous or dichotomous variable and were adjusted for patient's age, sex, reason for admission to the ICU, and admission Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score. RESULTS: The median age in the sample of 7487 consecutive patients was 84 years (IQR 81-87). The highest fraction of new prognostic information from frailty in the context of 30-day mortality was observed when the CFS score was treated as either a categorical variable using all original levels of frailty or a nonlinear continuous variable and was equal to 9% using these modelling approaches (p < 0.001). The relationship between the CFS score and mortality was nonlinear (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Knowledge about a patient's frailty status adds a substantial amount of new prognostic information at the moment of admission to the ICU. Arbitrary simplification of the CFS score into fewer groups than originally intended leads to a loss of information and should be avoided. Trial registration NCT03134807 (VIP1), NCT03370692 (VIP2)