Dataset Information

Prioritisation of ICU treatments for critically ill patients in a COVID-19 pandemic with scarce resources.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Relying on capacity increases and patient transfers to deal with the huge and continuous inflow of COVID-19 critically ill patients is a strategy limited by finite human and logistical resources. RATIONALE:Prioritising both critical care initiation and continuation is paramount to save the greatest number of lives. It enables to allocate scarce resources in priority to those with the highest probability of benefiting from them. It is fully ethical provided it relies on objective and widely shared criteria, thus preventing arbitrary decisions and guaranteeing equity. Prioritisation seeks to fairly allocate treatments, maximise saved lives, gain indirect life benefits from prioritising exposed healthcare and similar workers, give priority to those most penalised as a last resort, and apply similar prioritisation schemes to all patients. PRIORITISATION STRATEGY:Prioritisation schemes and their criteria are adjusted to the level of resource scarcity: strain (level A) or saturation (level B). Prioritisation yields a four level priority for initiation or continuation of critical care: P1-high priority, P2-intermediate priority, P3-not needed, P4-not appropriate. Prioritisation schemes take into account the patient's wishes, clinical frailty, pre-existing chronic condition, along with severity and evolution of acute condition. Initial priority level must be reassessed, at least after 48h once missing decision elements are available, at the typical turning point in the disease's natural history (ICU days 7 to 10 for COVID-19), and each time resource scarcity levels change. For treatments to be withheld or withdrawn, a collegial decision-making process and information of patient and/or next of kin are paramount. PERSPECTIVE:Prioritisation strategy is bound to evolve with new knowledge and with changes within the epidemiological situation.

SUBMITTER: Leclerc T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7230138 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Prioritisation of ICU treatments for critically ill patients in a COVID-19 pandemic with scarce resources.

Leclerc Thomas T Donat Nicolas N Donat Alexis A Pasquier Pierre P Libert Nicolas N Schaeffer Elodie E D'Aranda Erwan E Cotte Jean J Fontaine Bruno B Perrigault Pierre-François PF Michel Fabrice F Muller Laurent L Meaudre Eric E Veber Benoît B

Anaesthesia, critical care & pain medicine 20200517 3

<h4>Background</h4>Relying on capacity increases and patient transfers to deal with the huge and continuous inflow of COVID-19 critically ill patients is a strategy limited by finite human and logistical resources.<h4>Rationale</h4>Prioritising both critical care initiation and continuation is paramount to save the greatest number of lives. It enables to allocate scarce resources in priority to those with the highest probability of benefiting from them. It is fully ethical provided it relies on ...[more]

PMID: 32426441

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionOn February 25, 2020, the first 2 patients were tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus‑2 (SARS-CoV-2) in Tyrol, Austria. Rapid measures were taken to ensure adequate intensive care unit (ICU) preparedness for a surge of critically ill coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) patients.MethodsThis cohort study included all COVID-19 patients admitted to an ICU with confirmed or strongly suspected COVID-19 in the State of Tyrol, Austria. Patients were recorded in the Tyrolean COVID-19 intensive care registry. Date of final follow-up was July 17, 2020.ResultsA total of 106 critically ill patients with COVID-19 were admitted to 1 of 13 ICUs in Tyrol from March 9 to July 17, 2020. Median age was 64 years (interquartile range, IQR 54-74 years) and the majority of patients were male (76 patients, 71.7%). Median simplified acute physiology score III (SAPS III) was 56 points (IQR 49-64 points). The median duration from appearance of first symptoms to ICU admission was 8 days (IQR 5-11 days). Invasive mechanical ventilation was required in 72 patients (67.9%) and 6 patients (5.6%) required extracorporeal membrane oxygenation treatment. Renal replacement therapy was necessary in 21 patients (19.8%). Median ICU length of stay (LOS) was 18 days (IQR 5-31 days), median hospital LOS was 27 days (IQR 13-49 days). The ICU mortality was 21.7% (23 patients), hospital mortality was 22.6%. There was no significant difference in ICU mortality in patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation and in those not receiving it (18.1% vs. 29.4%, p = 0.284). As of July 17th, 2020, two patients are still hospitalized, one in an ICU, one on a general ward.ConclusionCritically ill COVID-19 patients in Tyrol showed high severity of disease often requiring complex treatment with increased lengths of ICU and hospital stay. Nevertheless, the mortality was found to be remarkably low, which may be attributed to our adaptive surge response providing sufficient ICU resources.

Project description:Background: Data regarding delivery of evidence-based care to critically ill patients in Intensive Care Units (ICU) during the COVID-19 pandemic is crucial but lacking. This study aimed to evaluate the implementation rate of the ABCDEF bundle, which is a collection of six evidence-based ICU care initiatives which are strongly recommended to be incorporated into clinical practice, and ICU diaries for patients with and without COVID-19 infections in ICUs, and to analyze the impact of COVID-19 on implementation of each element of the bundle and independent associated factors. Methods: A world-wide 1-day point prevalence study investigated the delivery of the ABCDEF bundle and ICU diary to patients without or with COVID-19 infections on 27 January 2021 via an online questionnaire. Multivariable logistic regression analysis with adjustment for patient demographics evaluated the impact of COVID-19 and identified factors in ICU administrative structures and policies independently associated with delivery. Results: From 54 countries and 135 ICUs, 1,229 patients were eligible, and 607 (49%) had COVID-19 infections. Implementation rates were: entire bundle (without COVID-19: 0% and with COVID-19: 1%), Element A (regular pain assessment: 64 and 55%), Element B (both spontaneous awakening and breathing trials: 17 and 10%), Element C (regular sedation assessment: 45 and 61%), Element D (regular delirium assessment: 39 and 35%), Element E (exercise: 22 and 25%), Element F (family engagement/empowerment: 16 and 30%), and ICU diary (17 and 21%). The presence of COVID-19 was not associated with failure to implement individual elements. Independently associated factors for each element in common between the two groups included presence of a specific written protocol, application of a target/goal, and tele-ICU management. A lower income status country and a 3:1 nurse-patient ratio were significantly associated with non-implementation of elements A, C, and D, while a lower income status country was also associated with implementation of element F. Conclusions: Regardless of COVID-19 infection status, implementation rates for the ABCDEF bundle, for each element individually and an ICU diary were extremely low for patients without and with COVID-19 infections during the pandemic. Strategies to facilitate implementation of and adherence to the complete ABCDEF bundle should be optimized and addressed based on unit-specific barriers and facilitators.

Dataset Information

Prioritisation of ICU treatments for critically ill patients in a COVID-19 pandemic with scarce resources.

Publications

Prioritisation of ICU treatments for critically ill patients in a COVID-19 pandemic with scarce resources.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure