Dataset Information

One-Year Outcomes of Postintensive Care Syndrome in Critically Ill Coronavirus Disease 2019 Patients: A Single Institutional Study.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Postintensive care syndrome has a strong impact on coronavirus disease 2019 survivors.

Objectives

Assess the 1-year prevalence of postintensive care syndrome after coronavirus disease 2019.

Design setting and participants

This was a single-center prospective cohort using questionnaires and telephone calls from 4 months to 1 year after ICU discharge. Patients who were treated for coronavirus disease 2019-related acute respiratory distress between March 19, 2020, and April 30, 2020, participated.

Main outcomes and measures

Postintensive care syndrome was evaluated according to physical, mental, and cognitive domains. We surveyed the 8-item standardized Short Form questionnaire for assessing physical postintensive care syndrome; the Impact of Event Scale-Revised and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale for assessing mental postintensive care syndrome; and Short-Memory Questionnaire for assessing cognitive postintensive care syndrome. The primary outcome was postintensive care syndrome occurrence of any domain at 1 year. Furthermore, the co-occurrence of the three postintensive care syndrome domains was assessed.

Results

Eighteen patients consented to the study and completed the survey. The median age was 57.5 years, and 78% of the patients were male. Median Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation-II score was 18. During ICU stay, 78% received invasive mechanical ventilation, and 83% received systemic steroid administration. Early mobilization was implemented in 61%. Delirium occurred in 44%. The median days of ICU and hospital stay were 6 and 23.5, respectively. Overall postintensive care syndrome occurrence was 67%. Physical, mental, and cognitive postintensive care syndrome occurred in 56%, 50%, and 33% of patients, respectively. The co-occurrence of all three domains of postintensive care syndrome was 28%. Age and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation-II scores were higher, and systemic steroids were more commonly used in the postintensive care syndrome groups compared with the nonpostintensive care syndrome groups. Chronic symptoms were more common in the postintensive care syndrome groups than the nonpostintensive care syndrome groups.

Conclusions and relevance

Patients who suffered critical illness from coronavirus disease 2019 had a high frequency of postintensive care syndrome after 1 year. Long-term follow-up and care should be continuously offered.

SUBMITTER: Banno A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8718183 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesCoronavirus disease 2019 is associated with high mortality rates and multiple organ damage. There is increasing evidence that these patients are at risk for various cardiovascular insults; however, there are currently no guidelines for the diagnosis and management of such cardiovascular complications in patients with coronavirus disease 2019. We share data and recommendations from a multidisciplinary team to highlight our institution's clinical experiences and guidelines for managing cardiovascular complications of coronavirus disease 2019.Design setting and patientsThis was a retrospective cohort study of patients admitted to one of six ICUs dedicated to the care of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 located in three hospitals within one academic medical center in Atlanta, Georgia.Measurements/interventionsChart review was conducted for sociodemographic, laboratory, and clinical data. Rates of specific cardiovascular complications were assessed, and data were analyzed using a chi-square or Wilcoxon rank-sum test for categorical and continuous variables. Additionally, certain cases are presented to demonstrate the sub committee's recommendations.Main resultsTwo-hundred eighty-eight patients were admitted to the ICU with coronavirus disease 2019. Of these, 86 died (29.9%), 242 (84.03%) had troponin elevation, 70 (24.31%) had dysrhythmias, four (1.39%) had ST-elevation myocardial infarction, eight (2.78%) developed cor pulmonale, and 190 (65.97%) with shock. There was increased mortality risk in patients with greater degrees of troponin elevation (p < 0.001) and with the development of arrhythmias (p < 0.001), cor pulmonale (p < 0.001), and shock (p < 0.001).ConclusionsWhile there are guidelines for the diagnosis and management of pulmonary complications of coronavirus disease 2019, there needs to be more information regarding the management of cardiovascular complications as well. These recommendations garnered from the coronavirus disease 2019 cardiology subcommittee from our institution will add to the existing knowledge of these potential cardiovascular insults as well as highlight suggestions for the diagnosis and management of the range of cardiovascular complications of coronavirus disease 2019. Additionally, with the spread of coronavirus disease 2019, our case-based recommendations provide a bedside resource for providers newly caring for patients with coronavirus disease 2019.

Project description:Studying interhospital transfer of critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 pneumonia in the spring 2020 surge may help inform future pandemic management.ObjectivesTo compare outcomes for mechanically ventilated patients with coronavirus disease 2019 transferred to a tertiary referral center with increased surge capacity with patients admitted from the emergency department.Design setting participantsObservational cohort study of single center urban academic medical center ICUs. All patients admitted and discharged with coronavirus disease 2019 pneumonia who received invasive ventilation between March 17, 2020, and October 14, 2020.Main outcome and measuresDemographic and clinical variables were obtained from the electronic medical record. Patients were classified as emergency department admits or interhospital transfers. Regression models tested the association between transfer status and survival, adjusting for demographics and presentation severity.ResultsIn total, 298 patients with coronavirus disease 2019 pneumonia were admitted to the ICU and received mechanical ventilation. Of these, 117 were transferred from another facility and 181 were admitted through the emergency department. Patients were primarily male (64%) and Black (38%) or Hispanic (45%). Transfer patients differed from emergency department admits in having English as a preferred language (71% vs 56%; p = 0.008) and younger age (median 57 vs 61 yr; p < 0.001). There were no differences in race/ethnicity or primary payor. Transfers were more likely to receive extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (12% vs 3%; p = 0.004). Overall, 50 (43%) transferred patients and 78 (43%) emergency department admits died prior to discharge. There was no significant difference in hospital mortality or days from intubation to discharge between the two groups.Conclusions and relevanceIn a single-center retrospective cohort, no significant differences in hospital mortality or length of stay between interhospital transfers and emergency department admits were found. While more study is needed, this suggests that interhospital transfer of critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 can be done safely and effectively.

Project description:ObjectivesCoronavirus disease 2019 is caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 infection to which there is no community immunity. Patients admitted to ICUs have high mortality, with only supportive therapies available. Our aim was to profile plasma inflammatory analytes to help understand the host response to coronavirus disease 2019.DesignDaily blood inflammation profiling with immunoassays.SettingTertiary care ICU and academic laboratory.SubjectsAll patients admitted to the ICU suspected of being infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2, using standardized hospital screening methodologies, had daily blood samples collected until either testing was confirmed negative on ICU day 3 (coronavirus disease 2019 negative), or until ICU day 7 if the patient was positive (coronavirus disease 2019 positive).InterventionsNone.Measurements and main resultsAge- and sex-matched healthy controls and ICU patients that were either coronavirus disease 2019 positive or coronavirus disease 2019 negative were enrolled. Cohorts were well-balanced with the exception that coronavirus disease 2019 positive patients were more likely than coronavirus disease 2019 negative patients to suffer bilateral pneumonia. Mortality rate for coronavirus disease 2019 positive ICU patients was 40%. We measured 57 inflammatory analytes and then analyzed with both conventional statistics and machine learning. Twenty inflammatory analytes were different between coronavirus disease 2019 positive patients and healthy controls (p < 0.01). Compared with coronavirus disease 2019 negative patients, coronavirus disease 2019 positive patients had 17 elevated inflammatory analytes on one or more of their ICU days 1-3 (p < 0.01), with feature classification identifying the top six analytes between cohorts as tumor necrosis factor, granzyme B, heat shock protein 70, interleukin-18, interferon-gamma-inducible protein 10, and elastase 2. While tumor necrosis factor, granzyme B, heat shock protein 70, and interleukin-18 were elevated for all seven ICU days, interferon-gamma-inducible protein 10 transiently elevated on ICU days 2 and 3 and elastase 2 increased over ICU days 2-7. Inflammation profiling predicted coronavirus disease 2019 status with 98% accuracy, whereas elevated heat shock protein 70 was strongly associated with mortality.ConclusionsWhile many inflammatory analytes were elevated in coronavirus disease 2019 positive ICU patients, relative to healthy controls, the top six analytes distinguishing coronavirus disease 2019 positive ICU patients from coronavirus disease 2019 negative ICU patients were tumor necrosis factor, granzyme B, heat shock protein 70, interleukin-18, interferon-gamma-inducible protein 10, and elastase 2.

Project description:BackgroundCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has emerged as a major global health threat with a great number of deaths worldwide. Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a common complication in patients admitted to the intensive care unit. We aimed to assess the incidence, risk factors and in-hospital outcomes of AKI in COVID-19 patients admitted to the intensive care unit.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective observational study in the intensive care unit of Tongji Hospital, which was assigned responsibility for the treatments of severe COVID-19 patients by the Wuhan government. AKI was defined and staged based on Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) criteria. Mild AKI was defined as stage 1, and severe AKI was defined as stage 2 or stage 3. Logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate AKI risk factors, and Cox proportional hazards model was used to assess the association between AKI and in-hospital mortality.ResultsA total of 119 patients with COVID-19 were included in our study. The median patient age was 70 years (interquartile range, 59-77) and 61.3% were male. Fifty-one (42.8%) patients developed AKI during hospitalization, corresponding to 14.3% in stage 1, 28.6% in stage 2 and 18.5% in stage 3, respectively. Compared to patients without AKI, patients with AKI had a higher proportion of mechanical ventilation mortality and higher in-hospital mortality. A total of 97.1% of patients with severe AKI received mechanical ventilation and in-hospital mortality was up to 79.4%. Severe AKI was independently associated with high in-hospital mortality (OR: 1.82; 95% CI: 1.06-3.13). Logistic regression analysis demonstrated that high serum interleukin-8 (OR: 4.21; 95% CI: 1.23-14.38), interleukin-10 (OR: 3.32; 95% CI: 1.04-10.59) and interleukin-2 receptor (OR: 4.50; 95% CI: 0.73-6.78) were risk factors for severe AKI development.ConclusionsSevere AKI was associated with high in-hospital mortality, and inflammatory response may play a role in AKI development in critically ill patients with COVID-19.

Project description:BackgroundThe long-term cardiovascular (CV) outcomes of COVID-19 have not been fully explored.MethodsThis was an international, multicenter, retrospective cohort study conducted between February and December 2020. Consecutive patients ≥18 years who underwent a real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for SARS-CoV2 were included. Patients were classified into two cohorts depending on the nasopharyngeal swab result and clinical status: confirmed COVID-19 (positive RT-PCR) and control (without suggestive symptoms and negative RT-PCR). Data were obtained from electronic records, and clinical follow-up was performed at 1-year. The primary outcome was CV death at 1-year. Secondary outcomes included arterial thrombotic events (ATE), venous thromboembolism (VTE), and serious cardiac arrhythmias. An independent clinical event committee adjudicated events. A Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for all baseline characteristics was used for comparing outcomes between groups. A prespecified landmark analysis was performed to assess events during the post-acute phase (31-365 days).ResultsA total of 4,427 patients were included: 3,578 (80.8%) in the COVID-19 and 849 (19.2%) control cohorts. At one year, there were no significant differences in the primary endpoint of CV death between the COVID-19 and control cohorts (1.4% vs. 0.8%; HRadj 1.28 [0.56-2.91]; p = 0.555), but there was a higher risk of all-cause death (17.8% vs. 4.0%; HRadj 2.82 [1.99-4.0]; p = 0.001). COVID-19 cohort had higher rates of ATE (2.5% vs. 0.8%, HRadj 2.26 [1.02-4.99]; p = 0.044), VTE (3.7% vs. 0.4%, HRadj 9.33 [2.93-29.70]; p = 0.001), and serious cardiac arrhythmias (2.5% vs. 0.6%, HRadj 3.37 [1.35-8.46]; p = 0.010). During the post-acute phase, there were no significant differences in CV death (0.6% vs. 0.7%; HRadj 0.67 [0.25-1.80]; p = 0.425), but there was a higher risk of deep vein thrombosis (0.6% vs. 0.0%; p = 0.028). Re-hospitalization rate was lower in the COVID-19 cohort compared to the control cohort (13.9% vs. 20.6%; p = 0.001).ConclusionsAt 1-year, patients with COVID-19 experienced an increased risk of all-cause death and adverse CV events, including ATE, VTE, and serious cardiac arrhythmias, but not CV death.Study registrationURL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT04359927.

Project description:BackgroundSevere acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection causes direct lung damage, overwhelming endothelial activation, and inflammatory reaction, leading to acute respiratory failure and multi-organ dysfunction. Ongoing clinical trials are evaluating targeted therapies to hinder this exaggerated inflammatory response. Critically ill coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients have shown heterogeneous severity trajectories, suggesting that response to therapies is likely to vary across patients.Research questionAre critically ill COVID-19 patients biologically and immunologically dissociable based on profiling of currently evaluated therapeutic targets?Study design and methodsWe did a single-center, prospective study in an ICU department in France. Ninety-six critically ill adult patients admitted with a documented SARS-CoV-2 infection were enrolled. We conducted principal components analysis and hierarchical clustering on a vast array of immunologic variables measured on the day of ICU admission.ResultsWe found that patients were distributed in three clusters bearing distinct immunologic features and associated with different ICU outcomes. Cluster 1 had a "humoral immunodeficiency" phenotype with predominant B-lymphocyte defect, relative hypogammaglobulinemia, and moderate inflammation. Cluster 2 had a "hyperinflammatory" phenotype, with high cytokine levels (IL-6, IL-1β, IL-8, tumor necrosis factor-alpha [TNF⍺]) associated with CD4+ and CD8+ T-lymphocyte defects. Cluster 3 had a "complement-dependent" phenotype with terminal complement activation markers (elevated C3 and sC5b-9).InterpretationPatients with severe COVID-19 exhibiting cytokine release marks, complement activation, or B-lymphocyte defects are distinct from each other. Such immunologic variability argues in favor of targeting different mediators in different groups of patients and could serve as a basis for patient identification and clinical trial eligibility.