Rapid Evaluation of Coronavirus Illness Severity (RECOILS) in intensive care: Development and validation of a prognostic tool for in-hospital mortality.

BACKGROUND: The prediction of in-hospital mortality for ICU patients with COVID-19 is fundamental to treatment and resource allocation. The main purpose was to develop an easily implemented score for such prediction. METHODS: This was an observational, multicenter, development, and validation study on a national critical care dataset of COVID-19 patients. A systematic literature review was performed to determine variables possibly important for COVID-19 mortality prediction. Using a logistic multivariable model with a LASSO penalty, we developed the Rapid Evaluation of Coronavirus Illness Severity (RECOILS) score and compared its performance against published scores. RESULTS: Our development (validation) cohort consisted of 1480 (937) adult patients from 14 (11) Dutch ICUs admitted between March 2020 and April 2021. Median age was 65 (65) years, 31% (26%) died in hospital, 74% (72%) were males, average length of ICU stay was 7.83 (10.25) days and average length of hospital stay was 15.90 (19.92) days. Age, platelets, PaO2/FiO2 ratio, pH, blood urea nitrogen, temperature, PaCO2, Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score measured within +/-24 h of ICU admission were used to develop the score. The AUROC of RECOILS score was 0.75 (CI 0.71-0.78) which was higher than that of any previously reported predictive scores (0.68 [CI 0.64-0.71], 0.61 [CI 0.58-0.66], 0.67 [CI 0.63-0.70], 0.70 [CI 0.67-0.74] for ISARIC 4C Mortality Score, SOFA, SAPS-III, and age, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Using a large dataset from multiple Dutch ICUs, we developed a predictive score for mortality of COVID-19 patients admitted to ICU, which outperformed other predictive scores reported so far.

The Dutch Data Warehouse, a multicenter and full-admission electronic health records database for critically ill COVID-19 patients.

BACKGROUND: The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has underlined the urgent need for reliable, multicenter, and full-admission intensive care data to advance our understanding of the course of the disease and investigate potential treatment strategies. In this study, we present the Dutch Data Warehouse (DDW), the first multicenter electronic health record (EHR) database with full-admission data from critically ill COVID-19 patients. METHODS: A nation-wide data sharing collaboration was launched at the beginning of the pandemic in March 2020. All hospitals in the Netherlands were asked to participate and share pseudonymized EHR data from adult critically ill COVID-19 patients. Data included patient demographics, clinical observations, administered medication, laboratory determinations, and data from vital sign monitors and life support devices. Data sharing agreements were signed with participating hospitals before any data transfers took place. Data were extracted from the local EHRs with prespecified queries and combined into a staging dataset through an extract-transform-load (ETL) pipeline. In the consecutive processing pipeline, data were mapped to a common concept vocabulary and enriched with derived concepts. Data validation was a continuous process throughout the project. All participating hospitals have access to the DDW. Within legal and ethical boundaries, data are available to clinicians and researchers. RESULTS: Out of the 81 intensive care units in the Netherlands, 66 participated in the collaboration, 47 have signed the data sharing agreement, and 35 have shared their data. Data from 25 hospitals have passed through the ETL and processing pipeline. Currently, 3464 patients are included in the DDW, both from wave 1 and wave 2 in the Netherlands. More than 200 million clinical data points are available. Overall ICU mortality was 24.4%. Respiratory and hemodynamic parameters were most frequently measured throughout a patient's stay. For each patient, all administered medication and their daily fluid balance were available. Missing data are reported for each descriptive. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we show that EHR data from critically ill COVID-19 patients may be lawfully collected and can be combined into a data warehouse. These initiatives are indispensable to advance medical data science in the field of intensive care medicine.

Predictors for extubation failure in COVID-19 patients using a machine learning approach.

INTRODUCTION: Determining the optimal timing for extubation can be challenging in the intensive care. In this study, we aim to identify predictors for extubation failure in critically ill patients with COVID-19. METHODS: We used highly granular data from 3464 adult critically ill COVID patients in the multicenter Dutch Data Warehouse, including demographics, clinical observations, medications, fluid balance, laboratory values, vital signs, and data from life support devices. All intubated patients with at least one extubation attempt were eligible for analysis. Transferred patients, patients admitted for less than 24 h, and patients still admitted at the time of data extraction were excluded. Potential predictors were selected by a team of intensive care physicians. The primary and secondary outcomes were extubation without reintubation or death within the next 7 days and within 48 h, respectively. We trained and validated multiple machine learning algorithms using fivefold nested cross-validation. Predictor importance was estimated using Shapley additive explanations, while cutoff values for the relative probability of failed extubation were estimated through partial dependence plots. RESULTS: A total of 883 patients were included in the model derivation. The reintubation rate was 13.4% within 48 h and 18.9% at day 7, with a mortality rate of 0.6% and 1.0% respectively. The grandient-boost model performed best (area under the curve of 0.70) and was used to calculate predictor importance. Ventilatory characteristics and settings were the most important predictors. More specifically, a controlled mode duration longer than 4 days, a last fraction of inspired oxygen higher than 35%, a mean tidal volume per kg ideal body weight above 8 ml/kg in the day before extubation, and a shorter duration in assisted mode (< 2 days) compared to their median values. Additionally, a higher C-reactive protein and leukocyte count, a lower thrombocyte count, a lower Glasgow coma scale and a lower body mass index compared to their medians were associated with extubation failure. CONCLUSION: The most important predictors for extubation failure in critically ill COVID-19 patients include ventilatory settings, inflammatory parameters, neurological status, and body mass index. These predictors should therefore be routinely captured in electronic health records.

Assess and validate predictive performance of models for in-hospital mortality in COVID-19 patients: A retrospective cohort study in the Netherlands comparing the value of registry data with high-granular electronic health records.

PURPOSE: To assess, validate and compare the predictive performance of models for in-hospital mortality of COVID-19 patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) over two different waves of infections. Our models were built with high-granular Electronic Health Records (EHR) data versus less-granular registry data. METHODS: Observational study of all COVID-19 patients admitted to 19 Dutch ICUs participating in both the national quality registry National Intensive Care Evaluation (NICE) and the EHR-based Dutch Data Warehouse (hereafter EHR). Multiple models were developed on data from the first 24 h of ICU admissions from February to June 2020 (first COVID-19 wave) and validated on prospective patients admitted to the same ICUs between July and December 2020 (second COVID-19 wave). We assessed model discrimination, calibration, and the degree of relatedness between development and validation population. Coefficients were used to identify relevant risk factors. RESULTS: A total of 1533 patients from the EHR and 1563 from the registry were included. With high granular EHR data, the average AUROC was 0.69 (standard deviation of 0.05) for the internal validation, and the AUROC was 0.75 for the temporal validation. The registry model achieved an average AUROC of 0.76 (standard deviation of 0.05) in the internal validation and 0.77 in the temporal validation. In the EHR data, age, and respiratory-system related variables were the most important risk factors identified. In the NICE registry data, age and chronic respiratory insufficiency were the most important risk factors. CONCLUSION: In our study, prognostic models built on less-granular but readily-available registry data had similar performance to models built on high-granular EHR data and showed similar transportability to a prospective COVID-19 population. Future research is needed to verify whether this finding can be confirmed for upcoming waves.

INCIDENCE, RISK FACTORS, AND OUTCOME OF SUSPECTED CENTRAL VENOUS CATHETER-RELATED INFECTIONS IN CRITICALLY ILL COVID-19 PATIENTS: A MULTICENTER RETROSPECTIVE COHORT STUDY.

ABSTRACT: Background: Aims of this study were to investigate the prevalence and incidence of catheter-related infection, identify risk factors, and determine the relation of catheter-related infection with mortality in critically ill COVID-19 patients. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of central venous catheters (CVCs) in critically ill COVID-19 patients. Eligible CVC insertions required an indwelling time of at least 48 hours and were identified using a full-admission electronic health record database. Risk factors were identified using logistic regression. Differences in survival rates at day 28 of follow-up were assessed using a log-rank test and proportional hazard model. Results: In 538 patients, a total of 914 CVCs were included. Prevalence and incidence of suspected catheter-related infection were 7.9% and 9.4 infections per 1,000 catheter indwelling days, respectively. Prone ventilation for more than 5 days was associated with increased risk of suspected catheter-related infection; odds ratio, 5.05 (95% confidence interval 2.12-11.0). Risk of death was significantly higher in patients with suspected catheter-related infection (hazard ratio, 1.78; 95% confidence interval, 1.25-2.53). Conclusions: This study shows that in critically ill patients with COVID-19, prevalence and incidence of suspected catheter-related infection are high, prone ventilation is a risk factor, and mortality is higher in case of catheter-related infection.

Predicting responders to prone positioning in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 using machine learning.

BACKGROUND: For mechanically ventilated critically ill COVID-19 patients, prone positioning has quickly become an important treatment strategy, however, prone positioning is labor intensive and comes with potential adverse effects. Therefore, identifying which critically ill intubated COVID-19 patients will benefit may help allocate labor resources. METHODS: From the multi-center Dutch Data Warehouse of COVID-19 ICU patients from 25 hospitals, we selected all 3619 episodes of prone positioning in 1142 invasively mechanically ventilated patients. We excluded episodes longer than 24 h. Berlin ARDS criteria were not formally documented. We used supervised machine learning algorithms Logistic Regression, Random Forest, Naive Bayes, K-Nearest Neighbors, Support Vector Machine and Extreme Gradient Boosting on readily available and clinically relevant features to predict success of prone positioning after 4 h (window of 1 to 7 h) based on various possible outcomes. These outcomes were defined as improvements of at least 10% in PaO2/FiO2 ratio, ventilatory ratio, respiratory system compliance, or mechanical power. Separate models were created for each of these outcomes. Re-supination within 4 h after pronation was labeled as failure. We also developed models using a 20 mmHg improvement cut-off for PaO2/FiO2 ratio and using a combined outcome parameter. For all models, we evaluated feature importance expressed as contribution to predictive performance based on their relative ranking. RESULTS: The median duration of prone episodes was 17 h (11-20, median and IQR, N = 2632). Despite extensive modeling using a plethora of machine learning techniques and a large number of potentially clinically relevant features, discrimination between responders and non-responders remained poor with an area under the receiver operator characteristic curve of 0.62 for PaO2/FiO2 ratio using Logistic Regression, Random Forest and XGBoost. Feature importance was inconsistent between models for different outcomes. Notably, not even being a previous responder to prone positioning, or PEEP-levels before prone positioning, provided any meaningful contribution to predicting a successful next proning episode. CONCLUSIONS: In mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients, predicting the success of prone positioning using clinically relevant and readily available parameters from electronic health records is currently not feasible. Given the current evidence base, a liberal approach to proning in all patients with severe COVID-19 ARDS is therefore justified and in particular regardless of previous results of proning.

Risk factors for adverse outcomes during mechanical ventilation of 1152 COVID-19 patients: a multicenter machine learning study with highly granular data from the Dutch Data Warehouse.

BACKGROUND: The identification of risk factors for adverse outcomes and prolonged intensive care unit (ICU) stay in COVID-19 patients is essential for prognostication, determining treatment intensity, and resource allocation. Previous studies have determined risk factors on admission only, and included a limited number of predictors. Therefore, using data from the highly granular and multicenter Dutch Data Warehouse, we developed machine learning models to identify risk factors for ICU mortality, ventilator-free days and ICU-free days during the course of invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) in COVID-19 patients. METHODS: The DDW is a growing electronic health record database of critically ill COVID-19 patients in the Netherlands. All adult ICU patients on IMV were eligible for inclusion. Transfers, patients admitted for less than 24 h, and patients still admitted at time of data extraction were excluded. Predictors were selected based on the literature, and included medication dosage and fluid balance. Multiple algorithms were trained and validated on up to three sets of observations per patient on day 1, 7, and 14 using fivefold nested cross-validation, keeping observations from an individual patient in the same split. RESULTS: A total of 1152 patients were included in the model. XGBoost models performed best for all outcomes and were used to calculate predictor importance. Using Shapley additive explanations (SHAP), age was the most important demographic risk factor for the outcomes upon start of IMV and throughout its course. The relative probability of death across age values is visualized in Partial Dependence Plots (PDPs), with an increase starting at 54 years. Besides age, acidaemia, low P/F-ratios and high driving pressures demonstrated a higher probability of death. The PDP for driving pressure showed a relative probability increase starting at 12 cmH2O. CONCLUSION: Age is the most important demographic risk factor of ICU mortality, ICU-free days and ventilator-free days throughout the course of invasive mechanical ventilation in critically ill COVID-19 patients. pH, P/F ratio, and driving pressure should be monitored closely over the course of mechanical ventilation as risk factors predictive of these outcomes.

Some Patients Are More Equal Than Others: Variation in Ventilator Settings for Coronavirus Disease 2019 Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.

OBJECTIVES: As coronavirus disease 2019 is a novel disease, treatment strategies continue to be debated. This provides the intensive care community with a unique opportunity as the population of coronavirus disease 2019 patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation is relatively homogeneous compared with other ICU populations. We hypothesize that the novelty of coronavirus disease 2019 and the uncertainty over its similarity with noncoronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome resulted in substantial practice variation between hospitals during the first and second waves of coronavirus disease 2019 patients. DESIGN: Multicenter retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Twenty-five hospitals in the Netherlands from February 2020 to July 2020, and 14 hospitals from August 2020 to December 2020. PATIENTS: One thousand two hundred ninety-four critically ill intubated adult ICU patients with coronavirus disease 2019 were selected from the Dutch Data Warehouse. Patients intubated for less than 24 hours, transferred patients, and patients still admitted at the time of data extraction were excluded. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We aimed to estimate between-ICU practice variation in selected ventilation parameters (positive end-expiratory pressure, Fio2, set respiratory rate, tidal volume, minute volume, and percentage of time spent in a prone position) on days 1, 2, 3, and 7 of intubation, adjusted for patient characteristics as well as severity of illness based on Pao2/Fio2 ratio, pH, ventilatory ratio, and dynamic respiratory system compliance during controlled ventilation. Using multilevel linear mixed-effects modeling, we found significant (p ≤ 0.001) variation between ICUs in all ventilation parameters on days 1, 2, 3, and 7 of intubation for both waves. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to clearly demonstrate significant practice variation between ICUs related to mechanical ventilation parameters that are under direct control by intensivists. Their effect on clinical outcomes for both coronavirus disease 2019 and other critically ill mechanically ventilated patients could have widespread implications for the practice of intensive care medicine and should be investigated further by causal inference models and clinical trials.

Functional SYNTAX score for risk assessment in multivessel coronary artery disease.

OBJECTIVES: This study was aimed at investigating whether a fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided SYNTAX score (SS), termed "functional SYNTAX score" (FSS), would predict clinical outcome better than the classic SS in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). BACKGROUND: The SS is a purely anatomic score based on the coronary angiogram and predicts outcome after PCI in patients with multivessel CAD. FFR-guided PCI improves outcomes by adding functional information to the anatomic information obtained from the angiogram. METHODS: The SS was prospectively collected in 497 patients enrolled in the FAME (Fractional Flow Reserve versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation) study. FSS was determined by only counting ischemia-producing lesions (FFR ≤ 0.80). The ability of each score to predict major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 1 year was compared. RESULTS: The 497 patients were divided into tertiles of risk based on the SS. After determining the FSS for each patient, 32% moved to a lower-risk group as follows. MACE occurred in 9.0%, 11.3%, and 26.7% of patients in the low-, medium-, and high-FSS groups, respectively (p < 0.001). Only FSS and procedure time were independent predictors of 1-year MACE. FSS demonstrated a better predictive accuracy for MACE compared with SS (Harrell's C of FSS, 0.677 vs. SS, 0.630, p = 0.02; integrated discrimination improvement of 1.94%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Recalculating SS by only incorporating ischemia-producing lesions as determined by FFR decreases the number of higher-risk patients and better discriminates risk for adverse events in patients with multivessel CAD undergoing PCI.

Do maternity care provider groups have different attitudes towards birth?

OBJECTIVE: To compare family physicians', obstetricians' and midwives' self-reported practices, attitudes and beliefs about central issues in childbirth. DESIGN: Mail-out questionnaire. SETTING/POPULATION; All registered midwives in the province, and a sample of family physicians and obstetricians in a maternity care teaching hospital. Response rates: 91% (n = 50), 69% (n = 97) and 89% (n = 34), respectively. METHODS: A postal survey. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Twenty-three five-point Likert scale items (strongly agree to strongly disagree) addressing attitudes toward routine electronic fetal monitoring, induction of labour, epidural analgesia, episiotomy, doulas, vaginal birth after caesarean section (VBACs), birth centres, provision educational material, birth plans and caesarean section. RESULTS: Cluster analysis identified three distinct clusters based on similar response to the questions. The 'MW' cluster consisted of 100% of midwives and 26% of the family physicians. The 'OB' cluster was composed of 79% of the obstetricians and 16% of the family physicians. The 'FP' cluster was composed of 58% the family physicians and 21% the obstetricians. Members of the 'OB' cluster more strongly believed that women had the right to request a caesarean section without maternal/fetal indications (P < 0.001), that epidurals early in labour were not associated with development of fetal malpositions (P < 0.001) and that increasing caesarean rates were a sign of improvement in obstetrics (P < 0.001). The 'OB' cluster members were more likely to say they would induce women as soon as possible after 41 3/7 weeks of gestation (P < 0.001) and were least likely to encourage the use of birth plans (P < 0.001). The 'MW' cluster's views were the opposite of the 'OBs' while the 'FP' cluster's views fell between the 'MW' and 'OB' clusters. CONCLUSIONS: In our environment, obstetricians were the most attached to technology and interventions including caesarean section and inductions, midwives the least, while family physicians fell in the middle. While generalisations can be problematic, obstetricians and midwives generally follow a defined and different approach to maternity care. Family physicians are heterogeneous, sometimes practising more like midwives and sometimes more like obstetricians.