Objective and subjective cognitive status after intensive care unit treatment for COVID-19.

Purpose: Intensive care unit (ICU) survivors can experience wide-ranging and long-lasting symptoms after hospital discharge. Cognitive impairment has received increased attention in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic and can affect patients' long-term quality of life. This study aimed to investigate the prevalence of cognitive impairment using an objective neurocognitive test 6 and 12 months following ICU admission and possible predictive factors for scoring below the defined cut-off. We also explored the prevalence of subjective cognitive complaints at 12 months, including the associated factors. Methods: This was a prospective observational study of a national cohort of COVID-19 ICU survivors during the three first pandemic waves in Norway. Data was collected by the Norwegian Intensive Care and Pandemic Registry and the study group. Results: At the six-month follow-up, 23.1% (95% CI [18.2─28.5]) of the 273 respondents scored below the cut-off on the Mini-MoCA, indicating mild cognitive impairment. At the 12-month follow-up, the prevalence declined to 11.1% (95% CI [7.5─15.6]) in 253 respondents. Older age (OR 1.06, 95% CI [1.02─1.12]) and depression (OR 1.25, 95% CI [1.07─1.55]) were associated with cognitive impairment at six months. At 12 months, almost half of the patients reported subjective cognitive complaints. Symptoms of mental health problems and fatigue were associated with subjective cognitive complaints in our exploratory analyses. Conclusion: Cognitive impairment declined significantly from 6 to 12 months in this cohort of COVID-19 ICU patients, while subjective cognitive complaints remained high at 12 months, perhaps attributed to a high total symptom burden.

European Society of Intensive Care Medicine clinical practice guideline on fluid therapy in adult critically ill patients. Part 1: the choice of resuscitation fluids.

PURPOSE: This is the first of three parts of the clinical practice guideline from the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM) on resuscitation fluids in adult critically ill patients. This part addresses fluid choice and the other two will separately address fluid amount and fluid removal. METHODS: This guideline was formulated by an international panel of clinical experts and methodologists. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was applied to evaluate the certainty of evidence and to move from evidence to decision. RESULTS: For volume expansion, the guideline provides conditional recommendations for using crystalloids rather than albumin in critically ill patients in general (moderate certainty of evidence), in patients with sepsis (moderate certainty of evidence), in patients with acute respiratory failure (very low certainty of evidence) and in patients in the perioperative period and patients at risk for bleeding (very low certainty of evidence). There is a conditional recommendation for using isotonic saline rather than albumin in patients with traumatic brain injury (very low certainty of evidence). There is a conditional recommendation for using albumin rather than crystalloids in patients with cirrhosis (very low certainty of evidence). The guideline provides conditional recommendations for using balanced crystalloids rather than isotonic saline in critically ill patients in general (low certainty of evidence), in patients with sepsis (low certainty of evidence) and in patients with kidney injury (very low certainty of evidence). There is a conditional recommendation for using isotonic saline rather than balanced crystalloids in patients with traumatic brain injury (very low certainty of evidence). There is a conditional recommendation for using isotonic crystalloids rather than small-volume hypertonic crystalloids in critically ill patients in general (very low certainty of evidence). CONCLUSIONS: This guideline provides eleven recommendations to inform clinicians on resuscitation fluid choice in critically ill patients.

Family centeredness of care: a cross-sectional study in intensive care units part of the European society of intensive care medicine.

PURPOSE: To identify key components and variations in family-centered care practices. METHODS: A cross-sectional study, conducted across ESICM members. Participating ICUs completed a questionnaire covering general ICU characteristics, visitation policies, team-family interactions, and end-of-life decision-making. The primary outcome, self-rated family-centeredness, was assessed using a visual analog scale. Additionally, respondents completed the Maslach Burnout Inventory and the Ethical Decision Making Climate Questionnaire to capture burnout dimensions and assess the ethical decision-making climate. RESULTS: The response rate was 53% (respondents from 359/683 invited ICUs who actually open the email); participating healthcare professionals (HCPs) were from Europe (62%), Asia (9%), South America (6%), North America (5%), Middle East (4%), and Australia/New Zealand (4%). The importance of family-centeredness was ranked high, median 7 (IQR 6-8) of 10 on VAS. Significant differences were observed across quartiles of family centeredness, including in visitation policies availability of a waiting rooms, family rooms, family information leaflet, visiting hours, night visits, sleep in the ICU, and in team-family interactions, including daily information, routine day-3 conference, and willingness to empower nurses and relatives. Higher family centeredness correlated with family involvement in rounds, participation in patient care and end-of-life practices. Burnout symptoms (41% of respondents) were negatively associated with family-centeredness. Ethical climate and willingness to empower nurses were independent predictors of family centeredness. CONCLUSIONS: This study emphasizes the need to prioritize healthcare providers' mental health for enhanced family-centered care. Further research is warranted to assess the impact of improving the ethical climate on family-centeredness.

Effects of IV fluid restriction according to site-specific intensity of standard fluid treatment-protocol.

BACKGROUND: Variation in usual practice in fluid trials assessing lower versus higher volumes may affect overall comparisons. To address this, we will evaluate the effects of heterogeneity in treatment intensity in the Conservative versus Liberal Approach to Fluid Therapy of Septic Shock in Intensive Care trial. This will reflect the effects of differences in site-specific intensities of standard fluid treatment due to local practice preferences while considering participant characteristics. METHODS: We will assess the effects of heterogeneity in treatment intensity across one primary (all-cause mortality) and three secondary outcomes (serious adverse events or reactions, days alive without life support and days alive out of hospital) after 90 days. We will classify sites based on the site-specific intensity of standard fluid treatment, defined as the mean differences in observed versus predicted intravenous fluid volumes in the first 24 h in the standard-fluid group while accounting for differences in participant characteristics. Predictions will be made using a machine learning model including 22 baseline predictors using the extreme gradient boosting algorithm. Subsequently, sites will be grouped into fluid treatment intensity subgroups containing at least 100 participants each. Subgroups differences will be assessed using hierarchical Bayesian regression models with weakly informative priors. We will present the full posterior distributions of relative (risk ratios and ratios of means) and absolute differences (risk differences and mean differences) in each subgroup. DISCUSSION: This study will provide data on the effects of heterogeneity in treatment intensity while accounting for patient characteristics in critically ill adult patients with septic shock. REGISTRATIONS: The European Clinical Trials Database (EudraCT): 2018-000404-42, ClinicalTrials. gov: NCT03668236.

Long-term functional disabilities in intensive care unit survivors: A prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Functional disabilities are common in intensive care unit (ICU) survivors and may affect their ability to live independently. Few previous studies have investigated long-term functional outcomes with health status before ICU admission (pre-ICU health), and they are limited to specific patient groups. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to investigate the prevalence of functional disabilities and examine pre-ICU health variables as possible predictive factors of functional disabilities 12 months after ICU admission in a mixed population of ICU survivors. METHODS: This prospective cohort study was conducted in six ICUs in Norway. Data on pre-ICU health were collected as soon as possible after ICU admission using patients, proxies, and patient electronic health records and at 12 months after ICU admission. Self-reported functional status was assessed using the Katz Index of independence in personal activities of daily living (P-ADL) and the Lawton instrumental activities of daily living scale (I-ADL). RESULTS: A total of 220 of 343 (64%) ICU survivors with data on pre-ICU health completed the questionnaires at 12 months and reported the following functional disabilities at 12 months: 31 patients (14.4%) reported P-ADL dependencies (new in 16 and persisting in 15), and 80 patients (36.4%) reported I-ADL dependencies (new in 41 and persisting in 39). In a multivariate analysis, worse baseline P-ADL and I-ADL scores were associated with dependencies in P-ADLs (odds ratio [OR]: 1.87; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.14-3.06) and I-ADLs (OR: 1.52; 95% CI: 1.03-2.23), respectively, at 12 months. Patients who were employed were less likely to report I-ADL dependencies at 12 months (OR: 0.34; 95% CI: 0.12-0.95). CONCLUSION: In a subsample of ICU survivors, patients reported functional disabilities 12 months after ICU admission, which was significantly associated with their pre-ICU functional status. Early screening of pre-ICU functional status may help identify patients at risk of long-term functional disabilities. ICU survivors with pre-ICU functional disabilities may find it difficult to improve their functional status.

Pregnant women with acute respiratory distress syndrome triggered by COVID-19. / Gravide med akutt, alvorlig respirasjonssvikt utløst av covid-19.

Background: Pregnant women with COVID-19 are probably at increased risk of serious illness. The objective of this study was to describe the course of illness in pregnant women admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) with acute respiratory distress syndrome triggered by COVID-19. Material and method: Pregnant women with COVID-19 were registered on admission to an ICU at Rikshospitalet, Oslo University Hospital in the period March 2020 to May 2023. We reviewed the patients' medical records retrospectively and describe clinical trajectories, management parameters and laboratory data collected during the period in intensive care. Self-perceived health was surveyed 15 months after discharge from intensive care. Results: Thirteen pregnant women were admitted in the period from February to December 2021. All met criteria for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and were treated with corticosteroids and mechanical ventilation according to current guidelines. None of the patients had been vaccinated against COVID-19. Ten patients were orally intubated after therapeutic failure with non-invasive mechanical ventilation. One patient was treated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). All patients survived their stay in intensive care, but there were two cases of intrauterine fetal demise. Almost half of the patients reported moderate to significantly reduced self-perceived health and quality of life 15 months after discharge from intensive care. Interpretation: All pregnant women admitted to an ICU at Rikshospitalet, Oslo University Hospital with ARDS triggered by COVID-19 survived hospitalisation, but several had symptoms that persisted long after their stay in the ICU.

Post-traumatic stress symptoms six months after ICU admission with COVID-19: Prospective observational study.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate the prevalence of post-traumatic stress symptoms, and to identify possible predictive factors in Norwegian intensive care unit survivors, 6 months after admission to the intensive care unit with COVID-19. BACKGROUND: The SARS CoV-2 virus causing COVID-19 has spread worldwide since it was declared a pandemic in March 2020. The most severely ill patients have been treated in the intensive care due to acute respiratory failure and also acute respiratory distress syndrome. It is well documented that these severe conditions can lead to complex and long-lasting symptoms, such as psychological distress, and was, therefore, investigated for the specific COVID-19 population. DESIGN: Prospective observational study. METHODS: Clinical data and patient reported outcome measures were collected by the Norwegian Intensive Care and Pandemic Registry and by the study group 6 months after admission to an intensive care unit. RESULTS: Among 222 COVID-19 patients admitted to Norwegian intensive care units between 10 March and 6 July 2020, 175 survived. The study sample consisted of 131 patients who responded to at least one patient reported outcome measure at 6 months following admission. The primary outcome was self-reported post-traumatic stress symptoms, using the Impact of Event Scale-6 (n = 89). Of those, 22.5% reported post-traumatic stress symptoms 6 months after admission. Female gender, younger age and having a high respiratory rate at admission were statistically significant predictive factors for reporting post-traumatic stress symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: The result is in accordance with previously published research with comparable populations, suggesting that for many COVID-19 survivors psychological distress is a part of the post-acute sequelae. Results from the present study should be replicated in larger datasets. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: This project provides important insight to post-acute sequelae after COVID-19 that patients may experience after critical illness.

Albumin use in patients with septic shock-Post-hoc analyses of an international randomised fluid trial.

BACKGROUND: Albumin administration is suggested in patients with sepsis and septic shock who have received large volumes of crystalloids. Given lack of firm evidence, clinical practice variation may exist. To address this, we investigated if patient characteristics or trial site were associated with albumin use in septic shock. METHODS: We conducted a post-hoc study of the CLASSIC international, randomised clinical trial of fluid volumes in septic shock. Associations between selected baseline variables and trial site with albumin use during ICU stay were assessed in Cox models considering death, ICU discharge, and loss-to-follow-up as competing events. Baseline variables were first assessed individually, adjusted for treatment allocation (restrictive vs. standard IV fluid), and then adjusted for allocation and the other baseline variables. Site was assessed in a model adjusted for allocation and baseline variables. RESULTS: We analysed 1541 of 1554 patients randomised in CLASSIC (99.2%). During ICU stay, 36.3% of patients in the restrictive-fluid group and 52.6% in the standard-fluid group received albumin. Gastrointestinal focus of infection and higher doses of norepinephrine were most strongly associated with albumin use (subgroup with highest quartile of norepinephrine doses, hazard ratio (HR) 2.58, 95% CI 1.89 to 3.53). HRs for associations between site and albumin use ranged from 0.11 (95% CI 0.05 to 0.26) to 1.70 (95% CI 1.06 to 2.74); test for overall effect of site: p < .001. CONCLUSIONS: In adults with septic shock, gastrointestinal focus of infection and higher doses of norepinephrine at baseline were associated with albumin use, which also varied substantially between sites.

Restrictive versus standard IV fluid therapy in adult ICU patients with septic shock-Bayesian analyses of the CLASSIC trial.

BACKGROUND: The CLASSIC trial assessed the effects of restrictive versus standard intravenous (IV) fluid therapy in adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients with septic shock. This pre-planned study provides a probabilistic interpretation and evaluates heterogeneity in treatment effects (HTE). METHODS: We analysed mortality, serious adverse events (SAEs), serious adverse reactions (SARs) and days alive without life-support within 90 days using Bayesian models with weakly informative priors. HTE on mortality was assessed according to five baseline variables: disease severity, vasopressor dose, lactate levels, creatinine values and IV fluid volumes given before randomisation. RESULTS: The absolute difference in mortality was 0.2%-points (95% credible interval: -5.0 to 5.4; 47% posterior probability of benefit [risk difference <0.0%-points]) with restrictive IV fluid. The posterior probabilities of benefits with restrictive IV fluid were 72% for SAEs, 52% for SARs and 61% for days alive without life-support. The posterior probabilities of no clinically important differences (absolute risk difference ≤2%-points) between the groups were 56% for mortality, 49% for SAEs, 90% for SARs and 38% for days alive without life-support. There was 97% probability of HTE for previous IV fluid volumes analysed continuously, that is, potentially relatively lower mortality of restrictive IV fluids with higher previous IV fluids. No substantial evidence of HTE was found in the other analyses. CONCLUSION: We could not rule out clinically important effects of restrictive IV fluid therapy on mortality, SAEs or days alive without life-support, but substantial effects on SARs were unlikely. IV fluids given before randomisation might interact with IV fluid strategy.

Implementation of Recommendations on the Use of Corticosteroids in Severe COVID-19.

Importance: Research diversity and representativeness are paramount in building trust, generating valid biomedical knowledge, and possibly in implementing clinical guidelines. Objectives: To compare variations over time and across World Health Organization (WHO) geographic regions of corticosteroid use for treatment of severe COVID-19; secondary objectives were to evaluate the association between the timing of publication of the RECOVERY (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy) trial (June 2020) and the WHO guidelines for corticosteroids (September 2020) and the temporal trends observed in corticosteroid use by region and to describe the geographic distribution of the recruitment in clinical trials that informed the WHO recommendation. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective cohort study of 434 851 patients was conducted between January 31, 2020, and September 2, 2022, in 63 countries worldwide. The data were collected under the auspices of the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infections Consortium (ISARIC)-WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol for Severe Emerging Infections. Analyses were restricted to patients hospitalized for severe COVID-19 (a subset of the ISARIC data set). Exposure: Corticosteroid use as reported to the ISARIC-WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol for Severe Emerging Infections. Main Outcomes and Measures: Number and percentage of patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19 who received corticosteroids by time period and by WHO geographic region. Results: Among 434 851 patients with confirmed severe or critical COVID-19 for whom receipt of corticosteroids could be ascertained (median [IQR] age, 61.0 [48.0-74.0] years; 53.0% male), 174 307 (40.1%) received corticosteroids during the study period. Of the participants in clinical trials that informed the guideline, 91.6% were recruited from the United Kingdom. In all regions, corticosteroid use for severe COVID-19 increased, but this increase corresponded to the timing of the RECOVERY trial (time-interruption coefficient 1.0 [95% CI, 0.9-1.2]) and WHO guideline (time-interruption coefficient 1.9 [95% CI, 1.7-2.0]) publications only in Europe. At the end of the study period, corticosteroid use for treatment of severe COVID-19 was highest in the Americas (5421 of 6095 [88.9%]; 95% CI, 87.7-90.2) and lowest in Africa (31 588 of 185 191 [17.1%]; 95% CI, 16.8-17.3). Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this cohort study showed that implementation of the guidelines for use of corticosteroids in the treatment of severe COVID-19 varied geographically. Uptake of corticosteroid treatment was lower in regions with limited clinical trial involvement. Improving research diversity and representativeness may facilitate timely knowledge uptake and guideline implementation.

Long-term effects of restriction of intravenous fluid in adult ICU patients with septic shock.

PURPOSE: To assess long-term outcomes of restrictive versus standard intravenous (IV) fluid therapy in adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients with septic shock included in the European Conservative versus Liberal Approach to Fluid Therapy in Septic Shock in Intensive Care (CLASSIC) trial. METHODS: We conducted the pre-planned analyses of mortality, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) using EuroQol (EQ)-5D-5L index values and EQ visual analogue scale (VAS), and cognitive function using Mini Montreal Cognitive Assessment (Mini MoCA) test at 1 year. Deceased patients were assigned numerical zero for HRQoL as a state equal to death and zero for cognitive function outcomes as worst possible score, and we used multiple imputation for missing data on HRQoL and cognitive function. RESULTS: Among 1554 randomized patients, we obtained 1-year data on mortality in 97.9% of patients, HRQoL in 91.3%, and cognitive function in 86.3%. One-year mortality was 385/746 (51.3%) in the restrictive-fluid group versus 383/767 (49.9%) in the standard-fluid group, absolute risk difference 1.5%-points [99% confidence interval (CI) - 4.8 to 7.8]. Mean differences were 0.00 (99% CI - 0.06 to 0.05) for EQ-5D-5L index values, - 0.65 for EQ VAS (- 5.40 to 4.08), and - 0.14 for Mini MoCA (- 1.59 to 1.14) for the restrictive-fluid group versus the standard-fluid group. The results for survivors only were similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among adult ICU patients with septic shock, restrictive versus standard IV fluid therapy resulted in similar survival, HRQoL, and cognitive function at 1 year, but clinically important differences could not be ruled out.

Albumin administration in septic shock-Protocol for post-hoc analyses of data from a multicentre RCT.

BACKGROUND: Intravenous (IV) albumin is suggested for patients with septic shock who have received large amounts of IV crystalloids; a conditional recommendation based on moderate certainty of evidence. Clinical variation in the administration of IV albumin in septic shock may exist according to patient characteristics and location. METHODS: This is a protocol and statistical analysis plan for a post-hoc secondary study of the Conservative versus Liberal Approach to Fluid Therapy of Septic Shock in Intensive Care (CLASSIC) RCT of 1554 adult ICU patients with septic shock. We will assess if specific baseline characteristics or trial site are associated with the administration of IV albumin during ICU stay using Cox models with competing events. All models will be adjusted for the treatment allocation in CLASSIC (restrictive vs. standard IV fluid), and all analyses will consider competing events (death, ICU discharge and loss-to-follow-up). We will present results as hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals and p-values for the associations of baseline characteristics or site with IV albumin administration. Between-group differences (interactions) will be assessed using p-values from likelihood ratio tests. All results will be considered exploratory only. DISCUSSION: This secondary study of the CLASSIC RCT may yield important insight into potential practice variation in the administration of albumin in septic shock.

Weaning from mechanical ventilation in intensive care units across 50 countries (WEAN SAFE): a multicentre, prospective, observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Current management practices and outcomes in weaning from invasive mechanical ventilation are poorly understood. We aimed to describe the epidemiology, management, timings, risk for failure, and outcomes of weaning in patients requiring at least 2 days of invasive mechanical ventilation. METHODS: WEAN SAFE was an international, multicentre, prospective, observational cohort study done in 481 intensive care units in 50 countries. Eligible participants were older than 16 years, admitted to a participating intensive care unit, and receiving mechanical ventilation for 2 calendar days or longer. We defined weaning initiation as the first attempt to separate a patient from the ventilator, successful weaning as no reintubation or death within 7 days of extubation, and weaning eligibility criteria based on positive end-expiratory pressure, fractional concentration of oxygen in inspired air, and vasopressors. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients successfully weaned at 90 days. Key secondary outcomes included weaning duration, timing of weaning events, factors associated with weaning delay and weaning failure, and hospital outcomes. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03255109. FINDINGS: Between Oct 4, 2017, and June 25, 2018, 10 232 patients were screened for eligibility, of whom 5869 were enrolled. 4523 (77·1%) patients underwent at least one separation attempt and 3817 (65·0%) patients were successfully weaned from ventilation at day 90. 237 (4·0%) patients were transferred before any separation attempt, 153 (2·6%) were transferred after at least one separation attempt and not successfully weaned, and 1662 (28·3%) died while invasively ventilated. The median time from fulfilling weaning eligibility criteria to first separation attempt was 1 day (IQR 0-4), and 1013 (22·4%) patients had a delay in initiating first separation of 5 or more days. Of the 4523 (77·1%) patients with separation attempts, 2927 (64·7%) had a short wean (≤1 day), 457 (10·1%) had intermediate weaning (2-6 days), 433 (9·6%) required prolonged weaning (≥7 days), and 706 (15·6%) had weaning failure. Higher sedation scores were independently associated with delayed initiation of weaning. Delayed initiation of weaning and higher sedation scores were independently associated with weaning failure. 1742 (31·8%) of 5479 patients died in the intensive care unit and 2095 (38·3%) of 5465 patients died in hospital. INTERPRETATION: In critically ill patients receiving at least 2 days of invasive mechanical ventilation, only 65% were weaned at 90 days. A better understanding of factors that delay the weaning process, such as delays in weaning initiation or excessive sedation levels, might improve weaning success rates. FUNDING: European Society of Intensive Care Medicine, European Respiratory Society.

[Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for acute respiratory distress syndrome in patients with COVID-19]. / Ekstrakorporal membranoksygenering ved akutt lungesviktsyndrom hos covid-19-pasienter.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 can lead to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). In some patients for whom conventional mechanical ventilation is insufficient, venovenous (VV) extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) can be life-saving. MATERIAL AND METHOD: Retrospective analysis of data from patients with ARDS triggered by COVID-19 who received ECMO therapy between March 2020 and February 2022. Premorbid health condition, course of respiratory distress and respiratory support before, during and after ECMO therapy were registered. RESULTS: Thirty patients received ECMO therapy. Median age was 57 years, median body mass index 28 kg/m2, and 23 patients were men. Median duration of lung protective mechanical ventilation with tidal volume 5.8 mL/kg predicted body weight before initiation of ECMO therapy was 8 days. Treatment indication was primarily severe hypoxaemia, frequently combined with hypercapnia. Twenty-three patients developed at least one severe complication while receiving ECMO therapy. Sixteen patients died, 13 during ongoing ECMO therapy. Fourteen were discharged from hospital. Median duration of ECMO and mechanical ventilation was 27 and 37 days, respectively. INTERPRETATION: ECMO therapy for patients with ARDS triggered by COVID-19 can be life-saving, but the treatment is accompanied by severe complications and a high mortality rate.

Patient characteristics, management and outcomes in a Nordic subset of the "large observational study to understand the global impact of severe acute respiratory failure" (LUNG SAFE) study.

BACKGROUND: The "Large observational study to understand the global impact of severe acute respiratory failure" (LUNG SAFE) study described the worldwide epidemiology and management of patients with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure (AHRF). Here, we present the Nordic subset of data from the LUNG SAFE cohort. METHODS: We extracted LUNG SAFE data for adults fulfilling criteria for AHRF in intensive care units (ICU) in Denmark, Norway and Sweden, including demographics, co-morbidities, clinical assessment and management characteristics, 90-day survival and length-of-stay (LOS). We analysed ICU LOS with linear regression, and associations between risk factors and mortality were quantified using Cox regression. RESULTS: We included 192 patients, with a median age of 64 years (IQR 55, 72), and a male-to-female ratio of 2:1. The majority had one or more co-morbidities, and clinicians identified pneumonia as the primary cause of respiratory failure in 56% and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in 21%. Median ICU LOS and duration of invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) were 5 and 3 days. Tidal volumes (TV) were frequently larger than that supported by evidence and IMV allowing for spontaneous ventilation was common. Younger age, co-morbidity, surgical admission and ARDS were associated with ICU LOS. Sixty-one patients (32%) were dead at 90 days. Age and a non-surgical cause of admission were associated with death. CONCLUSIONS: In this subset of LUNG SAFE, ARDS was often not recognised in patients with AHRF and management frequently deviated from evidence-based practices. ICU LOS was generally short, and mortality was attributable to known risk factors.

A descriptive study of the surge response and outcomes of ICU patients with COVID-19 during first wave in Nordic countries.

BACKGROUND: We sought to provide a description of surge response strategies and characteristics, clinical management and outcomes of patients with severe COVID-19 in the intensive care unit (ICU) during the first wave of the pandemic in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden. METHODS: Representatives from the national ICU registries for each of the five countries provided clinical data and a description of the strategies to allocate ICU resources and increase the ICU capacity during the pandemic. All adult patients admitted to the ICU for COVID-19 disease during the first wave of COVID-19 were included. The clinical characteristics, ICU management and outcomes of individual countries were described with descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Most countries more than doubled their ICU capacity during the pandemic. For patients positive for SARS-CoV-2, the ratio of requiring ICU admission for COVID-19 varied substantially (1.6%-6.7%). Apart from age (proportion of patients aged 65 years or over between 29% and 62%), baseline characteristics, chronic comorbidity burden and acute presentations of COVID-19 disease were similar among the five countries. While utilization of invasive mechanical ventilation was high (59%-85%) in all countries, the proportion of patients receiving renal replacement therapy (7%-26%) and various experimental therapies for COVID-19 disease varied substantially (e.g. use of hydroxychloroquine 0%-85%). Crude ICU mortality ranged from 11% to 33%. CONCLUSION: There was substantial variability in the critical care response in Nordic ICUs to the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic, including usage of experimental medications. While ICU mortality was low in all countries, the observed variability warrants further attention.

Handling oxygenation targets in ICU patients with COVID-19-Protocol and statistical analysis plan in the HOT-COVID trial.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) primarily affects the lungs and lower airways and may present as hypoxaemic respiratory failure requiring admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for supportive treatment. Here, supplemental oxygen remains essential for COVID-19 patient management, but the optimal dosage is not defined. We hypothesize that targeting an arterial partial pressure of oxygen of 8 kPa throughout ICU admission is superior to targeting 12 kPa. METHODS: The Handling Oxygenation Targets in ICU patients with COVID-19 (HOT-COVID) trial, is an investigator-initiated, pragmatic, multicentre, randomized, parallel-group trial comparing a lower oxygenation target versus a higher oxygenation target in adult ICU patients with COVID-19. The primary outcome is days alive without life-support (use of mechanical ventilation, renal replacement therapy or vasoactive therapy) at day 90. Secondary outcomes are 90-day and 1-year mortality, serious adverse events in the ICU and days alive and out of hospital in the 90-day period, health-related quality-of-life at 1 year, and health economic analyses. One-year follow-up of cognitive and pulmonary function is planned in a subgroup of Danish patients. We will include 780 patients to detect or reject an absolute increase in days alive without life-support of 7 days with an α of 5% and a ß of 20%. An interim analysis is planned after 90-day follow-up of 390 patients. CONCLUSIONS: The HOT-COVID trial will provide patient-important data on the effect of two oxygenation targets in ICU patients with COVID-19 and hypoxia. This protocol paper describes the background, design and statistical analysis plan for the trial.