RESUMO
Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, thousands of temporary ICUs have been established worldwide. The outcomes and management of mechanically ventilated patients in these areas remain unknown. OBJECTIVES: To investigate mortality and management of mechanically ventilated patients in temporary ICUs. DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Observational cohort study in a single-institution academic center. We included all adult patients with severe COVID-19 hospitalized in temporary and conventional ICUs for invasive mechanical ventilation due to acute respiratory distress syndrome from March 23, 2020, to April 5, 2021. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: To determine if management in temporary ICUs increased 30-day in-hospital mortality compared with conventional ICUs. Ventilator-free days, ICU-free days (both at 28 d), hospital length of stay, and ICU readmission were also assessed. RESULTS: We included 776 patients (326 conventional and 450 temporary ICUs). Thirty-day in-hospital unadjusted mortality (28.8% conventional vs 36.0% temporary, log-rank test p = 0.023) was higher in temporary ICUs. After controlling for potential confounders, hospitalization in temporary ICUs was an independent risk factor associated with mortality (hazard ratio, 1.4; CI, 1.06-1.83; p = 0.016).There were no differences in ICU-free days at 28 days (6; IQR, 0-16 vs 2; IQR, 0-15; p = 0.5) or ventilator-free days at 28 days (8; IQR, 0-16 vs 5; IQR, 0-15; p = 0.6). We observed higher reintubation (18% vs 12%; p = 0.029) and readmission (5% vs 1.6%; p = 0.004) rates in conventional ICUs despite higher use of postextubation noninvasive mechanical ventilation (13% vs 8%; p = 0.025). Use of lung-protective ventilation (87% vs 85%; p = 0.5), prone positioning (76% vs 79%; p = 0.4), neuromuscular blockade (96% vs 98%; p = 0.4), and COVID-19 pharmacologic treatment was similar. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: We observed a higher 30-day in-hospital mortality in temporary ICUs. Although both areas had high adherence to evidence-based management, hospitalization in temporary ICUs was an independent risk factor associated with mortality.
RESUMO
Most COVID-19 mortality scores were developed at the beginning of the pandemic and clinicians now have more experience and evidence-based interventions. Therefore, we hypothesized that the predictive performance of COVID-19 mortality scores is now lower than originally reported. We aimed to prospectively evaluate the current predictive accuracy of six COVID-19 scores and compared it with the accuracy of clinical gestalt predictions. 200 patients with COVID-19 were enrolled in a tertiary hospital in Mexico City between September and December 2020. The area under the curve (AUC) of the LOW-HARM, qSOFA, MSL-COVID-19, NUTRI-CoV, and NEWS2 scores and the AUC of clinical gestalt predictions of death (as a percentage) were determined. In total, 166 patients (106 men and 60 women aged 56±9 years) with confirmed COVID-19 were included in the analysis. The AUC of all scores was significantly lower than originally reported: LOW-HARM 0.76 (95% CI 0.69 to 0.84) vs 0.96 (95% CI 0.94 to 0.98), qSOFA 0.61 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.69) vs 0.74 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.81), MSL-COVID-19 0.64 (95% CI 0.55 to 0.73) vs 0.72 (95% CI 0.69 to 0.75), NUTRI-CoV 0.60 (95% CI 0.51 to 0.69) vs 0.79 (95% CI 0.76 to 0.82), NEWS2 0.65 (95% CI 0.56 to 0.75) vs 0.84 (95% CI 0.79 to 0.90), and neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio 0.65 (95% CI 0.57 to 0.73) vs 0.74 (95% CI 0.62 to 0.85). Clinical gestalt predictions were non-inferior to mortality scores, with an AUC of 0.68 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.77). Adjusting scores with locally derived likelihood ratios did not improve their performance; however, some scores outperformed clinical gestalt predictions when clinicians' confidence of prediction was <80%. Despite its subjective nature, clinical gestalt has relevant advantages in predicting COVID-19 clinical outcomes. The need and performance of most COVID-19 mortality scores need to be evaluated regularly.
