Simplified Acute Physiology Score 3 Performance in Austrian COVID-19 Patients Admitted to Intensive Care Units with and without Diabetes

End-of-life decision-making in critically ill old patients with and without coronavirus disease 2019

BACKGROUND

There are few studies on the differences in end-of-life decisions making in critically ill patients with and without coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This study aimed to investigate the independent factors that predicted the decision to withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatments (LST) in critically ill patients and if these decisions were based on different variables for critically ill patients with COVID-19 compared to those for critically ill patients with other diagnoses in a Swedish intensive care unit.

METHODS

This observational pilot study was performed at Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden. Patients ≥65 years were included from 1 March 2020 to 30 April 2021. The association between a decision to limit LST and a priori selected variables including sex, age, Simplified Acute Physiology Score 3 (SAPS 3), Clinical Frailty Scale ≥4, Charlson Comorbidity Index, Body Mass Index, living at home, invasive and non-invasive mechanical ventilation was assessed using a univariate and multivariable logistic regression model and presented as odds ratio with corresponding 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

There were 394 patients included in this study, 131 in the non-COVID-19 group and 263 in the COVID-19 group. For the non-COVID-19 cohort, the univariate analysis demonstrated that age and SAPS 3 were significantly associated with the decision to withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatments, and this association remained in the multivariable analysis, with odds ratios of 1.10 (1.03-1.19) p = .009 and 1.06 (1.03-1.10) p < .001, respectively. For the COVID-19 cohort, the univariate analysis indicated that age, SAPS 3, and Charlson comorbidity index were significantly associated with the decision to withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatments. However, in multivariable analysis, only the Charlson comorbidity index remained independently associated with the decision to withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatments, with an odds ratio of 1.26 (1.07-1.49), p = .006.

CONCLUSION

Decisions to withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatments were based on other variables for the critically ill COVID-19 cohort compared to those for the critically ill non-COVID-19 cohort. Further studies are warranted to forge a common path for ethical end-of-life decision-making in critically ill patients.

Prior physical illness predicts death better than acute physiological derangement on intensive care unit admission in COVID-19: A Swedish registry study

COVID-19 is associated with prolonged intensive care unit (ICU) stay and considerable mortality. The onset of persistent critical illness, defined as when prior illness predicts death better than acute physiological derangement, has not been studied in COVID-19. This national cohort study based on the Swedish Intensive Care Registry (SIR) included all patients admitted to a Swedish ICU due to COVID-19 from 6 March 2020 to 9 November 2021. Simplified Acute Physiology Score-3 (SAPS3) Box 1 was used as a measure of prior illness and Box 3 as a measure of acute derangement to evaluate the onset and importance of persistent critical illness in COVID-19. To compare predictive capacity, the area under receiver operating characteristic (AUC) of SAPS3 and its constituent Box 1 and 3 was calculated for 30-day mortality. In 7 969 patients, of which 1 878 (23.6%) died within 30 days of ICU admission, the complete SAPS3 score had acceptable discrimination: AUC 0.75 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.76) but showed under prediction in low-risk patients and over prediction in high-risk patients. SAPS3 Box 1 showed markedly better discrimination than Box 3 (AUC 0.74 vs 0.65, P<0,0001). Using custom logistic models, the difference in predictive performance of prior and acute illness was validated, AUC 0.76 vs AUC 0.69, p<0.0001. Prior physical illness predicts death in COVID-19 better than acute physiological derangement during ICU stay, and the whole SAPS3 score is not significantly better than just prior illness. The results suggests that COVID-19 may exhibit similarities to persistent critical illness immediately from ICU admission, potentially because of long median ICU length-of-stay. Alternatively, the variables in the acute physiological derangement model may not adequately capture the severity of illness in COVID-19.

Circulating mid-regional proadrenomedullin is a predictor of mortality in patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Although there is increasing understanding of the changes in the laboratory parameters of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the correlation between circulating Mid-regional Proadrenomedullin (MR-proADM) and mortality of patients with COVID-19 is not fully understood. In this study, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the prognostic value of MR-proADM in patients with COVID-19.

METHODS

The PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Wanfang, SinoMed and Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) databases were searched from 1 January 2020 to 20 March 2022 for relevant literature. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) was used to assess quality bias, STATA was employed to pool the effect size by a random effects model, and potential publication bias and sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

14 studies comprising 1822 patients with COVID-19 met the inclusion criteria, there were 1145 (62.8%) males and 677 (31.2%) females, and the mean age was 63.8 ± 16.1 years. The concentration of MR-proADM was compared between the survivors and non-survivors in 9 studies and the difference was significant (P < 0.01), I² = 46%. The combined sensitivity was 0.86 [0.73-0.92], and the combined specificity was 0.78 [0.68-0.86]. We drew the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve and calculated the area under curve (AUC) = 0.90 [0.87-0.92]. An increase of 1 nmol/L of MR-proADM was independently associated with a more than threefold increase in mortality (odds ratio (OR) 3.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.26-4.06, I² = 0.0%, P = 0.633). The predictive value of MR-proADM for mortality was better than many other biomarkers.

CONCLUSION

MR-proADM had a very good predictive value for the poor prognosis of COVID-19 patients. Increased levels of MR-proADM were independently associated with mortality in COVID-19 patients and may allow a better risk stratification.