Evolution of Clinical Phenotypes of COVID-19 Patients During Intensive Care Treatment: An Unsupervised Machine Learning Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Identification of clinical phenotypes in critically ill COVID-19 patients could improve understanding of the disease heterogeneity and enable prognostic and predictive enrichment. However, previous attempts did not take into account temporal dynamics with high granularity. By including the dimension of time, we aim to gain further insights into the heterogeneity of COVID-19. METHODS: We used granular data from 3202 adult COVID patients in the Dutch Data Warehouse that were admitted to one of 25 Dutch ICUs between February 2020 and March 2021. Parameters including demographics, clinical observations, medications, laboratory values, vital signs, and data from life support devices were selected. Twenty-one datasets were created that each covered 24 h of ICU data for each day of ICU treatment. Clinical phenotypes in each dataset were identified by performing cluster analyses. Both evolution of the clinical phenotypes over time and patient allocation to these clusters over time were tracked. RESULTS: The final patient cohort consisted of 2438 COVID-19 patients with a ICU mortality outcome. Forty-one parameters were chosen for cluster analysis. On admission, both a mild and a severe clinical phenotype were found. After day 4, the severe phenotype split into an intermediate and a severe phenotype for 11 consecutive days. Heterogeneity between phenotypes appears to be driven by inflammation and dead space ventilation. During the 21-day period, only 8.2% and 4.6% of patients in the initial mild and severe clusters remained assigned to the same phenotype respectively. The clinical phenotype half-life was between 5 and 6 days for the mild and severe phenotypes, and about 3 days for the medium severe phenotype. CONCLUSIONS: Patients typically do not remain in the same cluster throughout intensive care treatment. This may have important implications for prognostic or predictive enrichment. Prominent dissimilarities between clinical phenotypes are predominantly driven by inflammation and dead space ventilation.

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.

Intravenous fluid therapy in perioperative and critical care setting-Knowledge test and practice: An international cross-sectional survey.

PURPOSE: In the absence of recent international recommendations supported by scientific societies like Anesthesiology or Intensive Care Medicine, healthcare professionals (HCP) knowledge on IV fluid is expected to vary. We undertook a cross-sectional survey, aiming to assess prescription patterns and test the knowledge of HCP for IV fluid use in the operating room (OR) and intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: An online international cross-sectional survey was conducted between October 20, 2019, and November 27, 2021. The survey included multiple-choice questions on demographics, practice patterns and knowledge of IV fluids, and a hemodynamically unstable patient assessment. RESULTS: 1045 HCP, from 97 countries responded to the survey. Nearly three-quarters reported the non-existence of internal hospital or ICU-based guidelines on IV fluids. The respondents' mean score on the knowledge assessment questions was 46.4 ± 14.4. The cumulative mean scores were significantly higher among those supervising trainees (p = 0.02), specialists (p < 0.001) and those working in high-income (p < 0.001) countries. Overall performance of respondents on the knowledge testing for IV fluid was unsatisfactory with only 6.5% respondents performed above average. CONCLUSION: There is a wide difference in the knowledge and prescription of IV fluids among the HCP surveyed. These findings reflect the urgent need for education on IV fluids.

Right dose, right now: bedside, real-time, data-driven, and personalised antibiotic dosing in critically ill patients with sepsis or septic shock-a two-centre randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Adequate antibiotic dosing may improve outcomes in critically ill patients but is challenging due to altered and variable pharmacokinetics. To address this challenge, AutoKinetics was developed, a decision support system for bedside, real-time, data-driven and personalised antibiotic dosing. This study evaluates the feasibility, safety and efficacy of its clinical implementation. METHODS: In this two-centre randomised clinical trial, critically ill patients with sepsis or septic shock were randomised to AutoKinetics dosing or standard dosing for four antibiotics: vancomycin, ciprofloxacin, meropenem, and ceftriaxone. Adult patients with a confirmed or suspected infection and either lactate > 2 mmol/L or vasopressor requirement were eligible for inclusion. The primary outcome was pharmacokinetic target attainment in the first 24 h after randomisation. Clinical endpoints included mortality, ICU length of stay and incidence of acute kidney injury. RESULTS: After inclusion of 252 patients, the study was stopped early due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In the ciprofloxacin intervention group, the primary outcome was obtained in 69% compared to 3% in the control group (OR 62.5, CI 11.4-1173.78, p < 0.001). Furthermore, target attainment was faster (26 h, CI 18-42 h, p < 0.001) and better (65% increase, CI 49-84%, p < 0.001). For the other antibiotics, AutoKinetics dosing did not improve target attainment. Clinical endpoints were not significantly different. Importantly, higher dosing did not lead to increased mortality or renal failure. CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients, personalised dosing was feasible, safe and significantly improved target attainment for ciprofloxacin. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was prospectively registered at Netherlands Trial Register (NTR), NL6501/NTR6689 on 25 August 2017 and at the European Clinical Trials Database (EudraCT), 2017-002478-37 on 6 November 2017.

Co-infection and ICU-acquired infection in COIVD-19 ICU patients: a secondary analysis of the UNITE-COVID data set.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic presented major challenges for critical care facilities worldwide. Infections which develop alongside or subsequent to viral pneumonitis are a challenge under sporadic and pandemic conditions; however, data have suggested that patterns of these differ between COVID-19 and other viral pneumonitides. This secondary analysis aimed to explore patterns of co-infection and intensive care unit-acquired infections (ICU-AI) and the relationship to use of corticosteroids in a large, international cohort of critically ill COVID-19 patients. METHODS: This is a multicenter, international, observational study, including adult patients with PCR-confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis admitted to ICUs at the peak of wave one of COVID-19 (February 15th to May 15th, 2020). Data collected included investigator-assessed co-infection at ICU admission, infection acquired in ICU, infection with multi-drug resistant organisms (MDRO) and antibiotic use. Frequencies were compared by Pearson's Chi-squared and continuous variables by Mann-Whitney U test. Propensity score matching for variables associated with ICU-acquired infection was undertaken using R library MatchIT using the "full" matching method. RESULTS: Data were available from 4994 patients. Bacterial co-infection at admission was detected in 716 patients (14%), whilst 85% of patients received antibiotics at that stage. ICU-AI developed in 2715 (54%). The most common ICU-AI was bacterial pneumonia (44% of infections), whilst 9% of patients developed fungal pneumonia; 25% of infections involved MDRO. Patients developing infections in ICU had greater antimicrobial exposure than those without such infections. Incident density (ICU-AI per 1000 ICU days) was in considerable excess of reports from pre-pandemic surveillance. Corticosteroid use was heterogenous between ICUs. In univariate analysis, 58% of patients receiving corticosteroids and 43% of those not receiving steroids developed ICU-AI. Adjusting for potential confounders in the propensity-matched cohort, 71% of patients receiving corticosteroids developed ICU-AI vs 52% of those not receiving corticosteroids. Duration of corticosteroid therapy was also associated with development of ICU-AI and infection with an MDRO. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with severe COVID-19 in the first wave, co-infection at admission to ICU was relatively rare but antibiotic use was in substantial excess to that indication. ICU-AI were common and were significantly associated with use of corticosteroids. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04836065 (retrospectively registered April 8th 2021).

Characteristics and outcome of COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU: a nationwide cohort study on the comparison between the first and the consecutive upsurges of the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in the Netherlands

BackgroundTo assess trends in the quality of care for COVID-19 patients at the ICU over the course of time in the Netherlands.MethodsData from the National Intensive Care Evaluation (NICE)-registry of all COVID-19 patients admitted to an ICU in the Netherlands were used. Patient characteristics and indicators of quality of care during the first two upsurges (N = 4215: October 5, 2020–January 31, 2021) and the final upsurge of the second wave, called the ‘third wave’ (N = 4602: February 1, 2021–June 30, 2021) were compared with those during the first wave (N = 2733, February–May 24, 2020).ResultsDuring the second and third wave, there were less patients treated with mechanical ventilation (58.1 and 58.2%) and vasoactive drugs (48.0 and 44.7%) compared to the first wave (79.1% and 67.2%, respectively). The occupancy rates as fraction of occupancy in 2019 (1.68 and 1.55 vs. 1.83), the numbers of ICU relocations (23.8 and 27.6 vs. 32.3%) and the mean length of stay at the ICU (HRs of ICU discharge = 1.26 and 1.42) were lower during the second and third wave. No difference in adjusted hospital mortality between the second wave and the first wave was found, whereas the mortality during the third wave was considerably lower (OR = 0.80, 95% CI [0.71–0.90]).ConclusionsThese data show favorable shifts in the treatment of COVID-19 patients at the ICU over time. The adjusted mortality decreased in the third wave. The high ICU occupancy rate early in the pandemic does probably not explain the high mortality associated with COVID-19.

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.

Early high-dose vitamin C in post-cardiac arrest syndrome (VITaCCA): study protocol for a randomized, double-blind, multi-center, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: High-dose intravenous vitamin C directly scavenges and decreases the production of harmful reactive oxygen species (ROS) generated during ischemia/reperfusion after a cardiac arrest. The aim of this study is to investigate whether short-term treatment with a supplementary or very high-dose intravenous vitamin C reduces organ failure in post-cardiac arrest patients. METHODS: This is a double-blind, multi-center, randomized placebo-controlled trial conducted in 7 intensive care units (ICUs) in The Netherlands. A total of 270 patients with cardiac arrest and return of spontaneous circulation will be randomly assigned to three groups of 90 patients (1:1:1 ratio, stratified by site and age). Patients will intravenously receive a placebo, a supplementation dose of 3 g of vitamin C or a pharmacological dose of 10 g of vitamin C per day for 96 h. The primary endpoint is organ failure at 96 h as measured by the Resuscitation-Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (R-SOFA) score at 96 h minus the baseline score (delta R-SOFA). Secondary endpoints are a neurological outcome, mortality, length of ICU and hospital stay, myocardial injury, vasopressor support, lung injury score, ventilator-free days, renal function, ICU-acquired weakness, delirium, oxidative stress parameters, and plasma vitamin C concentrations. DISCUSSION: Vitamin C supplementation is safe and preclinical studies have shown beneficial effects of high-dose IV vitamin C in cardiac arrest models. This is the first RCT to assess the clinical effect of intravenous vitamin C on organ dysfunction in critically ill patients after cardiac arrest. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03509662. Registered on April 26, 2018. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03509662 European Clinical Trials Database (EudraCT): 2017-004318-25. Registered on June 8, 2018. https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/trial/2017-004318-25/NL.

Predicting mortality of individual patients with COVID-19: a multicentre Dutch cohort.

OBJECTIVE: Develop and validate models that predict mortality of patients diagnosed with COVID-19 admitted to the hospital. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: A multicentre cohort across 10 Dutch hospitals including patients from 27 February to 8 June 2020. PARTICIPANTS: SARS-CoV-2 positive patients (age ≥18) admitted to the hospital. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: 21-day all-cause mortality evaluated by the area under the receiver operator curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value. The predictive value of age was explored by comparison with age-based rules used in practice and by excluding age from the analysis. RESULTS: 2273 patients were included, of whom 516 had died or discharged to palliative care within 21 days after admission. Five feature sets, including premorbid, clinical presentation and laboratory and radiology values, were derived from 80 features. Additionally, an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)-based data-driven feature selection selected the 10 features with the highest F values: age, number of home medications, urea nitrogen, lactate dehydrogenase, albumin, oxygen saturation (%), oxygen saturation is measured on room air, oxygen saturation is measured on oxygen therapy, blood gas pH and history of chronic cardiac disease. A linear logistic regression and non-linear tree-based gradient boosting algorithm fitted the data with an AUC of 0.81 (95% CI 0.77 to 0.85) and 0.82 (0.79 to 0.85), respectively, using the 10 selected features. Both models outperformed age-based decision rules used in practice (AUC of 0.69, 0.65 to 0.74 for age >70). Furthermore, performance remained stable when excluding age as predictor (AUC of 0.78, 0.75 to 0.81). CONCLUSION: Both models showed good performance and had better test characteristics than age-based decision rules, using 10 admission features readily available in Dutch hospitals. The models hold promise to aid decision-making during a hospital bed shortage.

Acute pancreatitis in COVID-19 patients: true risk?

BACKGROUND: A relation between coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and acute pancreatitis has been suggested. However, the incidence and clinical relevance of this relation remain unclear. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to investigate the incidence, severity and clinical impact of acute pancreatitis in patients with COVID-19. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study of a prospective, observational cohort concerning all COVID-19 patients admitted to two Dutch university hospitals between 4 March 2020 and 26 May 2020. Primary outcome was acute pancreatitis potentially related to COVD-19 infection. Acute pancreatitis was defined according to the revised Atlanta Classification. Potential relation with COVID-19 was defined as the absence of a clear aetiology of acute pancreatitis. RESULTS: Among 433 patients with COVID-19, five (1.2%) had potentially related acute pancreatitis according to the revised Atlanta Classification. These five patients suffered from severe COVID-19 infection; all had (multiple) organ failure and 60% died. None of the patients developed necrotizing pancreatitis. Moreover, development of acute pancreatitis did not lead to major treatment consequences. CONCLUSIONS: In contrast with previous research, our study demonstrated that COVID-19 related acute pancreatitis is rare and of little clinical impact. It is therefore debatable if acute pancreatitis in COVID-19 patients requires specific screening. We hypothesize that acute pancreatitis occurs in patients with severe illness due to COVID-19 infection as a result of transient hypoperfusion and pancreatic ischemia, not as a direct result of the virus.

Cardiovascular risk factors and COVID-19 outcomes in hospitalised patients: a prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: Recent reports suggest a high prevalence of hypertension and diabetes in COVID-19 patients, but the role of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors in the clinical course of COVID-19 is unknown. We evaluated the time-to-event relationship between hypertension, dyslipidaemia, diabetes and COVID-19 outcomes. DESIGN: We analysed data from the prospective Dutch CovidPredict cohort, an ongoing prospective study of patients admitted for COVID-19 infection. SETTING: Patients from eight participating hospitals, including two university hospitals from the CovidPredict cohort were included. PARTICIPANTS: Admitted, adult patients with a positive COVID-19 PCR or high suspicion based on CT-imaging of the thorax. Patients were followed for major outcomes during the hospitalisation. CVD risk factors were established via home medication lists and divided in antihypertensives, lipid-lowering therapy and antidiabetics. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES MEASURES: The primary outcome was mortality during the first 21 days following admission, secondary outcomes consisted of intensive care unit (ICU) admission and ICU mortality. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses were used to determine the association with CVD risk factors. RESULTS: We included 1604 patients with a mean age of 66±15 of whom 60.5% were men. Antihypertensives, lipid-lowering therapy and antidiabetics were used by 45%, 34.7% and 22.1% of patients. After 21-days of follow-up; 19.2% of the patients had died or were discharged for palliative care. Cox regression analysis after adjustment for age and sex showed that the presence of ≥2 risk factors was associated with increased mortality risk (HR 1.52, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.02), but not with ICU admission. Moreover, the use of ≥2 antidiabetics and ≥2 antihypertensives was associated with mortality independent of age and sex with HRs of, respectively, 2.09 (95% CI 1.55 to 2.80) and 1.46 (95% CI 1.11 to 1.91). CONCLUSIONS: The accumulation of hypertension, dyslipidaemia and diabetes leads to a stepwise increased risk for short-term mortality in hospitalised COVID-19 patients independent of age and sex. Further studies investigating how these risk factors disproportionately affect COVID-19 patients are warranted.

The effect of small versus large clog size on emergency response time: A randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect on healthcare professional emergency response time and safety of small compared to large clog size. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. SETTING: The intensive care unit of a single university medical centre in The Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: Intensive care medicine professionals. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomized to wear European size 38 clogs (US male size 6½, US female size 7½) or European size 47 clogs (US male size 13½, US female size 14½) clogs and were required to run a 125 m course from the coffee break room to the elevator providing access to the emergency department. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the time to complete the running course. Height, shoe size, self-described fitness, age and staff category were investigated as possible effect modifiers. Secondary endpoints were reported clog comfort and suspected unexpected clog-related adverse events (SUCRAEs). RESULTS: 50 participants were randomized (25 to European size 38 clogs and 25 to size 47 clogs). Mean age was 37 years (SD 12) and 29 participants (58%) were female. The primary outcome was 4.4 s (95% CI -7.1; -1.6) faster in the size 5 clogs group compared to the size 12 clogs group. This effect was not modified by any of the predefined participant characteristics. No differences were found in reported clog comfort or SUCRAEs. CONCLUSIONS: European size 38 clogs lead to faster emergency response times than size 47 clogs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04406220.