Outcomes of patients with respiratory failure declined for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: a prospective observational study.

PURPOSE: Descriptive information on referral patterns and short-term outcomes of patients with respiratory failure declined for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is lacking. METHODS: We conducted a prospective single-centre observational cohort study of ECMO referrals to Toronto General Hospital (receiving hospital) for severe respiratory failure (COVID-19 and non-COVID-19), between 1 December 2019 and 30 November 2020. Data related to the referral, the referral decision, and reasons for refusal were collected. Reasons for refusal were grouped into three mutually exclusive categories selected a priori: "too sick now," "too sick before," and "not sick enough." In declined referrals, referring physicians were surveyed to collect patient outcome on day 7 after the referral. The primary study endpoints were referral outcome (accepted/declined) and patient outcome (alive/deceased). RESULTS: A total of 193 referrals were included; 73% were declined for transfer. Referral outcome was influenced by age (odds ratio [OR], 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.95 to 0.96; P < 0.01) and involvement of other members of the ECMO team in the discussion (OR, 4.42; 95% CI, 1.28 to 15.2; P < 0.01). Patient outcomes were missing in 46 (24%) referrals (inability to locate the referring physician or the referring physician being unable to recall the outcome). Using available data (95 declined and 52 accepted referrals; n = 147), survival to day 7 was 49% for declined referrals (35% for patients deemed "too sick now," 53% for "too sick before," 100% for "not sick enough," and 50% for reason for refusal not reported) and 98% for transferred patients. Sensitivity analysis setting missing outcomes to directional extreme values retained robustness of survival probabilities. CONCLUSION: Nearly half of the patients declined for ECMO consideration were alive on day 7. More information on patient trajectory and long-term outcomes in declined referrals is needed to refine selection criteria.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: On manque d'informations descriptives sur les schémas de références et les devenirs à court terme des patient·es atteint·es d'insuffisance respiratoire n'ayant pas pu recevoir une oxygénation par membrane extracorporelle (ECMO). MéTHODE: Nous avons réalisé une étude de cohorte observationnelle prospective monocentrique sur les références vers l'ECMO à l'Hôpital général de Toronto (hôpital d'accueil) pour insuffisance respiratoire grave (COVID-19 et non-COVID-19), entre le 1er décembre 2019 et le 30 novembre 2020. Les données relatives à la référence, à la décision de référence et aux motifs du refus ont été recueillies. Les motifs de refus ont été regroupés en trois catégories mutuellement exclusives sélectionnées a priori : « Trop malade maintenant ¼, « Trop malade avant ¼ et « Pas assez malade ¼. En ce qui concerne les références refusées, un sondage envoyé aux médecins traitant·es avait pour objectif de recueillir les devenirs des patient·es le jour 7 suivant la référence. Les critères d'évaluation principaux de l'étude étaient le résultat de la référence (accepté/refusé) et le devenir des patient·es (vivant·e/décédé·e). RéSULTATS: Au total, 193 références ont été incluses; le transfert a été refusé dans 73 % des cas. L'acceptation ou le refus de la référence était influencé par l'âge (rapport de cotes [RC], 0,97; intervalle de confiance [IC] à 95 %, 0,95 à 0,96; P < 0,01) et la participation d'autres membres de l'équipe ECMO à la discussion (RC, 4,42; IC 95 %, 1,28 à 15,2; P < 0,01). Les devenirs des patient·es étaient manquants pour 46 (24 %) des personnes référées (incapacité de localiser les médecins traitant·es ou incapacité des médecins de se souvenir du devenir). À l'aide des données disponibles (95 références refusées et 52 références acceptées; n = 147), la survie jusqu'au jour 7 était de 49 % pour les références refusées (35 % pour la patientèle jugée « trop malade maintenant ¼, 53 % pour celle « trop malade avant ¼, 100 % pour celle « pas assez malade ¼ et 50 % pour les cas où la raison du refus n'était pas déclarée) et 98 % pour les patient·es transféré·es. L'analyse de sensibilité établissant les résultats manquants à des valeurs extrêmes directionnelles a conservé la robustesse des probabilités de survie. CONCLUSION: Près de la moitié des patient·es pour lesquel·les un traitement sous ECMO a été refusé étaient en vie au jour 7. Davantage d'informations concernant la trajectoire et les devenirs à long terme des patient·es refusé·es sont nécessaires pour parfaire les critères de sélection.

Sex and age affect acute and persisting COVID-19 illness.

Long COVID is associated with neurological and neuropsychiatric manifestations. We conducted an observational study on 97 patients with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection and persisting cognitive complaints that presented to the University Health Network Memory Clinic between October 2020 and December 2021. We assessed the main effects of sex, age, and their interaction on COVID-19 symptoms and outcomes. We also examined the relative contribution of demographics and acute COVID-19 presentation (assessed retrospectively) on persistent neurological symptoms and cognition. Among our cohort, males had higher hospitalization rates than females during the acute COVID-19 illness (18/35 (51%) vs. 15/62 (24%); P = .009). Abnormal scores on cognitive assessments post-COVID were associated with older age (AOR = 0.84; 95% CI 0.74-0.93) and brain fog during initial illness (AOR = 8.80; 95% CI 1.76-65.13). Female sex (ARR = 1.42; 95% CI 1.09-1.87) and acute shortness of breath (ARR = 1.41; 95% CI 1.09-1.84) were associated with a higher risk of experiencing more persistent short-term memory symptoms. Female sex was the only predictor associated with persistent executive dysfunction (ARR = 1.39; 95% CI 1.12-1.76) and neurological symptoms (ARR = 1.66; 95% CI 1.19-2.36). Sex differences were evident in presentations and cognitive outcomes in patients with long COVID.

High-level burnout in physicians and nurses working in adult ICUs: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: The prevalence of burnout in intensive care unit (ICU) professionals is difficult to establish due to the variety of survey instruments used, the heterogeneity of the targeted population, the design of the studies, and the differences among countries regarding ICU organization. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis examining the prevalence of high-level burnout in physicians and nurses working in adult ICUs, including only studies that use the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) as a tool to evaluate burnout and involving at least 3 different ICUs. RESULTS: Twenty-five studies with a combined population of 20,723 healthcare workers from adult ICUs satisfied the inclusion criteria. Combining 18 studies including 8187 ICU physicians, 3660 of them reported a high level of burnout (prevalence 0.41, range 0.15-0.71, 95% CI [0.33; 0.5], I2 97.6%, 95% CI [96.9%; 98.1%]). The heterogeneity can be at least in part explained by the definition of burnout used and the response rate as confirmed by the multivariable metaregression done. In contrast, there was no significant difference regarding other factors such as the study period (before or during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic), the income of the countries, or the Healthcare Access and Quality (HAQ) index. Combining 20 studies including 12,536 ICU nurses, 6232 of nurses were reporting burnout (prevalence 0.44, range 0.14-0.74, [95% CI 0.34; 0.55], I2 98.6% 95% CI [98.4%; 98.9%]). The prevalence of high-level burnout in ICU nurses for studies performed during the COVID-19 pandemic was higher than that reported for studies performed before the COVID-19 pandemic (0.61 [95% CI, 0.46; 0.75] and 0.37 [95% CI, 0.26; 0.49] respectively, p = 0.003). As for physicians, the heterogeneity is at least in part explained by the definition used for burnout using the MBI but not by the number of participants. When compared, the prevalence of high-level burnout was not different between ICU physicians and ICU nurses. However, the proportion of ICU nurses with a high level of emotional exhaustion was higher than for ICU physicians (0.42 [95% CI, 0.37; 0.48] and 0.28 [0.2; 0.39], respectively, p = 0.022). CONCLUSION: According to this meta-analysis, the prevalence of high-level burnout is higher than 40% in all ICU professionals. However, there is a great heterogeneity in the results. To evaluate and to compare preventive and therapeutic strategies, there is the need to use a consensual definition of burnout when using the MBI instrument.

Wellness and Coping of Physicians Who Worked in ICUs During the Pandemic: A Multicenter Cross-Sectional North American Survey.

OBJECTIVES: Few surveys have focused on physician moral distress, burnout, and professional fulfilment. We assessed physician wellness and coping during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey using four validated instruments. SETTING: Sixty-two sites in Canada and the United States. SUBJECTS: Attending physicians (adult, pediatric; intensivist, nonintensivist) who worked in North American ICUs. INTERVENTION: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We analysed 431 questionnaires (43.3% response rate) from 25 states and eight provinces. Respondents were predominantly male (229 [55.6%]) and in practice for 11.8 ± 9.8 years. Compared with prepandemic, respondents reported significant intrapandemic increases in days worked/mo, ICU bed occupancy, and self-reported moral distress (240 [56.9%]) and burnout (259 [63.8%]). Of the 10 top-ranked items that incited moral distress, most pertained to regulatory/organizational ( n = 6) or local/institutional ( n = 2) issues or both ( n = 2). Average moral distress (95.6 ± 66.9), professional fulfilment (6.5 ± 2.1), and burnout scores (3.6 ± 2.0) were moderate with 227 physicians (54.6%) meeting burnout criteria. A significant dose-response existed between COVID-19 patient volume and moral distress scores. Physicians who worked more days/mo and more scheduled in-house nightshifts, especially combined with more unscheduled in-house nightshifts, experienced significantly more moral distress. One in five physicians used at least one maladaptive coping strategy. We identified four coping profiles (active/social, avoidant, mixed/ambivalent, infrequent) that were associated with significant differences across all wellness measures. CONCLUSIONS: Despite moderate intrapandemic moral distress and burnout, physicians experienced moderate professional fulfilment. However, one in five physicians used at least one maladaptive coping strategy. We highlight potentially modifiable factors at individual, institutional, and regulatory levels to enhance physician wellness.

My advice to the NEXT generation

The NEXT committee of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM) invited me to present a talk on my advice to the NEXT generation of researchers. I was deeply honored to contribute this talk and to share some very personal thoughts with the emerging young leaders in our community. This was presented as part of the eLIVES 2020 meeting. I would like to organize my thoughts by each of the various domains in my life;those that are more professional—as a clinician-scientist and intensivist—and those that are more personal: as a woman and as a person.... To look after others, you must first learn how to look after yourself. Then look after those who are most important to you. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has really stressed us—pushed us to our limits of physical endurance, mental health and emotional resilience. Learn about yourself from this COVID-19 is an historic event that will change our specialty forever....

Research interrupted: applying the CONSERVE 2021 Statement to a randomized trial of rehabilitation during critical illness affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.

RATIONALE: The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted non-COVID critical care trials globally as intensive care units (ICUs) prioritized patient care and COVID-specific research. The international randomized controlled trial CYCLE (Critical Care Cycling to Improve Lower Extremity Strength) was forced to halt recruitment at all sites in March 2020, creating immediate challenges. We applied the CONSERVE (CONSORT and SPIRIT Extension for RCTs Revised in Extenuating Circumstance) statement as a framework to report the impact of the pandemic on CYCLE and describe our mitigation approaches. METHODS: On March 23, 2020, the CYCLE Methods Centre distributed a standardized email to determine the number of patients still in-hospital and those requiring imminent 90-day endpoint assessments. We assessed protocol fidelity by documenting attempts to provide the in-hospital randomized intervention (cycling or routine physiotherapy) and collect the primary outcome (physical function 3-days post-ICU discharge) and 90-day outcomes. We advised sites to prioritize data for the study's primary outcome. We sought feedback on pandemic barriers related to trial procedures. RESULTS: Our main Methods Centre mitigation strategies included identifying patients at risk for protocol deviations, communicating early and frequently with sites, developing standardized internal tools focused on high-risk points in the protocol for monitoring patient progress, data entry, and validation, and providing guidance to conduct some research activities remotely. For study sites, our strategies included determining how institutional pandemic research policies applied to CYCLE, communicating with the Methods Centre about capacity to continue any part of the research, and developing contingency plans to ensure the protocol was delivered as intended. From 15 active sites (12 Canada, 2 US, 1 Australia), 5 patients were still receiving the study intervention in ICUs, 6 required primary outcomes, and 17 required 90-day assessments. With these mitigation strategies, we attempted 100% of ICU interventions, 83% of primary outcomes, and 100% of 90-day assessments per our protocol. CONCLUSIONS: We retained all enrolled patients with minimal missing data using several time-sensitive strategies. Although CONSERVE recommends reporting only major modifications incurred by extenuating circumstances, we suggest that it also provides a helpful framework for reporting mitigation strategies with the goal of improving research transparency and trial management. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03471247. Registered on March 20, 2018.

Studying the post-COVID-19 condition: research challenges, strategies, and importance of Core Outcome Set development.

BACKGROUND: A substantial portion of people with COVID-19 subsequently experience lasting symptoms including fatigue, shortness of breath, and neurological complaints such as cognitive dysfunction many months after acute infection. Emerging evidence suggests that this condition, commonly referred to as long COVID but also known as post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC) or post-COVID-19 condition, could become a significant global health burden. MAIN TEXT: While the number of studies investigating the post-COVID-19 condition is increasing, there is no agreement on how this new disease should be defined and diagnosed in clinical practice and what relevant outcomes to measure. There is an urgent need to optimise and standardise outcome measures for this important patient group both for clinical services and for research and to allow comparing and pooling of data. CONCLUSIONS: A Core Outcome Set for post-COVID-19 condition should be developed in the shortest time frame possible, for improvement in data quality, harmonisation, and comparability between different geographical locations. We call for a global initiative, involving all relevant partners, including, but not limited to, healthcare professionals, researchers, methodologists, patients, and caregivers. We urge coordinated actions aiming to develop a Core Outcome Set (COS) for post-COVID-19 condition in both the adult and paediatric populations.

Outcomes in patients with and without disability admitted to hospital with COVID-19: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Disability-related considerations have largely been absent from the COVID-19 response, despite evidence that people with disabilities are at elevated risk for acquiring COVID-19. We evaluated clinical outcomes in patients who were admitted to hospital with COVID-19 with a disability compared with patients without a disability. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study that included adults with COVID-19 who were admitted to hospital and discharged between Jan. 1, 2020, and Nov. 30, 2020, at 7 hospitals in Ontario, Canada. We compared in-hospital death, admission to the intensive care unit (ICU), hospital length of stay and unplanned 30-day readmission among patients with and without a physical disability, hearing or vision impairment, traumatic brain injury, or intellectual or developmental disability, overall and stratified by age (≤ 64 and ≥ 65 yr) using multivariable regression, controlling for sex, residence in a long-term care facility and comorbidity. RESULTS: Among 1279 admissions to hospital for COVID-19, 22.3% had a disability. We found that patients with a disability were more likely to die than those without a disability (28.1% v. 17.6%), had longer hospital stays (median 13.9 v. 7.8 d) and more readmissions (17.6% v. 7.9%), but had lower ICU admission rates (22.5% v. 28.3%). After adjustment, there were no statistically significant differences between those with and without disabilities for in-hospital death or admission to ICU. After adjustment, patients with a disability had longer hospital stays (rate ratio 1.36, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.19-1.56) and greater risk of readmission (relative risk 1.77, 95% CI 1.14-2.75). In age-stratified analyses, we observed longer hospital stays among patients with a disability than in those without, in both younger and older subgroups; readmission risk was driven by younger patients with a disability. INTERPRETATION: Patients with a disability who were admitted to hospital with COVID-19 had longer stays and elevated readmission risk than those without disabilities. Disability-related needs should be addressed to support these patients in hospital and after discharge.

Outcomes of critically ill COVID-19 survivors and caregivers: a case study-centred narrative review Devenir des survivants et des soignants gravement atteints par la COVID-19 : une revue narrative centrée sur une étude de cas

Purpose Critical illness is a transformative experience for both patients and their family members. For COVID-19 patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU), survival may be the start of a long road to recovery. Our knowledge of the post-ICU long-term sequelae of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) may inform our understanding and management of the long-term effects of COVID-19. Source We identified international and Canadian epidemiologic data on ICU admissions for COVID-19, COVID-19 pathophysiology, emerging ICU practice patterns, early reports of long-term outcomes, and federal support programs for survivors and their families. Centred around an illustrating case study, we applied relevant literature from ARDS and SARS to contextualize knowledge within emerging COVID-19 research and extrapolate findings to future long-term outcomes. Principal findings COVID-19 is a multisystem disease with unknown long-term morbidity and mortality. Its pathophysiology is distinct and unique from ARDS, SARS, and critical illness. Nevertheless, based on initial reports of critical care management for COVID-19 and the varied injurious supportive practices employed in the ICU, patients and families are at risk for post-intensive care syndrome. The distinct incremental risk of COVID-19 multiple organ dysfunction is unknown. The risk of mood disorders in family members may be further exacerbated by imposed isolation and stigma. Conclusion Emerging literature on COVID-19 outcomes suggests some similarities with those of ARDS/SARS and prolonged mechanical ventilation. The pathophysiology of COVID-19 is presented here in the context of early outcome data and to inform an agenda for longitudinal research for patients and families.

Outcomes of critically ill COVID-19 survivors and caregivers: a case study-centred narrative review.

PURPOSE: Critical illness is a transformative experience for both patients and their family members. For COVID-19 patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU), survival may be the start of a long road to recovery. Our knowledge of the post-ICU long-term sequelae of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) may inform our understanding and management of the long-term effects of COVID-19. SOURCE: We identified international and Canadian epidemiologic data on ICU admissions for COVID-19, COVID-19 pathophysiology, emerging ICU practice patterns, early reports of long-term outcomes, and federal support programs for survivors and their families. Centred around an illustrating case study, we applied relevant literature from ARDS and SARS to contextualize knowledge within emerging COVID-19 research and extrapolate findings to future long-term outcomes. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: COVID-19 is a multisystem disease with unknown long-term morbidity and mortality. Its pathophysiology is distinct and unique from ARDS, SARS, and critical illness. Nevertheless, based on initial reports of critical care management for COVID-19 and the varied injurious supportive practices employed in the ICU, patients and families are at risk for post-intensive care syndrome. The distinct incremental risk of COVID-19 multiple organ dysfunction is unknown. The risk of mood disorders in family members may be further exacerbated by imposed isolation and stigma. CONCLUSION: Emerging literature on COVID-19 outcomes suggests some similarities with those of ARDS/SARS and prolonged mechanical ventilation. The pathophysiology of COVID-19 is presented here in the context of early outcome data and to inform an agenda for longitudinal research for patients and families.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Les maladies au stade critique constituent une expérience bouleversante tant pour les patients que pour leurs proches. Pour les patients atteints de la COVID-19 admis aux soins intensifs (USI), la survie peut être le début d'un long parcours vers la guérison. Notre connaissance des séquelles à long terme post-USI d'un syndrome de détresse respiratoire aiguë (SDRA) ou d'un syndrome respiratoire aigu sévère (SRAS) pourrait éclairer notre compréhension et notre prise en charge des effets à long terme de la COVID-19. SOURCES: Nous avons identifié des données épidémiologiques internationales et canadiennes sur les admissions aux soins intensifs pour la COVID-19, la physiopathologie de la COVID-19, les schémas de pratique émergents en soins intensifs, les premiers rapports sur les issues à long terme et les programmes de soutien fédéraux pour les survivants et leurs familles. En nous centrant autour d'une étude de cas pour illustrer notre propos, nous avons appliqué la littérature pertinente à propos du SDRA et du SRAS afin de contextualiser les connaissances de la recherche émergente sur la COVID-19 et extrapoler les conclusions aux futures issues à long terme. CONSTATATIONS PRINCIPALES: La COVID-19 est une maladie multisystémique dont la morbidité et la mortalité à long terme sont inconnues. Sa physiopathologie est unique et distincte du SDRA, du SRAS et des maladies graves. Néanmoins, en nous fondant sur les rapports initiaux de prise en charge aux soins intensifs de la COVID-19 et sur les diverses pratiques de support préjudiciables utilisées aux soins intensifs, les patients et les familles sont à risque de syndrome post-soins intensifs. Le risque distinct supplémentaire de dysfonctionnement multiviscéral de la COVID-19 est inconnu. Le risque de troubles de l'humeur chez les proches peut être encore exacerbé par l'isolement imposé et la stigmatisation. CONCLUSION: La littérature émergente sur les issues de la COVID-19 suggère certaines similitudes avec celles du SDRA/SRAS et de la ventilation mécanique prolongée. La physiopathologie de la COVID-19 est présentée ici dans le contexte des premières données sur les issues et pour éclairer un programme de recherche longitudinale pour les patients et leurs familles.

Caractéristiques et issues des hospitalisations pour les cas de COVID-19 et d'influenza dans la région de Toronto.

CONTEXTE: Les caractéristiques des patients, les soins cliniques, l'utilisation des ressources et les issues cliniques des personnes atteintes de la maladie à coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) hospitalisées au Canada ne sont pas bien connus. MÉTHODES: Nous avons recueilli des données sur tous les adultes hospitalisés atteints de la COVID-19 ou de l'influenza ayant obtenu leur congé d'unités médicales ou d'unités de soins intensifs médicaux et chirurgicaux entre le 1er novembre 2019 et le 30 juin 2020 dans 7 centres hospitaliers de Toronto et de Mississauga (Ontario). Nous avons comparé les issues cliniques des patients à l'aide de modèles de régression multivariée, en tenant compte des facteurs sociodémographiques et de l'intensité des comorbidités. Nous avons validé le degré d'exactitude de 7 scores de risque mis au point à l'externe pour déterminer leur capacité à prédire le risque de décès chez les patients atteints de la COVID-19. RÉSULTATS: Parmi les hospitalisations retenues, 1027 patients étaient atteints de la COVID-19 (âge médian de 65 ans, 59,1 % d'hommes) et 783 étaient atteints de l'influenza (âge médian de 68 ans, 50,8 % d'hommes). Les patients âgés de moins de 50 ans comptaient pour 21,2 % de toutes les hospitalisations dues à la COVID-19 et 24,0 % des séjours aux soins intensifs. Comparativement aux patients atteints de l'influenza, les patients atteints de la COVID-19 présentaient un taux de mortalité perhospitalière (mortalité non ajustée 19,9 % c. 6,1 %; risque relatif [RR] ajusté 3,46 %, intervalle de confiance [IC] à 95 % 2,56­4,68) et un taux d'utilisation des ressources des unités de soins intensifs (taux non ajusté 26,4 % c. 18,0 %; RR ajusté 1,50, IC à 95 % 1,25­1,80) significativement plus élevés, ainsi qu'une durée d'hospitalisation (durée médiane non ajustée 8,7 jours c. 4,8 jours; rapport des taux d'incidence ajusté 1,45; IC à 95 % 1,25­1,69) significativement plus longue. Le taux de réhospitalisation dans les 30 jours n'était pas significativement différent (taux non ajusté 9,3 % c. 9,6 %; RR ajusté 0,98 %, IC à 95 % 0,70­1,39). Trois scores de risque utilisant un pointage pour prédire la mortalité perhospitalière ont montré une bonne discrimination (aire sous la courbe [ASC] de la fonction d'efficacité du récepteur [ROC] 0,72­0,81) et une bonne calibration. INTERPRÉTATION: Durant la première vague de la pandémie, l'hospitalisation des patients atteints de la COVID-19 était associée à des taux de mortalité et d'utilisation des ressources des unités de soins intensifs et à une durée d'hospitalisation significativement plus importants que les hospitalisations des patients atteints de l'influenza. De simples scores de risque peuvent prédire avec une bonne exactitude le risque de mortalité perhospitalière des patients atteints de la COVID-19.

Short-term health-related quality of life, physical function and psychological consequences of severe COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Survivors of severe COVID-19 are at risk of impaired health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and persistent physical and psychological disability after ICU and hospital discharge. The subsequent social burden is a major concern. We aimed to assess the short-term HRQoL, physical function and prevalence of post-traumatic stress symptoms of invasively mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients treated in our ICU. METHODS: Prospective, observational cohort study in a follow-up clinic. Patients completed a 6-min walking test (6MWT) to assess their cardio-pulmonary function around 2 months (early follow-up) from hospital discharge, the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire for quality of life assessment around 2 months and at 6 months from hospital discharge and an anonymous web-based Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R) questionnaire for Post-Traumatic Stress symptoms at 2 months. RESULTS: 47 patients attended our follow-up program, mean age 59 ± 10 years, median pre-morbid Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) 2 [2-3]. The median distance walked in 6 min was 470 [406-516] m, 83 [67-99]% of the predicted value. Overall 1 out 3 patients and 4/18 (22%) among those with a good functional baseline prior to COVID-19 (CFS of 1 or 2) had lower (84%) than predicted 6MWT. EQ-5D-5L quality of life VAS was 80 [70-90] out of 100 at early follow-up with a slight improvement to 85 [77.5-90] at 6 months. Mobility, self-care and usual activities improved between the two timepoints, while pain/discomfort and depression/anxiety did not improve or got worse. The IES-R total score was greater than the threshold for concern of 1.6 in 27/41(66%) respondents. CONCLUSIONS: Patients recovering from severe COVID-19 requiring invasive mechanical ventilation surviving hospital discharge present with early mild to moderate functional impairment, mildly reduced quality of life from hospital discharge with an overall improvement of mobility, self-care and the ability of performing usual activities, while a worsening of pain and depression/anxiety symptoms at 6 months and a large proportion of symptoms of post-traumatic distress soon after hospital discharge.

Characteristics and outcomes of hospital admissions for COVID-19 and influenza in the Toronto area.

BACKGROUND: Patient characteristics, clinical care, resource use and outcomes associated with admission to hospital for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Canada are not well described. METHODS: We described all adults with COVID-19 or influenza discharged from inpatient medical services and medical-surgical intensive care units (ICUs) between Nov. 1, 2019, and June 30, 2020, at 7 hospitals in Toronto and Mississauga, Ontario. We compared patient outcomes using multivariable regression models, controlling for patient sociodemographic factors and comorbidity level. We validated the accuracy of 7 externally developed risk scores to predict mortality among patients with COVID-19. RESULTS: There were 1027 hospital admissions with COVID-19 (median age 65 yr, 59.1% male) and 783 with influenza (median age 68 yr, 50.8% male). Patients younger than 50 years accounted for 21.2% of all admissions for COVID-19 and 24.0% of ICU admissions. Compared with influenza, patients with COVID-19 had significantly greater in-hospital mortality (unadjusted 19.9% v. 6.1%, adjusted relative risk [RR] 3.46, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.56-4.68), ICU use (unadjusted 26.4% v. 18.0%, adjusted RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.25-1.80) and hospital length of stay (unadjusted median 8.7 d v. 4.8 d, adjusted rate ratio 1.45, 95% CI 1.25-1.69). Thirty-day readmission was not significantly different (unadjusted 9.3% v. 9.6%, adjusted RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.70-1.39). Three points-based risk scores for predicting in-hospital mortality showed good discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC] ranging from 0.72 to 0.81) and calibration. INTERPRETATION: During the first wave of the pandemic, admission to hospital for COVID-19 was associated with significantly greater mortality, ICU use and hospital length of stay than influenza. Simple risk scores can predict in-hospital mortality in patients with COVID-19 with good accuracy.