A retrospective cohort study comparing differences in 30-day mortality among critically ill patients aged ≥ 70 years treated in European tax-based healthcare systems (THS) versus social health insurance systems.

In Europe, tax-based healthcare systems (THS) and social health insurance systems (SHI) coexist. We examined differences in 30-day mortality among critically ill patients aged ≥ 70 years treated in intensive care units in a THS or SHI. Retrospective cohort study. 2406 (THS n = 886; SHI n = 1520) critically ill ≥ 70 years patients in 129 ICUs. Generalized estimation equations with robust standard errors were chosen to create population average adjusted odds ratios (aOR). Data were adjusted for patient-specific variables, organ support and health economic data. The primary outcome was 30-day-mortality. Numerical differences between SHI and THS in SOFA scores (6 ± 3 vs. 5 ± 3; p = 0.002) were observed, but clinical frailty scores were similar (> 4; 17% vs. 14%; p = 0.09). Higher rates of renal replacement therapy (18% vs. 11%; p < 0.001) were found in SHI (aOR 0.61 95%CI 0.40-0.92; p = 0.02). No differences regarding intubation rates (68% vs. 70%; p = 0.33), vasopressor use (67% vs. 67%; p = 0.90) and 30-day-mortality rates (47% vs. 50%; p = 0.16) were found. Mortality remained similar between both systems after multivariable adjustment and sensitivity analyses. The retrospective character of this study. Baseline risk and mortality rates were similar between SHI and THS. The type of health care system does not appear to have played a role in the intensive care treatment of critically ill patients ≥ 70 years with COVID-19 in Europe.

Variations in end-of-life care practices in older critically ill patients with COVID-19 in Europe.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies reported regional differences in end-of-life care (EoLC) for critically ill patients in Europe. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this post-hoc analysis of the prospective multicentre COVIP study was to investigate variations in EoLC practices among older patients in intensive care units during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. METHODS: A total of 3105 critically ill patients aged 70 years and older were enrolled in this study (Central Europe: n = 1573; Northern Europe: n = 821; Southern Europe: n = 711). Generalised estimation equations were used to calculate adjusted odds ratios (aORs) to population averages. Data were adjusted for patient-specific variables (demographic, disease-specific) and health economic data (gross domestic product, health expenditure per capita). The primary outcome was any treatment limitation, and 90-day mortality was a secondary outcome. RESULTS: The frequency of the primary endpoint (treatment limitation) was highest in Northern Europe (48%), intermediate in Central Europe (39%) and lowest in Southern Europe (24%). The likelihood for treatment limitations was lower in Southern than in Central Europe (aOR 0.39; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.21-0.73; p = 0.004), even after multivariable adjustment, whereas no statistically significant differences were observed between Northern and Central Europe (aOR 0.57; 95%CI 0.27-1.22; p = 0.15). After multivariable adjustment, no statistically relevant mortality differences were found between Northern and Central Europe (aOR 1.29; 95%CI 0.80-2.09; p = 0.30) or between Southern and Central Europe (aOR 1.07; 95%CI 0.66-1.73; p = 0.78). CONCLUSION: This study shows a north-to-south gradient in rates of treatment limitation in Europe, highlighting the heterogeneity of EoLC practices across countries. However, mortality rates were not affected by these results.

Propensity-Adjusted Comparison of Mortality of Elderly Versus Very Elderly Ventilated Patients.

BACKGROUND: The growing proportion of elderly intensive care patients constitutes a public health challenge. The benefit of critical care in these patients remains unclear. We compared outcomes in elderly versus very elderly subjects receiving mechanical ventilation. METHODS: In total, 5,557 mechanically ventilated subjects were included in our post hoc retrospective analysis, a subgroup of the VENTILA study. We divided the cohort into 2 subgroups on the basis of age: very elderly subjects (age ≥ 80 y; n = 1,430), and elderly subjects (age 65-79 y; n = 4,127). A propensity score on being very elderly was calculated. Evaluation of associations with 28-d mortality was done with logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Very elderly subjects were clinically sicker as expressed by higher SAPS II scores (53 ± 18 vs 50 ± 18, P < .001), and their rates of plateau pressure < 30 cm H2O were higher, whereas other parameters did not differ. The 28-d mortality was higher in very elderly subjects (42% vs 34%, P < .001) and remained unchanged after propensity score adjustment (adjusted odds ratio 1.31 [95% CI 1.16-1.49], P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Age was an independent and unchangeable risk factor for death in mechanically ventilated subjects. However, survival rates of very elderly subjects were > 50%. Denial of critical care based solely on age is not justified. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration NCT02731898.).