Shared decision-making in advance care planning among hospitalized older COVID-19 patients: a multicenter, retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: In the Netherlands, it is customary to discuss directives regarding resuscitation, intubation, and ICU-admission with patients and/or their relatives upon hospital-admission. The outcome of this discussion is documented in a code status. Ideally, these advance care planning (ACP)-related decisions are made by a patient (and/or their relatives) and a professional together in a shared decision-making (SDM) process, to improve patient satisfaction and prevent undesired care. Given the bad outcomes in older COVID-19 patients, it is particularly important to discuss the code status upon admission. This study aims to describe the practice of SDM regarding code status during the COVID-pandemic. Specific aims were to find out to what extend patients took part in this decision-making process and whether all key elements of SDM for a shared decision were documented in medical reports. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, we included COVID-19 patients aged 70 years and older, admitted to two large teaching hospitals in the Netherlands, during the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Data about code status and the decision-making process were extracted from electronic healthcare records. RESULTS: Code status was documented for 274 of 275 included patients. Patient participation in the decision-making process was described in 48%. In 19% all key elements of shared decision-making have been described. Key elements of SDM were defined as the presence of a completed code status form, the presence of clinical notes showing that both patient's wishes and values and the opinion of the healthcare professional about the predicted outcome was taken into consideration and clinical notes of a patient-healthcare professional interaction during the admission. CONCLUSION: Our results show that a proper SDM process regarding code status is possible, even in hectic times like the COVID-19-pandemic. However, shared decision-making was not common practice in older patients with COVID-19 regarding code status (an ACP-related decision) in the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. Only in 19% of the patients, all key elements of SDM regarding code status were described.

Professionals' views on shared decision-making in severe aortic stenosis.

OBJECTIVE: To provide insight into professionals' perceptions of and experiences with shared decision-making (SDM) in the treatment of symptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). METHODS: A semistructured interview study was performed in the heart centres of academic and large teaching hospitals in the Netherlands between June and December 2020. Cardiothoracic surgeons, interventional cardiologists, nurse practitioners and physician assistants (n=21) involved in the decision-making process for treatment of severe AS were interviewed. An inductive thematic analysis was used to identify, analyse and report patterns in the data. RESULTS: Four primary themes were generated: (1) the concept of SDM, (2) knowledge, (3) communication and interaction, and (4) implementation of SDM. Not all respondents considered patient participation as an element of SDM. They experienced a discrepancy between patients' wishes and treatment options. Respondents explained that not knowing patient preferences for health improvement hinders SDM and complicating patient characteristics for patient participation were perceived. A shared responsibility for improving SDM was suggested for patients and all professionals involved in the decision-making process for severe AS. CONCLUSIONS: Professionals struggle to make highly complex treatment decisions part of SDM and to embed patients' expectations of treatment and patients' preferences. Additionally, organisational constraints complicate the SDM process. To ensure sustainable high-quality care, professionals should increase their awareness of patient participation in SDM, and collaboration in the pathway for decision-making in severe AS is required to support the documentation and availability of information according to the principles of SDM.

Risk factors for adverse outcomes during mechanical ventilation of 1152 COVID-19 patients: a multicenter machine learning study with highly granular data from the Dutch Data Warehouse.

BACKGROUND: The identification of risk factors for adverse outcomes and prolonged intensive care unit (ICU) stay in COVID-19 patients is essential for prognostication, determining treatment intensity, and resource allocation. Previous studies have determined risk factors on admission only, and included a limited number of predictors. Therefore, using data from the highly granular and multicenter Dutch Data Warehouse, we developed machine learning models to identify risk factors for ICU mortality, ventilator-free days and ICU-free days during the course of invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) in COVID-19 patients. METHODS: The DDW is a growing electronic health record database of critically ill COVID-19 patients in the Netherlands. All adult ICU patients on IMV were eligible for inclusion. Transfers, patients admitted for less than 24 h, and patients still admitted at time of data extraction were excluded. Predictors were selected based on the literature, and included medication dosage and fluid balance. Multiple algorithms were trained and validated on up to three sets of observations per patient on day 1, 7, and 14 using fivefold nested cross-validation, keeping observations from an individual patient in the same split. RESULTS: A total of 1152 patients were included in the model. XGBoost models performed best for all outcomes and were used to calculate predictor importance. Using Shapley additive explanations (SHAP), age was the most important demographic risk factor for the outcomes upon start of IMV and throughout its course. The relative probability of death across age values is visualized in Partial Dependence Plots (PDPs), with an increase starting at 54 years. Besides age, acidaemia, low P/F-ratios and high driving pressures demonstrated a higher probability of death. The PDP for driving pressure showed a relative probability increase starting at 12 cmH2O. CONCLUSION: Age is the most important demographic risk factor of ICU mortality, ICU-free days and ventilator-free days throughout the course of invasive mechanical ventilation in critically ill COVID-19 patients. pH, P/F ratio, and driving pressure should be monitored closely over the course of mechanical ventilation as risk factors predictive of these outcomes.

Late histopathologic characteristics of critically ill COVID-19 patients: Different phenotypes without evidence of invasive aspergillosis, a case series.

PURPOSE: Pathological data of critical ill COVID-19 patients is essential in the search for optimal treatment options. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We performed postmortem needle core lung biopsies in seven patients with COVID-19 related ARDS. Clinical, radiological and microbiological characteristics are reported together with histopathological findings. MEASUREMENT AND MAIN RESULTS: Patients age ranged from 58 to 83 years, five males and two females were included. Time from hospital admission to death ranged from 12 to 36 days, with a mean of 20 ventilated days. ICU stay was complicated by pulmonary embolism in five patients and positive galactomannan on bronchoalveolar lavage fluid in six patients, suggesting COVID-19 associated pulmonary aspergillosis. Chest CT in all patients showed ground glass opacities, commonly progressing to nondependent consolidations. We observed four distinct histopathological patterns: acute fibrinous and organizing pneumonia, diffuse alveolar damage, fibrosis and, in four out of seven patients an organizing pneumonia. None of the biopsy specimens showed any signs of invasive aspergillosis. CONCLUSIONS: In this case series common late histopathology in critically ill COVID patients is not classic DAD but heterogeneous with predominant pattern of organizing pneumonia. Postmortem biopsy investigations in critically COVID-19 patients with probable COVID-19 associated pulmonary aspergillosis obtained no evidence for invasive aspergillosis.