Recovery from Covid-19 critical illness: A secondary analysis of the ISARIC4C CCP-UK cohort study and the RECOVER trial.

Background: We aimed to compare the prevalence and severity of fatigue in survivors of Covid-19 versus non-Covid-19 critical illness, and to explore potential associations between baseline characteristics and worse recovery. Methods: We conducted a secondary analysis of two prospectively collected datasets. The population included was 92 patients who received invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) with Covid-19, and 240 patients who received IMV with non-Covid-19 illness before the pandemic. Follow-up data were collected post-hospital discharge using self-reported questionnaires. The main outcome measures were self-reported fatigue severity and the prevalence of severe fatigue (severity >7/10) 3 and 12-months post-hospital discharge. Results: Covid-19 IMV-patients were significantly younger with less prior comorbidity, and more males, than pre-pandemic IMV-patients. At 3-months, the prevalence (38.9% [7/18] vs. 27.1% [51/188]) and severity (median 5.5/10 vs 5.0/10) of fatigue were similar between the Covid-19 and pre-pandemic populations, respectively. At 6-months, the prevalence (10.3% [3/29] vs. 32.5% [54/166]) and severity (median 2.0/10 vs. 5.7/10) of fatigue were less in the Covid-19 cohort. In the total sample of IMV-patients included (i.e. all Covid-19 and pre-pandemic patients), having Covid-19 was significantly associated with less severe fatigue (severity <7/10) after adjusting for age, sex and prior comorbidity (adjusted OR 0.35 (95%CI 0.15-0.76, p=0.01). Conclusion: Fatigue may be less severe after Covid-19 than after other critical illness.

Resilience in survivors of critical illness: A scoping review of the published literature in relation to definitions, prevalence, and relationship to clinical outcomes.

Survivors of critical illness face substantial challenges in their recovery, including physical and cognitive dysfunction. Resilience is the ability to adapt and maintain one's mental health after facing such challenges. Higher resilience levels have been found to be beneficial throughout the illness trajectory in cancer patients, but resilience has not been widely researched in critical care patients. We undertook a scoping review to identify published studies on resilience following critical illness and describe: how resilience has been measured; the prevalence of low resilience in critical care patients; and what associations (if any) exist between resilience and clinical outcomes. We searched: PubMed, Medline, PsychINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, to identify relevant studies. We found 882 unique titles: 17 were selected for full text review, 10 were considered relevant. These included ICU inpatients and survivors, and trauma and sepsis survivors. A broad critical appraisal of each study was undertaken. The overall quality of published studies was low: there was wide variation in resilience-assessment tools across the studies, including the timing of measurement; only one used a validated tool. Estimates of low resilience ranged from 28%-67%, but with varying populations, high risk of inclusion bias, and small samples. Higher resilience levels were significantly associated with lower depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress, pain, anger, executive dysfunction, and difficulty with self-care in critical care patients and survivors. Future studies should use validated resilience assessment, determine the optimum timing, and explore prevalence, associations with outcomes, and resilience-promoting interventions in non-selected or clearly defined populations.

Does a screening checklist for complex health and social care needs have potential clinical usefulness for predicting unplanned hospital readmissions in intensive care survivors: development and prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: Intensive care (ICU) survivors are at high risk of long-term physical and psychosocial problems. Unplanned hospital readmission rates are high, but the best way to triage patients for interventions is uncertain. We aimed to develop and evaluate a screening checklist to help predict subsequent readmissions or deaths. DESIGN: A checklist for complex health and social care needs (CHSCNs) was developed based on previous research, comprising six items: multimorbidity; polypharmacy; frequent previous hospitalisations; mental health issues; fragile social circumstances and impaired activities of daily living. Patients were considered to have CHSCNs if two or more were present. We prospectively screened all ICU discharges for CHSCNs for 12 months. SETTING: ICU, Royal Infirmary, Edinburgh, UK. PARTICIPANTS: ICU survivors over a 12-month period (1 June 2018 and 31 May 2019). INTERVENTIONS: None. OUTCOME MEASURE: Readmission or death in the community within 3 months postindex hospital discharge. RESULTS: Of 1174 ICU survivors, 937 were discharged alive from the hospital. Of these 253 (27%) were classified as having CHSCNs. In total 28% (266/937) patients were readmitted (N=238) or died (N=28) within 3 months. Among CHSCNs patients 45% (n=115) patients were readmitted (N=105) or died (N=10). Patients without CHSCNs had a 22% readmission (N=133) or death (N=18) rate. The checklist had: sensitivity 43% (95% CI 37% to 49%), specificity 79% (95% CI 76% to 82%), positive predictive value 45% (95% CI 41% to 51%), and negative predictive value 78% (95% CI 76% to 80%). Relative risk of readmission/death for patients with CHSCNs was 2.06 (95% CI 1.69 to 2.50), indicating a pretest to post-test probability change of 28%-45%. The checklist demonstrated high inter-rater reliability (percentage agreement ≥87% for all domains; overall kappa, 0.84). CONCLUSIONS: Early evaluation of a screening checklist for CHSCNs at ICU discharge suggests potential clinical usefulness, but this requires further evaluation as part of a care pathway.

Long Covid in adults discharged from UK hospitals after Covid-19: A prospective, multicentre cohort study using the ISARIC WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol.

BACKGROUND: This study sought to establish the long-term effects of Covid-19 following hospitalisation. METHODS: 327 hospitalised participants, with SARS-CoV-2 infection were recruited into a prospective multicentre cohort study at least 3 months post-discharge. The primary outcome was self-reported recovery at least ninety days after initial Covid-19 symptom onset. Secondary outcomes included new symptoms, disability (Washington group short scale), breathlessness (MRC Dyspnoea scale) and quality of life (EQ5D-5L). FINDINGS: 55% of participants reported not feeling fully recovered. 93% reported persistent symptoms, with fatigue the most common (83%), followed by breathlessness (54%). 47% reported an increase in MRC dyspnoea scale of at least one grade. New or worse disability was reported by 24% of participants. The EQ5D-5L summary index was significantly worse following acute illness (median difference 0.1 points on a scale of 0 to 1, IQR: -0.2 to 0.0). Females under the age of 50 years were five times less likely to report feeling recovered (adjusted OR 5.09, 95% CI 1.64 to 15.74), were more likely to have greater disability (adjusted OR 4.22, 95% CI 1.12 to 15.94), twice as likely to report worse fatigue (adjusted OR 2.06, 95% CI 0.81 to 3.31) and seven times more likely to become more breathless (adjusted OR 7.15, 95% CI 2.24 to 22.83) than men of the same age. INTERPRETATION: Survivors of Covid-19 experienced long-term symptoms, new disability, increased breathlessness, and reduced quality of life. These findings were present in young, previously healthy working age adults, and were most common in younger females. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research, UK Medical Research Council, Wellcome Trust, Department for International Development and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.