Impact of COVID-19: urging a need for multi-domain assessment of COVID-19 inpatients

Psychological Experiences of Elderly Patients With Covid-19 Diagnosis in Intensive Care: A Qualitative Study

In the study, it was aimed to determine the experiences of elderly COVID-19 patients hospitalized in intensive care units. The study was conducted based on the phenomenological design, one of the qualitative research methods. In-depth interviews were conducted using a semi-structured interview form with 15 participants, who were determined by the homogeneous and criterion sampling methods, two of the purposive sampling methods. Data were analyzed using Colaizzi's seven-step method. After the interviews, four themes were determined: intensive care experiences, importance of nursing care, intensive care environment and coping mechanisms related to COVID-19 disease, and post-intensive care realizations. In addition, 13 sub-themes were determined. This study provided a better understanding of the psychological experiences of elderly individuals during the disease, who have been hospitalized in intensive care unit and survived COVID-19.

Functionality loss due to COVID-19 hospitalisation in older adults recovers with inpatient rehabilitation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Older adults are more likely to acquire the severe manifestation of COVID-19 and the hospitalised survivors experience significant functionality loss. Thus, we aimed to identify the level of functionality in older adults hospitalised due to COVID-19, and the effect of inpatient rehabilitation upon functional recovery.

METHODS

A search was performed on July 2024, across five databases to retrieve studies assessing functionality in patients during COVID-19 hospitalisation, with or without rehabilitation.

RESULTS

At admission, higher functionality was significantly higher for survivors than non survivors (standardized mean difference (SMD): 0.83 [0.56; 1.09]). The effect of inpatient rehabilitation on functionality was tested among 38 arms across studies. Inpatient rehabilitation improved functionality SMD across all indexes (1.47 [1.18; 1.77], P ≤ 0.001), with greatest effect in the patients >70 years (2.84 [1.74, 3.93], P = 0.006), compared to their counterparts.

CONCLUSION

Hospitalisation due to COVID-19 reduced functionality to a higher extent in older adults above 70 years. Inpatient rehabilitation was effective to improve functionality in both age groups.

PROTOCOL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42021278619.

Evaluating Mental Health Outcomes in COVID-19 ICU Survivors: A Scoping Review of Measurement Tools

Objective: The objective of this scoping review was to map the range of measurement tools used to study the prevalence of common mental health conditions in COVID-19 ICU survivors. Introduction: Increased rates of admission to and survivorship from intensive care units (ICUs) have been observed in recent years, particularly during the global pandemic. ICU patients are at a higher risk of developing depressive, anxiety, and PTSD symptoms. Due to the high burden of disease, an accurate understanding of long-term mental health challenges for this population is key. Unfortunately, there is significant variability in reported prevalence rates. Heterogeneity in measurement tools potentially contribute to this. Inclusion criteria: Studies were eligible if they (a) reported mental health outcomes of adult patients diagnosed with COVID-19 and admitted to an ICU, (b) used standardised mental health outcome measures, and (3) were peer-reviewed. Methods: Searches were conducted in PubMed, PsycInfo, and Scopus. The initial search retrieved 1234 publications. After de-duplication and title and abstract screening, 72 full-text articles were examined for eligibility and 44 articles were excluded, leaving 28 eligible studies. Reference lists of the eligible studies were screened, and four other studies were added. 32 studies were ultimately included in this review. Results: Significant heterogeneity of measurement tools and clinical thresholds were observed. Only 6.25% of the studies compared changes in mental health outcomes to baseline measurements. Between five and nine unique measurement tools were used to study depression, anxiety, and PTSD, respectively. Studies were also observed to use up to 19 different thresholds to establish the prevalence of PTSD. Conclusions: The heterogeneity of measurement tools and thresholds continues to confound prevalence rate estimations of mental health complications post-ICU admission. Future research will benefit from consistency in the use of recommended outcome measures and the use of psychometrically comparable cut-off points between key measures.

A comprehensive physical functional assessment of survivors of critical care unit stay due to COVID-19

OBJECTIVE

To examine the physical function and respiratory muscle strength of patients - who recovered from critical COVID-19 - after intensive care unit discharge to the ward on Days one (D1) and seven (D7), and to investigate variables associated with functional impairment.

METHODS

This was a prospective cohort study of adult patients with COVID-19 who needed invasive mechanical ventilation, non-invasive ventilation or high-flow nasal cannula and were discharged from the intensive care unit to the ward. Participants were submitted to Medical Research Council sum-score, handgrip strength, maximal inspiratory pressure, maximal expiratory pressure, and short physical performance battery tests. Participants were grouped into two groups according to their need for invasive ventilation: the Invasive Mechanical Ventilation Group (IMV Group) and the Non-Invasive Mechanical Ventilation Group (Non-IMV Group).

RESULTS

Patients in the IMV Group (n = 31) were younger and had higher Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores than those in the Non-IMV Group (n = 33). The short physical performance battery scores (range 0 - 12) on D1 and D7 were 6.1 ± 4.3 and 7.3 ± 3.8, respectively for the Non-Invasive Mechanical Ventilation Group, and 1.3 ± 2.5 and 2.6 ± 3.7, respectively for the IMV Group. The prevalence of intensive care unit-acquired weakness on D7 was 13% for the Non-IMV Group and 72% for the IMV Group. The maximal inspiratory pressure, maximal expiratory pressure, and handgrip strength increased on D7 in both groups, but the maximal expiratory pressure and handgrip strength were still weak. Only maximal inspiratory pressure was recovered (i.e., > 80% of the predicted value) in the Non-IMV Group. Female sex, and the need and duration of invasive mechanical were independently and negatively associated with the short physical performance battery score and handgrip strength.

CONCLUSION

Patients who recovered from critical COVID-19 and who received invasive mechanical ventilation presented greater disability than those who were not invasively ventilated. However, they both showed marginal functional improvement during early recovery, regardless of the need for invasive mechanical ventilation. This might highlight the severity of disability caused by SARS-CoV-2.

The Role of Multidimensional Prognostic Index to Identify Hospitalized Older Adults with COVID-19 Who Can Benefit from Remdesivir Treatment: An Observational, Prospective, Multicenter Study

BACKGROUND

Data regarding the importance of multidimensional frailty to guide clinical decision making for remdesivir use in older patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are largely unexplored.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this research was to evaluate if the Multidimensional Prognostic Index (MPI), a multidimensional frailty tool based on the Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA), may help physicians in identifying older hospitalized patients affected by COVID-19 who might benefit from the use of remdesivir.

METHODS

This was a multicenter, prospective study of older adults hospitalized for COVID-19 in 10 European hospitals, followed-up for 90 days after hospital discharge. A standardized CGA was performed at hospital admission and the MPI was calculated, with a final score ranging between 0 (lowest mortality risk) and 1 (highest mortality risk). We assessed survival with Cox regression, and the impact of remdesivir on mortality (overall and in hospital) with propensity score analysis, stratified by MPI = 0.50.

RESULTS

Among 496 older adults hospitalized for COVID-19 (mean age 80 years, female 59.9%), 140 (28.2% of patients) were treated with remdesivir. During the 90 days of follow-up, 175 deaths were reported, 115 in hospital. Remdesivir treatment significantly reduced the risk of overall mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 0.54, 95% confidence interval CI 0.35-0.83 in the propensity score analysis) in the sample as whole. Stratifying the population, based on MPI score, the effect was observed only in less frail participants (HR 0.47, 95% CI 0.22-0.96 in propensity score analysis), but not in frailer subjects. In-hospital mortality was not influenced by remdesivir use.

CONCLUSIONS

MPI could help to identify less frail older adults hospitalized for COVID-19 who could benefit more from remdesivir treatment in terms of long-term survival.

Cognitive and Psychological Recovery Patterns Across Different Care Pathways 12 months after hospitalization for COVID-19: A Multicenter Cohort Study (CO-FLOW)

BACKGROUND

The comparison of recovery patterns for different care pathways following COVID-19 is necessary for optimizing rehabilitation strategies.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate cognitive and psychological outcomes across different care pathways up to 12 months after hospitalization for COVID-19.

METHODS

CO-FLOW is an ongoing multicenter prospective cohort study with assessments at 3, 6, and 12 months after hospitalization for COVID-19. The main outcomes are cognitive deficits (Montreal Cognitive Assessment, score <26), cognitive failure (Cognitive Failure Questionnaire, score >43), posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD; Impact of Event Scale-Revised, score ≥33), and anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, subscale score ≥11).

RESULTS

In total, data from 617 participants were analyzed. Mean age was 59.7 (SD 11.4) years and 188 (31%) were female. Significant recovery occurred within the first 6 months post-discharge (p ≤ 0.001). Cognitive deficits persisted in 21% (101/474), and psychological problems in 15% (74/482) of people at 12 months. Significantly improved cognition scores were reported for people who did not receive rehabilitation ('No-rehab'; 124/617, 20%; mean difference, MD 2.32, 95% CI 1.47 to 3.17; p<0.001), those who received community-based rehabilitation ('Com-rehab'; 327/617, 53%; MD 1.27, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.78; p<0.001), and those who received medical rehabilitation ('Med-rehab'; 86/617, 14%; MD 1.63, 95% CI 0.17 to 3.10; p = 0.029). Med-rehab participants experienced more cognitive failure from 3 to 6 months (MD 4.24, 95% 1.63 to 6.84; p = 0.001). Com-rehab showed recovery for PTSD (MD -2.43, 95% -3.50 to -1.37; p<0.001), anxiety (MD -0.67, 95% -1.02 to -0.32; p<0.001), and depression (MD -0.60, 95% -0.96 to -0.25; p<0.001), but symptoms persisted at 12 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Survivors of COVID-19 showed cognitive and psychological recovery, especially within the first 6 months after hospitalization. Most persistent problems were related to cognitive functioning at 12 months. Recovery differed rehabilitation settings. Additional cognitive or psychological support might be warranted in people who medical or community-based rehabilitation.

Cognitive Deficits in the Acute Phase of COVID-19: A Review and Meta-Analysis

This meta-analysis was conducted to quantify the risk of patients exhibiting cognitive deficits in the acute phase of COVID-19 at the time of the first variants (i.e., before the vaccine) and quantify the potential vulnerability of older patients and those who experienced more severe respiratory symptoms. To this end, we searched the LitCovid and EMBASE platforms for articles, including preprints, and included all studies (n = 48) that featured a measurement of cognition, which encompassed 2233 cases of COVID-19. Of these, 28 studies reported scores on global cognitive efficiency scales administered in the acute phase of COVID-19 (up to 3 months after infection). We were able to perform a meta-analysis of proportions on 24 articles (N_patients = 943), and a logistic regression on 18 articles (N_patients = 518). The meta-analysis for proportion indicated that 52.31% of patients with COVID-19 exhibited cognitive deficits in the acute phase. This high percentage, however, has to be interpreted taking in consideration the fact that the majority of patients were hospitalized, and some presented neurological complications, such as encephalopathy. A bootstrap procedure with random resampling revealed that an age of 59 was the threshold at which one would be more prone to present cognitive deficits. However, the severity of respiratory symptoms did not influence the scores on a global cognitive efficiency scale. Overall, our results indicated that neuropsychological deficits were a major consequence of the acute phase of the first forms of COVID-19.

Covid-19 Analysis: Is there an Association Between Covid-19 and Development of Cognitive Deficits?

OBJECTIVE

The effects of COVID-19 infection were initially thought to be limited to the respiratory system; however, recent literature suggests that the virus has systemic effects, even leading to cognitive deficits. The objective of this study is to review COVID-19 related literature to determine whether there is an association between COVID-19 infection and the development of cognitive deficits.

METHOD

A search for articles relevant to COVID-19, cognitive deficits, the Montreal Cognitive Assessment Tool (MoCA), and the geriatric population was performed on the MEDLINE, CINAHL, and APA PsychInfo databases.

RESULTS

Substantial evidence exists that reports an association between COVID-19 infection and cognitive decline. The studies included in this literature review surveyed distinct populations and reported cognitive deficits in COVID-19 patients as measured by a reduction in MoCA scores. While cognitive deficits were identified as partially reversible, there were still measurable deficits in cognition post-recovery compared to healthy controls. Furthermore, the measured cognitive deficits were found to be much worse in the geriatric population.

CONCLUSIONS

Current literature shows an association between COVID-19 infection and the development of cognitive deficits. Further research should seek to characterize these cognitive deficits and determine the underlying aetiology and pathogenesis. Initiatives to develop interventions to limit or improve cognitive deficits in post COVID-19 patients is crucial, especially the elderly, given the large burden of disease within this population cohort.

Cognitive impairment in people with previous COVID-19 infection: A scoping review

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 is a worldwide public health issue. Almost 2 years into the pandemic, the persistence of symptoms after the acute phase is a well-recognized phenomenon. We conducted a scoping review to map cognitive domain impairments, their frequency, and associated psycho-affective disorders in people with a previous COVID-19 infection. We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and PsycInfo to identify relevant reports published between December 1, 2019 and February 21, 2022. We followed the PRISMA (Preferred-Reporting-Items-for-Systematic-Reviews-and-Meta-Analyses) extension for scoping review guidelines. Three independent reviewers selected and charted 25 records out of 922. Memory, attention, and executive functions appeared to be the most affected domains. Delayed recall and learning were the most impaired domains of memory. Among the executive functions, abstraction, inhibition, set shifting, and sustained and selective attention were most commonly impaired. Language and visuo-spatial abilities were rarely affected, although this finding might be biased by the scarcity of reports. Neurological and respiratory conditions were often reported in association with cognitive deficits. Results on psycho-affective conditions were inconclusive due to the low frequency of reported data. Admission to an intensive care unit is not related to cognitive deficits. This review highlighted a potential effect of a previous post-COVID-19 infection on a pattern of memory, attention, and executive functions impairments. These findings need to be confirmed on larger cohorts with comprehensive neuropsychological batteries and correlated to neurophysiological and neurobiological substrates.

Cognitive Assessment in SARS-CoV-2 Patients: A Systematic Review

Background

Patients with post-infective severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) often show both short- and long-term cognitive deficits within the dysexecutive/inattentive spectrum. However, little is known about which cognitive alterations are commonly found in patients recovered from SARS-CoV-2, and which psychometric tools clinicians should consider when assessing cognition in this population. The present work reviewed published studies to provide a critical narrative of neuropsychological (NPs) deficits commonly observed after SARS-CoV-2 infection and the tests most suited for detecting such cognitive sequelae depending on illness severity.

Methods

This review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and was pre-registered on Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (CRD42021253079). Observational studies quantitatively assessing cognition in patients with post-infective SARS-CoV-2 were considered. From 711 retrieved articles, 19 studies conducted on patients with SARS-CoV-2 without medical comorbidities were included and stratified by disease severity.

Results

The majority of studies (N = 13) adopted first-level tests. The most frequently administered screeners were the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE)—with the former more likely to detect mild, and the latter moderate/severe deficits. Among second-level tests, those assessing attention and executive functions (EFs) were highly represented. Remotely-delivered tests yielded lower percentages of cognitive impairment. Overall, cognitive domains often found to be impaired were EFs, attention, and memory.

Conclusion

Cognitive sequelae in patients with post-infective SARS-CoV-2 can be detected with NPs testing. Depending on the psychometric test features, the likelihood of observing cognitive deficits can vary. Further studies on larger sample sizes are needed to investigate the clinical usefulness of second-level tools. The primary goal of preventative health services should be the early detection and intervention of emerging cognitive deficits.

Self-Assessed Aspects of Health 3 Months after COVID-19 Hospitalization—A Swedish Cross-Sectional Study

It is not yet fully understood how the patients self-assess their overall health in the early recovery after COVID-19 and if certain patient groups are more prominent in perceived long-time effects of COVID-19. The aim of this study was to describe self-assessed aspects of health in body function, activity and participation 3 months after hospitalization due to COVID-19 and identify difference between groups depending in age, sex and level of hospital care. This cross-sectional study consists of self-assessed aspects of health and recovery in 168 participants (mean age 64 years old, 69% men) previously hospitalized patients due to COVID-19. We have previously published data, from hospital discharge, on this cohort were predominantly the older patients and previous ICU-treated participants were affected. In this study there were differences in between groups. Of the study population 72% perceived fatigue, 64% respiratory difficulties, 37% perceived symptoms of anxiety. Three-months after COVID-19 this cohort was overall still affected. The recovery process is multifaced and the cohort heterogeneous, hence the rehabilitation needs to be highly individualized, and the follow-up of this patient group is of importance regardless of age, sex and previous level of hospital care.

Post-viral mental health sequelae in infected persons associated with COVID-19 and previous epidemics and pandemics: Systematic review and meta-analysis of prevalence estimates

AIMS

Post-viral mental health problems (MHP) in COVID-19 patients and survivors were anticipated already during early stages of this pandemic. We aimed to synthesize the prevalence of the anxiety, depression, post-traumatic and general distress domain associated with virus epidemics since 2002.

METHODS

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, PsycINFO, and Embase from 2002 to April 14, 2021 for peer-reviewed studies reporting prevalence of MHP in adults with laboratory-confirmed or suspected SARS-CoV-1, H1N1, MERS-CoV, H7N9, Ebolavirus, or SARS-CoV-2 infection. We included studies that assessed post-viral MHP with validated and frequently used scales. A three-level random-effects meta-analysis for dependent effect sizes was conducted to account for multiple outcome reporting. We pooled MHP across all domains and separately by severity (above mild or moderate-to-severe) and by acute (one month), ongoing (one to three months), and post-illness stages (longer than three months). A meta-regression was conducted to test for moderating effects, particularly for exploring estimate differences between SARS-Cov-2 and previous pandemics and epidemics. PROSPERO registration: CRD42020194535.

RESULTS

We identified 59 studies including between 14 and 1002 participants and providing 187 prevalence estimates. MHP, in general, decreased from acute to post-illness from 46.3% to 38.8% and for mild and moderate-to-severe from 22.3% to 18.8%, respectively. We found no evidence of moderating effects except for non-random sampling and H1N1 showing higher prevalence. There was a non-significant trend towards lower MHP for SARS-CoV-2 compared to previous epidemics.

CONCLUSIONS

MHP prevalence estimates decreased over time but were still on a substantial level at post-illness. Post-viral mental health problems caused by SARS-CoV-2 could have been expected much earlier, given the previous post-viral sequelae.

Prospective longitudinal evaluation of hospitalised COVID-19 survivors 3 and 12 months after discharge

Background

Long-term outcome data of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) survivors are needed to understand their recovery trajectory and additional care needs.

Methods

A prospective observational multicentre cohort study was carried out of adults hospitalised with COVID-19 from March through May 2020. Workup at 3 and 12 months following admission consisted of clinical review, pulmonary function testing, 6-min walk distance (6MWD), muscle strength, chest computed tomography (CT) and quality of life questionnaires. We evaluated factors correlating with recovery by linear mixed effects modelling.

Results

Of 695 patients admitted, 299 and 226 returned at 3 and 12 months, respectively (median age 59 years, 69% male, 31% severe disease). About half and a third of the patients reported fatigue, dyspnoea and/or cognitive impairment at 3 and 12 months, respectively. Reduced 6MWD and quadriceps strength were present in 20% and 60% at 3 months versus 7% and 30% at 12 months. A high anxiety score and body mass index correlated with poor functional recovery. At 3 months, diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide (D_LCO) and total lung capacity were below the lower limit of normal in 35% and 18%, decreasing to 21% and 16% at 12 months; predictors of poor D_LCO recovery were female sex, pre-existing lung disease, smoking and disease severity. Chest CT improved over time; 10% presented non-progressive fibrotic changes at 1 year.

Conclusion

Many COVID-19 survivors, especially those with severe disease, experienced limitations at 3 months. At 1 year, the majority showed improvement to almost complete recovery. To identify additional care or rehabilitation needs, we recommend a timely multidisciplinary follow-up visit following COVID-19 admission.

Most hospitalised #COVID19 survivors show promising recovery 1 year after discharge, although mild symptoms may linger. Severe impairments are rare, but this study suggests an evaluation of the individual care needs after discharge.https://bit.ly/3sZK45x

Functional decline in hospitalized older patients with coronavirus disease 2019: a retrospective cohort study

Background

This study aimed to determine the frequency of functional decline and to identify the factors related to a greater risk of functional decline among hospitalized older patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

Methods

We reviewed the medical records of patients aged over 65 years who were admitted to a tertiary care hospital for COVID-19 over 1 year from February 2020. We evaluated the proportion of functional decline, which was defined as a decrease in the Barthel Index score from before the onset of COVID-19 to discharge. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to evaluate the associations between the demographic and clinical characteristics of patients at admission and a greater risk of functional decline. Two sensitivity analyses with different inclusion criteria were performed: one in patients without very severe functional decline before the onset of COVID-19 (i.e., limited to those with Barthel Index score ≥ 25), and the other with a composite outcome of functional decline and death at discharge.

Results

The study included 132 patients with COVID-19; of these, 72 (54.5%) developed functional decline. The severity of COVID-19 did not differ between patients with functional decline and those without (P = 0.698). Factors associated with a greater risk of functional decline included female sex (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 3.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.25 to 7.94), Barthel Index score < 100 before the onset of COVID-19 (aOR, 13.73; 95% CI, 3.29 to 57.25), and elevation of plasma D-dimer level on admission (aOR, 3.19; 95% CI, 1.12 to 9.07). The sensitivity analyses yielded similar results to those of the main analysis.

Conclusions

Over half of the older patients who recovered from COVID-19 developed functional decline at discharge from a tertiary care hospital in Japan. Baseline activities of daily living impairment, female sex, and elevated plasma D-dimer levels at admission were associated with a greater risk of functional decline.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12877-021-02597-w.

Physical Function, Cognitive Function, and Daily Activities in Patients Hospitalized Due to COVID-19: A Descriptive Cross-Sectional Study in Sweden

An estimated 14–20% of people infected with COVID-19 require medical care. The aim of the present study was to evaluate physical function, cognitive function, and daily activities in patients hospitalized due to COVID-19, and to investigate differences depending on age and admission to the intensive care unit (ICU). This prospective descriptive cross-sectional study included a consecutive sample of 211 patients (mean age 65.1 years, 67.3% men) hospitalized due to COVID-19 in Sweden. Data regarding physical function and daily activities were collected in hospital from July 2020 to February 2021. The average length of hospital stay was 33.8 days, and 48.8% of the patients were admitted to the ICU. Physical function (grip- and lower body strength) was reduced in both groups, and significantly more in the older group, ≥65 years old, compared to the younger. Furthermore, the older group also had significantly less ability to perform activities in daily life, and had significantly reduced cognitive function as compared to the younger age group. In patients treated in the ICU, physical impairments as well as the activity level were significantly more pronounced compared to patients not treated in the ICU. Patients hospitalized due to COVID-19 are physically impaired, have mild cognitive impairments, and have difficulties performing daily activities. The findings in this study indicate the need for out-patient follow-up and rehabilitation for patients hospitalized due to COVID-19, especially in older patients and patients treated in the ICU.

Psychologic Distress and Quality of Life After ICU Treatment for Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Multicenter, Observational Cohort Study

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

OBJECTIVES:

To quantify short- and long-term psychologic distress, that is, symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder, anxiety, and depression, and the health-related quality of life in coronavirus disease 2019 ICU survivors.

DESIGN:

A prospective, observational cohort study.

SETTING:

Postcoronavirus disease 2019 clinics of three hospitals in Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

PATIENTS:

Adult patients admitted for coronavirus disease 2019 to the ICU, who visited the postcoronavirus disease 2019 follow-up clinic.

MEASURES AND MAIN RESULTS:

The primary outcomes were psychologic distress and overall and mental health-related quality of life, assessed using the Impact of Event Scale-Revised, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Short-Form 36, and European Quality of Life 5D, 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months post hospital discharge. Second, we compared 3-month psychologic and mental health-related quality of life outcomes with a historical critical illness survivor cohort and overall and mental health-related quality of life with the Dutch population. We included 118 patients with a median age of 61 years (95% range, 36–77 yr) of whom 79 (68%) were male. At 6 weeks, 13 patients (23%) reported psychologic distress, copresence of probable psychiatric disorders was common, and no decline in psychologic distress was observed throughout follow-up. Coronavirus disease 2019 patients tend to suffer less from posttraumatic stress disorder and reported less severe symptoms of anxiety (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale Anxiety Score: 3 [0–17] vs 5 [0–16]; estimated mean difference 2.3 [95% CI, 0.0–4.7]; p = 0.05) and depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale Depression Score: 3 [0–15] vs 5 [0–16]; estimated mean difference 2.4 [95% CI, 0.1–2.4]; p = 0.04) than the historical critical illness cohort. Overall and mental health-related quality of life increased over time. Coronavirus disease 2019 ICU survivors reported better mental health-related quality of life than our historical cohort, but overall and mental health-related quality of life was still poorer than the Dutch population.

CONCLUSIONS:

Psychologic distress was common in coronavirus disease 2019 ICU survivors and remained similar until 6 months after hospital discharge. Health-related quality of life increased over time and was higher than in a historical cohort, but was lower than in the Dutch population. Our findings highlight that coronavirus disease 2019 ICU survivors should be monitored after ICU treatment to detect possible psychologic distress.