Time to Revisit Treatment Limitations in Critical Care Benchmarking

Increased 30-day mortality in very old ICU patients with COVID-19 compared to patients with respiratory failure without COVID-19

Purpose

The number of patients ≥ 80 years admitted into critical care is increasing. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) added another challenge for clinical decisions for both admission and limitation of life-sustaining treatments (LLST). We aimed to compare the characteristics and mortality of very old critically ill patients with or without COVID-19 with a focus on LLST.

Methods

Patients 80 years or older with acute respiratory failure were recruited from the VIP2 and COVIP studies. Baseline patient characteristics, interventions in intensive care unit (ICU) and outcomes (30-day survival) were recorded. COVID patients were matched to non-COVID patients based on the following factors: age (± 2 years), Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score (± 2 points), clinical frailty scale (± 1 point), gender and region on a 1:2 ratio. Specific ICU procedures and LLST were compared between the cohorts by means of cumulative incidence curves taking into account the competing risk of discharge and death.

Results

693 COVID patients were compared to 1393 non-COVID patients. COVID patients were younger, less frail, less severely ill with lower SOFA score, but were treated more often with invasive mechanical ventilation (MV) and had a lower 30-day survival. 404 COVID patients could be matched to 666 non-COVID patients. For COVID patients, withholding and withdrawing of LST were more frequent than for non-COVID and the 30-day survival was almost half compared to non-COVID patients.

Conclusion

Very old COVID patients have a different trajectory than non-COVID patients. Whether this finding is due to a decision policy with more active treatment limitation or to an inherent higher risk of death due to COVID-19 is unclear.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00134-022-06642-z.

What intensive care registries can teach us about outcomes

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Critical care registries are synonymous with measurement of outcomes following critical illness. Their ability to provide longitudinal data to enable benchmarking of outcomes for comparison within units over time, and between units, both regionally and nationally is a key part of the evaluation of quality of care and ICU performance as well as a better understanding of case-mix. This review aims to summarize literature on outcome measures currently being reported in registries internationally, describe the current strengths and challenges with interpreting existing outcomes and highlight areas where registries may help improve implementation and interpretation of both existing and new outcome measures.

RECENT FINDINGS

Outcomes being widely reported through ICU registries include measures of survival, events of interest, patient-reported outcomes and measures of resource utilization (including cost). Despite its increasing adoption, challenges with quality of reporting of outcomes measures remain. Measures of short-term survival are feasible but those requiring longer follow-ups are increasingly difficult to interpret given the evolving nature of critical care in the context of acute and chronic disease management. Furthermore, heterogeneity in patient populations and in healthcare organisations in different settings makes use of outcome measures for international benchmarking at best complex, requiring substantial advances in their definitions and implementation to support those seeking to improve patient care.

SUMMARY

Digital registries could help overcome some of the current challenges with implementing and interpreting ICU outcome data through standardization of reporting and harmonization of data. In addition, ICU registries could be instrumental in enabling data for feedback as part of improvement in both patient-centred outcomes and in service outcomes; notably resource utilization and efficiency.