Ethical prioritization of critical care resources during COVID-19: perspectives from Italy and the United States

This article examines some of the ethical challenges of prioritizing intensive care resources during the Covid-19 pandemic by comparing the Italian and United States contexts. After presenting an overview to the clinical, ethical, and public debates in Italy, the article will discuss the development of triage allocation protocols in United States hospitals. Resource allocation criteria underwent increased scrutiny and critique in both countries, which resulted in modified professional and expert guidance regarding healthcare ethics during times of emergency and resource scarcity.

Validation of a pre-established triage protocol for critically ill patients in a COVID-19 outbreak under resource scarcity: A retrospective multicenter cohort study

INTRODUCTION

In case of COVID-19 related scarcity of critical care resources, an early French triage algorithm categorized critically ill patients by probability of survival based on medical history and severity, with four priority levels for initiation or continuation of critical care: P1 -high priority, P2 -intermediate priority, P3 -not needed, P4 -not appropriate. This retrospective multi-center study aimed to assess its classification performance and its ability to help saving lives under capacity saturation.

METHODS

ICU patients admitted for severe COVID-19 without triage in spring 2020 were retrospectively included from three hospitals. Demographic data, medical history and severity items were collected. Priority levels were retrospectively allocated at ICU admission and on ICU day 7-10. Mortality rate, cumulative incidence of death and of alive ICU discharge, length of ICU stay and of mechanical ventilation were compared between priority levels. Calculated mortality and survival were compared between full simulated triage and no triage.

RESULTS

225 patients were included, aged 63.1±11.9 years. Median SAPS2 was 40 (IQR 29-49). At the end of follow-up, 61 (27%) had died, 26 were still in ICU, and 138 had been discharged. Following retrospective initial priority allocation, mortality rate was 53% among P4 patients (95CI 34-72%) versus 23% among all P1 to P3 patients (95CI 17-30%, chi-squared p = 5.2e-4). The cumulative incidence of death consistently increased in the order P3, P1, P2 and P4 both at admission (Gray's test p = 3.1e-5) and at reassessment (p = 8e-5), and conversely for that of alive ICU discharge. Reassessment strengthened consistency. Simulation under saturation showed that this two-step triage protocol could have saved 28 to 40 more lives than no triage.

CONCLUSION

Although it cannot eliminate potentially avoidable deaths, this triage protocol proved able to adequately prioritize critical care for patients with highest probability of survival, hence to save more lives if applied.

COVID-19 pandemic in ICU. Limited resources for many patients: approaches and criteria for triaging

The COVID-19 pandemic has shattered the illusion that healthcare resource shortages that require rationing are problems restricted to low- and middle-income countries. During the pandemic surges, many high-income countries have been confronted with unprecedented demands for healthcare systems that dramatically exceeded available resources. Hospitals capacities were overwhelmed, and physicians working in intensive care units (ICUs) were often forced to deny admissions to patients in desperate need of intensive care. To support these difficult decisions, many scientific societies and governmental bodies have developed guidelines on the triage of patients in need of mechanical ventilation and other life-support treatments. The ethical approaches underlying these guidelines were grounded on egalitarian or utilitarian principles. Thus far, however, consensus on the approaches used, and, above all, on the solutions adopted have been limited, giving rise to a clash of opinions that has further complicated health professionals' ability to respond optimally to their patients' needs. As the COVID-19 crisis moves toward a phase of what some have called "pandemic normalcy," the need to debate the merits and demerits of the individual decisions made in the allocation of ICU resources seems less pressing. Instead, the aims of the authors are: 1) to critically review the approaches and criteria used for triaging patients to be admitted in ICU; 2) to clarify how macro- and micro-allocation choices, in their interdependance, can condition decision-making processes regarding the care of individual patients; 3) to reflect on the need for decision-makers and professionals working in ICUs to maintain a proper degree of "honesty" towards citizens and patients regarding the causes of the resource shortages and the decision-making processes, which, in different ways routinely and in crisis times, involve the need to make "tragic choices" at both levels.

Life-Years & Rationing in the Covid-19 Pandemic: A Critical Analysis

Prominent bioethicists have promoted the preservation of life-years as a rationing strategy in response to the Covid-19 pandemic. Yet the philosophical justification for maximizing life-years is underdeveloped and has a complex history that is not reflected in recent literature. In this article, we offer a critical investigation of the use of life-years, arguing that evidence of public support for the life-years approach is thin and that organ transplantation protocols (heavily cited in pandemic-response protocols) do not provide a precedent for seeking to save the most life-years. We point out that many state emergency-response plans ultimately rejected or severely attenuated the meaning of saving the most life-years, and we argue that philosophical arguments in support of rationing by life-years are remarkably wanting. We conclude by offering a fair alternative that adheres to the standard duties of beneficence, respect for persons, and justice.

Development of a Critical Care Response - Experiences from Italy During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic

Italy was the first western country facing an outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The first Italian patient diagnosed with COVID-19 was admitted, on Feb. 20, 2020, to the intensive care unit (ICU) in Codogno (Lodi, Lombardy, Italy), and the number of reported positive cases increased to 36 in the next 24 hours, and then exponentially for 18 days. This triggered a response that resulted in a massive surge in ICU bed capacity. The COVID19 Lombardy Network organized a structured logistic response and provided scientific evidence to highlight information on COVID-19 associated respiratory failure.

Moral Distress Entangled: Patients and Providers in the COVID-19 Era

Moral distress is defined as the inability to act according to one’s own core values. During the COVID-19 pandemic, moral distress in medical personnel has gained attention, related to the impact of pandemic-associated factors, such as the uncertainty of treatment options for the virus and the accelerated pace of deaths. Measures to provide aid and mitigate the long-term pandemic effect on providers are starting to be designed. Yet, little has been said about the moral distress experienced by patients and the relational and additive effect on provider moral distress. Pandemic-associated factors affecting moral distress in patients include the constraining effects of isolation on spiritual and religious traditions as well as the intentional separation of patients from their families. This paper will explore the idea that patients are suffering their own moral distress and further how this impacts the intensity of moral distress experienced by the providers—nurses and physicians. The paucity of research in this area with the implications on patient’s distress, decision making, and distress experienced by providers compels further investigation and analysis.

Clinical stability and in-hospital mortality prediction in COVID-19 patients presenting to the Emergency Department

BACKGROUND

The Novara-COVID score was developed to help the emergency physician to decide which Coronavirus disease (COVID) patient required hospitalization at Emergency Department (ED) presentation and to which intensity of care. We aimed at evaluating its prognostic role.

METHODS

We retrospectively collected data of COVID patients admitted to our ED between March 16 and April 22, 2020. The Novara-COVID score was systematically applied to all COVID patients since its introduction in clinical practice and adopted to decide patients' destination. The ability of the Novara-COVID score to predict in-hospital clinical stability and in-hospital mortality were evaluated through multivariable logistic regression and cox regression hazard models, respectively.

RESULTS

Among the 480 COVID patients admitted to the ED, 338 were hospitalized: the Novara-COVID score was 0-1 in 49.7%, 2 in 24.6%, 3 in 15.4% and 4-5 in 10.3% of patients. Novara-COVID score values of 3 and 4-5 were associated with lower clinical stability with adjusted odds ratios of 0.28 (0.13-0.59) and 0.03 (0.01-0.12), respectively. When in-hospital mortality was evaluated, a significant difference emerged between scores of 0-1 and 2 vs. 3 and 4-5. In particular, the death adjusted hazard ratio for Novara-COVID scores of 3 and 4-5 were 2.6 (1.4-4.8) and 8.4 (4.7-15.2), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The Novara-COVID score reliably predicts in-hospital clinical instability and mortality of COVID patients at ED presentation. This tool allows the emergency physician to detect patients at higher risk of clinical deterioration, suggesting a more aggressive therapeutic management from the beginning.