Search

Background: Critically ill COVID‐19 patients have a high reported incidence of thromboembolic complications and the optimal dose of thromboprophylaxis is not yet determined. The aim of this study was to investigate if 90‐day mortality differed between patients treated with intermediate‐ or high‐dose thromboprophylaxis. Method: In this retrospective study, all critically ill COVID‐19 patients admitted to intensive care from March 6th until July 15th, 2020, were eligible. Patients were categorized into groups according to daily dose of thromboprophylaxis. Dosing was based on local standardized recommendations, not on degree of critical illness or risk of thrombosis. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to estimate hazard ratios of death within 90 days from ICU admission. Multivariable models were adjusted for sex, age, body‐mass index, Simplified Acute Physiology Score III, invasive respiratory support, glucocorticoids, and dosing strategy of thromboprophylaxis. Results: A total of 165 patients were included; 92 intermediate‐ and 73 high‐dose thromboprophylaxis. Baseline characteristics did not differ between groups. The 90‐day mortality was 19.6% in patients with intermediate‐dose and 19.2% in patients with high‐dose thromboprophylaxis. Multivariable hazard ratio of death within 90 days was 0.74 (95% CI, 0.36–1.53) for the high‐dose group compared to intermediate‐dose group. Multivariable hazard ratio for thromboembolic events and bleedings within 28 days was 0.93 (95% CI 0.37–2.29) and 0.84 (95% CI 0.28–2.54) for high versus intermediate dose, respectively. Conclusions: A difference in 90‐day mortality between intermediate‐ and high‐dose thromboprophylaxis could neither be confirmed nor rejected due to a small sample size. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Informal caregivers to intensive care unit (ICU) survivors may develop post‐intensive care syndrome family (PICS‐F), including depression, anxiety and post‐traumatic stress (PTS). Our primary aim was to investigate associations between caregiver burden in informal caregivers cohabiting with ICU survivors and patients' physical and psychological outcomes. Methods: A prospective, multicentre cohort study in four ICUs in Sweden. Adults cohabiting with ICU patients included in a previous study were eligible for inclusion. Three months post‐ICU, informal caregivers received questionnaires assessing caregiver burden, health‐related quality of life (HRQL) and symptoms of depression, anxiety and PTS. In parallel, patients reported their three‐month physical and psychological status via validated questionnaires. The primary outcome of this study was to compare caregiver burden in informal caregivers to patients with and without adverse physical and psychological outcomes 3 months post‐ICU. Secondary outcomes were correlations between caregiver burden and informal caregivers' mental HRQL. Results: Among 62 included informal caregivers, 55 (89%) responded to the follow‐up questionnaires. Caregiver burden was higher among informal caregivers to patients with an adverse outcome, compared to informal caregivers to patients without an adverse outcome, caregiver burden scale score mean (±standard deviation) 52 (11) and 41 (13) respectively (p = 0.003). There was strong negative correlation between caregiver burden and informal caregivers' mental HRQL (rs −0.74, p < 0.001). Conclusion: Informal caregivers to ICU survivors with adverse physical or psychological outcome experience a higher caregiver burden. A higher caregiver burden correlates with worse caregiver mental HRQL. ICU follow‐up programs should consider screening and follow‐up of informal caregivers for mental health problems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]