Search

Background: Among ICU patients with COVID-19, it is largely unknown how the overall outcome and resource use have changed with time, different genetic variants, and vaccination status., Methods: For all Danish ICU patients with COVID-19 from March 10, 2020 to March 31, 2022, we manually retrieved data on demographics, comorbidities, vaccination status, use of life support, length of stay, and vital status from medical records. We compared patients based on the period of admittance and vaccination status and described changes in epidemiology related to the Omicron variant., Results: Among all 2167 ICU patients with COVID-19, 327 were admitted during the first (March 10-19, 2020), 1053 during the second (May 20, 2020 to June 30, 2021) and 787 during the third wave (July 1, 2021 to March 31, 2022). We observed changes over the three waves in age (median 72 vs. 68 vs. 65 years), use of invasive mechanical ventilation (81% vs. 58% vs. 51%), renal replacement therapy (26% vs. 13% vs. 12%), extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (7% vs. 3% vs. 2%), duration of invasive mechanical ventilation (median 13 vs. 13 vs. 9 days) and ICU length of stay (median 13 vs. 10 vs. 7 days). Despite these changes, 90-day mortality remained constant (36% vs. 35% vs. 33%). Vaccination rates among ICU patients were 42% as compared to 80% in society. Unvaccinated versus vaccinated patients were younger (median 57 vs. 73 years), had less comorbidity (50% vs. 78%), and had lower 90-day mortality (29% vs. 51%). Patient characteristics changed significantly after the Omicron variant became dominant including a decrease in the use of COVID-specific pharmacological agents from 95% to 69%., Conclusions: In Danish ICUs, the use of life support declined, while mortality seemed unchanged throughout the three waves of COVID-19. Vaccination rates were lower among ICU patients than in society, but the selected group of vaccinated patients admitted to the ICU still had very severe disease courses. When the Omicron variant became dominant a lower fraction of SARS-CoV-2 positive patients received COVID treatment indicating other causes for ICU admission., (© 2023 The Authors. Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica Foundation.)

Objectives: To examine the frequency, clinical characteristics and nurse-led rapid response team experiences of calls that involve end-of-life issues., Research Methodology and Design: The study consisted of two parts: 1) a retrospective journal audit of registered rapid response team calls for 2011-2019 that involved end-of-life issues, and 2) interviews with intensive care rapid response team nurses. The quantitative data were analysed with descriptive statistics and the qualitative data with content analysis., Setting: The study was conducted at a Danish university hospital., Results: Twelve percent (269/2,319) of the rapid response team calls involved end-of-life issues. "No indication for intensive care therapy" and "Do not resuscitate" were the main medical end-of-life orders. The patients had a mean age of 80 years, and the main reason for the calls was a respiratory problem. Ten rapid response team nurses were interviewed, and four themes evolved from the analysis: "Uncertain roles for the rapid response team nurses", "Solidarity with ward nurses", "Lack of information" and "Timing of decision-making"., Conclusion: Twelve percent of the rapid response team calls involved end-of-life issues. The main reason for these calls was a respiratory problem, and the rapid response team nurses often found their role uncertain and experienced lack of information and sub-optimal timing of decision-making., Implications for Clinical Practice: Intensive care nurses working in a rapid response team often face end-of-life issues during calls. Therefore, end-of-life care should be included in training for rapid response team nurses. Furthermore, advanced care planning is recommended to secure high-quality end-of-life care and to decrease uncertainty in acute medical situations., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Characteristics and care of intensive care unit (ICU) patients with COVID-19 may have changed during the pandemic, but longitudinal data assessing this are limited. We compared patients with COVID-19 admitted to Danish ICUs in the first wave with those admitted later., Methods: Among all Danish ICU patients with COVID-19, we compared demographics, chronic comorbidities, use of organ support, length of stay and vital status of those admitted 10 March to 19 May 2020 (first wave) versus 20 May 2020 to 30 June 2021. We analysed risk factors for death by adjusted logistic regression analysis., Results: Among all hospitalised patients with COVID-19, a lower proportion was admitted to ICU after the first wave (13% vs. 8%). Among all 1374 ICU patients with COVID-19, 326 were admitted during the first wave. There were no major differences in patient's characteristics or mortality between the two periods, but use of invasive mechanical ventilation (81% vs. 58% of patients), renal replacement therapy (26% vs. 13%) and ECMO (8% vs. 3%) and median length of stay in ICU (13 vs. 10 days) and in hospital (20 vs. 17 days) were all significantly lower after the first wave. Risk factors for death were higher age, larger burden of comorbidities (heart failure, pulmonary disease and kidney disease) and active cancer, but not admission during or after the first wave., Conclusions: After the first wave of COVID-19 in Denmark, a lower proportion of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 were admitted to ICU. Among ICU patients, use of organ support was lower and length of stay was reduced, but mortality rates remained at a relatively high level., (© 2022 The Authors. Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica Foundation.)