ObjectiveMany patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infections were admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU). Physical impairments are common after ICU stays and are associated with clinical and patient characteristics. To date, it is unknown if physical functioning and health status are comparable between patients in the ICU with COVID-19 and patients in the ICU without COVID-19 3 months after ICU discharge. The primary objective of this study was to compare handgrip strength, physical functioning, and health status between patients in the ICU with COVID-19 and patients in the ICU without COVID-19 3 months after ICU discharge. The second objective was to identify factors associated with physical functioning and health status in patients in the ICU with COVID-19. Methods In this observational, retrospective chart review study, handgrip strength (handheld dynamometer), physical functioning (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function), and health status (EuroQol 5 Dimension 5 Level) were compared between patients in the ICU with COVID-19 and patients in the ICU without COVID-19 using linear regression. Multilinear regression analyses were used to investigate whether age, sex, body mass index, comorbidities in medical history (Charlson Comorbidity Index), and premorbid function illness (Identification of Seniors At Risk-Hospitalized Patients) were associated with these parameters in patients in the ICU with COVID-19. Results In total, 183 patients (N = 92 with COVID-19) were included. No significant between-group differences were found in handgrip strength, physical functioning, and health status 3 months after ICU discharge. The multilinear regression analyses showed a significant association between sex and physical functioning in the COVID-19 group, with better physical functioning in men compared with women. Conclusion Current findings suggest that handgrip strength, physical functioning, and health status are comparable for patients who were in the ICU with COVID-19 and patients who were in the ICU without COVID-19 3 months after ICU discharge. Impact Aftercare in primary or secondary care in the physical domain of postintensive care syndrome after ICU discharge in patients with COVID-19 and in patients without COVID-19 who had an ICU length of stay >48 hours is recommended. Lay Summary Patients who were in the ICU with and without COVID-19 had a lower physical status and health status than healthy people, thus requiring personalized physical rehabilitation. Outpatient aftercare is recommended for patients with an ICU length of stay >48 hours, and functional assessment is recommended 3 months after hospital discharge.
MULTIFILE
PURPOSE: We investigated changes in ARDS severity and associations with outcome in COVID-19 ARDS patients.METHODS: We compared outcomes in patients with ARDS classified as 'mild', 'moderate' or 'severe' at calendar day 1, and after reclassification at calendar day 2. The primary endpoint was 28-day mortality. We also identified which ventilatory parameters had an association with presence of severe ARDS at day 2. We repeated the analysis for reclassification at calendar day 4.RESULTS: Of 895 patients, 8.5%, 60.1% and 31.4% had mild, moderate and severe ARDS at day 1. These proportions were 13.5%, 72.6% and 13.9% at day 2. 28-day mortality was 25.3%, 31.3% and 32.0% in patients with mild, moderate and severe ARDS at day 1 (p = 0.537), compared to 28.6%, 29.2% and 44.3% in patients reclassified at day 2 (p = 0.005). No ventilatory parameter had an independent association with presence of severe ARDS at day 2. Findings were not different reclassifying at day 4.CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of COVID-19 patients, ARDS severity and mortality between severity classes changed substantially over the first 4 days of ventilation. These findings are important, as reclassification could help identify target patients that may benefit from alternative approaches.
MULTIFILE
Background: Airway care interventions and prone positioning are used in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) to improve oxygenation and facilitate mucus removal. At the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the decision-making process regarding the practice of airway care interventions and prone positioning was challenging. Objective: To provide an overview of the practice of airway care interventions and prone positioning during the second wave of the pandemic in the Netherlands. Method: Web-based survey design. Seventy ICU nurses, each representing one intensive care in the Netherlands, were contacted for participation. Potential items were generated based on a literature search and formulated by a multidisciplinary team. Questions were pilot tested for face and construct validity by four intensive care nurses from four different hospitals. Results: The response rate was 53/77 (69%). This survey revealed widespread use of airway care interventions in the Netherlands in COVID-19 patients, despite questionable benefits. Additionally, prone positioning was used in invasively and non-invasively ventilated patients. Conclusions: The use of airway care interventions and prone positioning is time consuming and comes with the production of waste. Further research is needed to assess the effectiveness, workload, and environmental impact of airway care interventions and prone positioning.
