Refine
Has Fulltext
- yes (4)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (4)
Document Type
- Journal article (4)
Language
- English (4)
Keywords
- ARDS (acute respiratory distress syndrome) (1)
- COVID-19 (1)
- Covid-19 (1)
- Germany (1)
- cardiac rehabilitation (1)
- education (1)
- exercise training (1)
- extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) (1)
- frailty (1)
- gender (1)
Institute
- Institut für Klinische Epidemiologie und Biometrie (4) (remove)
Background: Proportions of patients dying from the coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) vary between different countries. We report the characteristics; clinical course and outcome of patients requiring intensive care due to COVID-19 induced acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).
Methods: This is a retrospective, observational multicentre study in five German secondary or tertiary care hospitals. All patients consecutively admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) in any of the participating hospitals between March 12 and May 4, 2020 with a COVID-19 induced ARDS were included.
Results: A total of 106 ICU patients were treated for COVID-19 induced ARDS, whereas severe ARDS was present in the majority of cases. Survival of ICU treatment was 65.0%. Median duration of ICU treatment was 11 days; median duration of mechanical ventilation was 9 days. The majority of ICU treated patients (75.5%) did not receive any antiviral or anti-inflammatory therapies. Venovenous (vv) ECMO was utilized in 16.3%. ICU triage with population-level decision making was not necessary at any time. Univariate analysis associated older age, diabetes mellitus or a higher SOFA score on admission with non-survival during ICU stay.
Conclusions: A high level of care adhering to standard ARDS treatments lead to a good outcome in critically ill COVID-19 patients.
Background
Severe COVID-19 induced acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) often requires extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Recent German health insurance data revealed low ICU survival rates. Patient characteristics and experience of the ECMO center may determine intensive care unit (ICU) survival. The current study aimed to identify factors affecting ICU survival of COVID-19 ECMO patients.
Methods
673 COVID-19 ARDS ECMO patients treated in 26 centers between January 1st 2020 and March 22nd 2021 were included. Data on clinical characteristics, adjunct therapies, complications, and outcome were documented. Block wise logistic regression analysis was applied to identify variables associated with ICU-survival.
Results
Most patients were between 50 and 70 years of age. PaO\(_{2}\)/FiO\(_{2}\) ratio prior to ECMO was 72 mmHg (IQR: 58–99). ICU survival was 31.4%. Survival was significantly lower during the 2nd wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. A subgroup of 284 (42%) patients fulfilling modified EOLIA criteria had a higher survival (38%) (p = 0.0014, OR 0.64 (CI 0.41–0.99)). Survival differed between low, intermediate, and high-volume centers with 20%, 30%, and 38%, respectively (p = 0.0024). Treatment in high volume centers resulted in an odds ratio of 0.55 (CI 0.28–1.02) compared to low volume centers. Additional factors associated with survival were younger age, shorter time between intubation and ECMO initiation, BMI > 35 (compared to < 25), absence of renal replacement therapy or major bleeding/thromboembolic events.
Conclusions
Structural and patient-related factors, including age, comorbidities and ECMO case volume, determined the survival of COVID-19 ECMO. These factors combined with a more liberal ECMO indication during the 2nd wave may explain the reasonably overall low survival rate. Careful selection of patients and treatment in high volume ECMO centers was associated with higher odds of ICU survival.
Long-term sequelae in hospitalized Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients may result in limited quality of life. The current study aimed to determine health-related quality of life (HRQoL) after COVID-19 hospitalization in non-intensive care unit (ICU) and ICU patients. This is a single-center study at the University Hospital of Wuerzburg, Germany. Patients eligible were hospitalized with COVID-19 between March 2020 and December 2020. Patients were interviewed 3 and 12 months after hospital discharge. Questionnaires included the European Quality of Life 5 Dimensions 5 Level (EQ-5D-5L), patient health questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), the generalized anxiety disorder 7 scale (GAD-7), FACIT fatigue scale, perceived stress scale (PSS-10) and posttraumatic symptom scale 10 (PTSS-10). 85 patients were included in the study. The EQ5D-5L-Index significantly differed between non-ICU (0.78 ± 0.33 and 0.84 ± 0.23) and ICU (0.71 ± 0.27; 0.74 ± 0.2) patients after 3- and 12-months. Of non-ICU 87% and 80% of ICU survivors lived at home without support after 12 months. One-third of ICU and half of the non-ICU patients returned to work. A higher percentage of ICU patients was limited in their activities of daily living compared to non-ICU patients. Depression and fatigue were present in one fifth of the ICU patients. Stress levels remained high with only 24% of non-ICU and 3% of ICU patients (p = 0.0186) having low perceived stress. Posttraumatic symptoms were present in 5% of non-ICU and 10% of ICU patients. HRQoL is limited in COVID-19 ICU patients 3- and 12-months post COVID-19 hospitalization, with significantly less improvement at 12-months compared to non-ICU patients. Mental disorders were common highlighting the complexity of post-COVID-19 symptoms as well as the necessity to educate patients and primary care providers about monitoring mental well-being post COVID-19.
Background: Scientific guidelines have been developed to update and harmonize exercise based cardiac rehabilitation (ebCR) in German speaking countries. Key recommendations for ebCR indications have recently been published in part 1 of this journal. The present part 2 updates the evidence with respect to contents and delivery of ebCR in clinical practice, focusing on exercise training (ET), psychological interventions (PI), patient education (PE). In addition, special patients' groups and new developments, such as telemedical (Tele) or home-based ebCR, are discussed as well. Methods: Generation of evidence and search of literature have been described in part 1. Results: Well documented evidence confirms the prognostic significance of ET in patients with coronary artery disease. Positive clinical effects of ET are described in patients with congestive heart failure, heart valve surgery or intervention, adults with congenital heart disease, and peripheral arterial disease. Specific recommendations for risk stratification and adequate exercise prescription for continuous-, interval-, and strength training are given in detail. PI when added to ebCR did not show significant positive effects in general. There was a positive trend towards reduction in depressive symptoms for “distress management” and “lifestyle changes”. PE is able to increase patients’ knowledge and motivation, as well as behavior changes, regarding physical activity, dietary habits, and smoking cessation. The evidence for distinct ebCR programs in special patients’ groups is less clear. Studies on Tele-CR predominantly included low-risk patients. Hence, it is questionable, whether clinical results derived from studies in conventional ebCR may be transferred to Tele-CR. Conclusions: ET is the cornerstone of ebCR. Additional PI should be included, adjusted to the needs of the individual patient. PE is able to promote patients self-management, empowerment, and motivation. Diversity-sensitive structures should be established to interact with the needs of special patient groups and gender issues. Tele-CR should be further investigated as a valuable tool to implement ebCR more widely and effectively.