August 2023

Purpose: This study aimed to describe the epidemiology and annual trends of obstetric patients using a multicenter intensive care database.

Methods: This multicenter, retrospective cohort study used the Japanese Intensive care PAtient Database (JIPAD). We included obstetric patients registered in the JIPAD between 2015 and 2020. We investigated the proportion of obstetric patients among all patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). We also described the characteristics, procedures, and outcomes of obstetric patients. In addition, the annual trends were examined by nonparametric tests for trends.

Results: Of the 184,705 patients enrolled in the JIPAD, 750 (0.41%) were obstetric patients from 61 facilities. The median age was 34 years, the number of post-emergency surgeries was 450 (60.0%), and the median APACHE III score was 36. Mechanical ventilation was the most common procedure performed in 247 (32.9%) patients. There were five (0.7%) in-hospital deaths. The proportion of obstetric patients in the ICU did not change between 2015 and 2020 (P for trend = 0.32). However, there was a trend for a significant decrease in the severity of illness and length of hospital stay on an annual basis between 2015 and 2020. Most patients were admitted to the ICU because of a pregnancy-related disorder postoperatively.

Conclusion: The proportion of obstetric patients was 0.41% of all ICU admissions. The proportion of obstetric patients admitted to the ICU did not change from 2015 to 2020, but the patients’ severity of illness and length of hospital stay significantly decreased over time.

Keywords: Critical care; Epidemiology; Intensive care unit; Maternal health; Obstetrics.

Background: The Collaboration for Research, Implementation, and Training in Critical Care in Asia (CCA) is implementing a critical care registry to capture real-time data to facilitate service evaluation, quality improvement, and clinical studies.

Objective: The purpose of this study is to examine stakeholder perspectives on the determinants of implementation of the registry by examining the processes of diffusion, dissemination, and sustainability.

Methods: This study is a qualitative phenomenological inquiry using semistructured interviews with stakeholders involved in registry design, implementation, and use in 4 South Asian countries. The conceptual model of diffusion, dissemination, and sustainability of innovations in health service delivery guided interviews and analysis. Interviews were coded using the Rapid Identification of Themes from Audio recordings procedure and were analyzed based on the constant comparison approach.

Results: A total of 32 stakeholders were interviewed. Analysis of stakeholder accounts identified 3 key themes: innovation-system fit; influence of champions; and access to resources and expertise. Determinants of implementation included data sharing, research experience, system resilience, communication and networks, and relative advantage and adaptability.

Conclusions: The implementation of the registry has been possible due to efforts to increase the innovation-system fit, influence of motivated champions, and the support offered by access to resources and expertise. The reliance on individuals and the priorities of other health care actors pose a risk to sustainability.

Keywords: CCU; South Asia; critical care; health care; implementation; qualitative research; registry; stakeholders.

©Timo Tolppa, Vrindha Pari, Christopher Pell, Diptesh Aryal, Madiha Hashmi, Maryam Shamal Ghalib, Issrah Jawad, Swagata Tripathy, Bharath Kumar Tirupakuzhi Vijayaraghavan, Abi Beane, Arjen M Dondorp, Rashan Haniffa, Collaboration of Research Implementation & Training in Critical Care in Asia Investigators. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 06.03.2023.

Background: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is an invasive procedure used to support critically ill patients with the most severe forms of cardiac or respiratory failure in the short term, but long-term effects on incidence of death and disability are unknown. We aimed to assess incidence of death or disability associated with ECMO up to 6 months (180 days) after treatment.

Methods: This prospective, multicentre, registry-embedded cohort study was done at 23 hospitals in Australia from Feb 15, 2019, to Dec 31, 2020. The EXCEL registry included all adults (≥18 years) in Australia who were admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) in a participating centre at the time of the study and who underwent ECMO. All patients who received ECMO support for respiratory failure, cardiac failure, or cardiac arrest during their ICU stay were eligible for this study. The primary outcome was death or moderate-to-severe disability (defined using the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0, 12-item survey) at 6 months after ECMO initiation. We used Fisher’s exact test to compare categorical variables. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03793257.

Findings: Outcome data were available for 391 (88%) of 442 enrolled patients. The primary outcome of death or moderate-to-severe disability at 6 months was reported in 260 (66%) of 391 patients: 136 (67%) of 202 who received veno-arterial (VA)-ECMO, 60 (54%) of 111 who received veno-venous (VV)-ECMO, and 64 (82%) of 78 who received extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (eCPR). After adjustment for age, comorbidities, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) IV score, days between ICU admission and ECMO start, and use of vasopressors before ECMO, death or moderate-to-severe disability was higher in patients who received eCPR than in those who received VV-ECMO (VV-ECMO vs eCPR: risk difference [RD] -32% [95% CI -49 to -15]; p<0·001) but not VA-ECMO (VA-ECMO vs eCPR -8% [-22 to 6]; p=0·27).

Interpretation: In our study, only a third of patients were alive without moderate-to-severe disability at 6 months after initiation of ECMO. The finding that disability was common across all areas of functioning points to the need for long-term, multidisciplinary care and support for surviving patients who have had ECMO. Further studies are needed to understand the 180-day and longer-term prognosis of patients with different diagnoses receiving different modes of ECMO, which could have important implications for the selection of patients for ECMO and management strategies in the ICU.

Funding: The National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia.

Background: It is unclear if the impact of frailty on mortality differs between patients with viral pneumonitis due to COVID-19 or other causes. We aimed to determine if a difference exists between patients with and without COVID-19 pneumonitis.

Methods: This multicentre, retrospective, cohort study using the Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society Adult Patient Database included patients aged ≥ 16 years admitted to 153 ICUs between 01/012020 and 12/31/2021 with admission diagnostic codes for viral pneumonia or acute respiratory distress syndrome, and Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS). The primary outcome was hospital mortality.

Results: A total of 4620 patients were studied, and 3077 (66.6%) had COVID-19. The patients with COVID-19 were younger (median [IQR] 57.0 [44.7-68.3] vs. 66.1 [52.0-76.2]; p < 0.001) and less frail (median [IQR] CFS 3 [2-4] vs. 4 [3-5]; p < 0.001) than non-COVID-19 patients. The overall hospital mortality was similar between the patients with and without COVID-19 (14.7% vs. 14.9%; p = 0.82). Frailty alone as a predictor of mortality showed only moderate discrimination in differentiating survivors from those who died but was similar between patients with and without COVID-19 (AUROC 0.68 vs. 0.66; p = 0.42). Increasing frailty scores were associated with hospital mortality, after adjusting for Australian and New Zealand Risk of Death score and sex. However, the effect of frailty was similar in patients with and without COVID-19 (OR = 1.29; 95% CI: 1.19-1.41 vs. OR = 1.24; 95% CI: 1.11-1.37).

Conclusion: The presence of frailty was an independent risk factor for mortality. However, the impact of frailty on outcomes was similar in COVID-19 patients compared to other causes of viral pneumonitis.

Keywords: ANZICS-APD; CFS; COVID-19; Clinical Frailty Scale; Frailty; Pandemic.

Objectives: To characterize and compare trends in ICU admission, hospital outcomes, and resource utilization for critically ill very elderly patients (≥ 80 yr old) compared with the younger cohort (16-79 yr old).

Design: A retrospective multicenter cohort study.

Setting: One-hundred ninety-four ICUs contributing data to the Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society Centre for Outcome and Resource Evaluation Adult Patient Database between January 2006 and December 2018.

Patients: Adult (≥ 16 yr) patients admitted to Australian and New Zealand ICUs.

Interventions: None.

Measurements and main results: Very elderly patients with a mean ± sd age of 84.8 ± 3.7 years accounted for 14.8% (232,582/1,568,959) of all adult ICU admissions. They had higher comorbid disease burden and illness severity scores compared with the younger cohort. Hospital (15.4% vs 7.8%, p < 0.001) and ICU mortality (8.5% vs 5.2%, p < 0.001) were higher in the very elderly. They stayed fewer days in ICU, but longer in hospital and had more ICU readmissions. Among survivors, a lower proportion of very elderly was discharged home (65.2% vs 82.4%, p < 0.001), and a higher proportion was discharged to chronic care/nursing home facilities (20.1% vs 7.8%, p < 0.001). Although there was no change in the proportion of very elderly ICU admissions over the study period, they showed a greater decline in risk-adjusted mortality (6.3% [95% CI, 5.9%-6.7%] vs 4.0% [95% CI, 3.7%-4.2%] relative reduction per year, p < 0.001) compared with the younger cohort. The mortality of very elderly unplanned ICU admissions improved faster than the younger cohort (p < 0.001), whereas improvements in mortality among elective surgical ICU admissions were similar in both groups (p = 0.45).

Conclusions: The proportion of ICU admissions greater than or equal to 80 years old did not change over the 13-year study period. Although their mortality was higher, they showed improved survivorship over time, especially in the unplanned ICU admission subgroup. A higher proportion of survivors were discharged to chronic care facilities.

Copyright © 2023 The Author(s).

Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the Society of Critical Care Medicine and Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a large number of critical care admissions. While national reports have described the outcomes of patients with COVID-19, there is limited international data of the pandemic impact on non-COVID-19 patients requiring intensive care treatment.

Methods: We conducted an international, retrospective cohort study using 2019 and 2020 data from 11 national clinical quality registries covering 15 countries. Non-COVID-19 admissions in 2020 were compared with all admissions in 2019, prepandemic. The primary outcome was intensive care unit (ICU) mortality. Secondary outcomes included in-hospital mortality and standardised mortality ratio (SMR). Analyses were stratified by the country income level(s) of each registry.

Findings: Among 1 642 632 non-COVID-19 admissions, there was an increase in ICU mortality between 2019 (9.3%) and 2020 (10.4%), OR=1.15 (95% CI 1.14 to 1.17, p<0.001). Increased mortality was observed in middle-income countries (OR 1.25 95% CI 1.23 to 1.26), while mortality decreased in high-income countries (OR=0.96 95% CI 0.94 to 0.98). Hospital mortality and SMR trends for each registry were consistent with the observed ICU mortality findings. The burden of COVID-19 was highly variable, with COVID-19 ICU patient-days per bed ranging from 0.4 to 81.6 between registries. This alone did not explain the observed non-COVID-19 mortality changes.

Interpretation: Increased ICU mortality occurred among non-COVID-19 patients during the pandemic, driven by increased mortality in middle-income countries, while mortality decreased in high-income countries. The causes for this inequity are likely multi-factorial, but healthcare spending, policy pandemic responses, and ICU strain may play significant roles.