Background The COVID-19 pandemic has led highly developed healthcare systems to the brink of collapse due to the large numbers of patients being admitted into hospitals. One of the potential prognostic indicators in patients with COVID-19 is frailty. The degree of frailty could be used to assist both the triage into intensive care, and decisions regarding treatment limitations. Our study sought to determine the interaction of frailty and age in elderly COVID-19 ICU patients. Methods A prospective multicentre study of COVID-19 patients ≥ 70 years admitted to intensive care in 138 ICUs from 28 countries was conducted. The primary endpoint was 30-day mortality. Frailty was assessed using the clinical frailty scale. Additionally, comorbidities, management strategies and treatment limitations were recorded. Results The study included 1346 patients (28% female) with a median age of 75 years (IQR 72–78, range 70–96), 16.3% were older than 80 years, and 21% of the patients were frail. The overall survival at 30 days was 59% (95% CI 56–62), with 66% (63–69) in fit, 53% (47–61) in vulnerable and 41% (35–47) in frail patients (p < 0.001). In frail patients, there was no difference in 30-day survival between different age categories. Frailty was linked to an increased use of treatment limitations and less use of mechanical ventilation. In a model controlling for age, disease severity, sex, treatment limitations and comorbidities, frailty was independently associated with lower survival. Conclusion Frailty provides relevant prognostic information in elderly COVID-19 patients in addition to age and comorbidities. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT04321265, registered 19 March 2020.

BACKGROUND In critically ill, mechanically ventilated patients, daily interruption of sedation has been shown to reduce the time on ventilation and the length of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU). Data on whether a plan of no sedation, as compared with a plan of light sedation, has an effect on mortality are lacking. METHODS In a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial, we assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, mechanically ventilated ICU patients to a plan of no sedation (nonsedation group) or to a plan of light sedation (i.e., to a level at which the patient was arousable, defined as a score of −2 to −3 on the Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale [RASS], on which scores range from −5 [unresponsive] to +4 [combative]) (sedation group) with daily interruption. The primary outcome was mortality at 90 days. Secondary outcomes were the number of major thromboembolic events, the number of days free from coma or delirium, acute kidney injury according to severity, the number of ICU-free days, and the number of ventilator-free days. Between-group differences were calculated as the value in the nonsedation group minus the value in the sedation group. RESULTS A total of 710 patients underwent randomization, and 700 were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. The characteristics of the patients at baseline were similar in the two trial groups, except for the score on the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II, which was 1 point higher in the nonsedation group than in the sedation group, indicating a greater chance of in-hospital death. The mean RASS score in the nonsedation group increased from −1.3 on day 1 to −0.8 on day 7 and, in the sedation group, from −2.3 on day 1 to −1.8 on day 7. Mortality at 90 days was 42.4% in the nonsedation group and 37.0% in the sedated group (difference, 5.4 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], −2.2 to 12.2; P = 0.65). The number of ICU-free days and of ventilator-free days did not differ significantly between the trial groups. The patients in the nonsedation group had a median of 27 days free from coma or delirium, and those in the sedation group had a median of 26 days free from coma or delirium. A major thromboembolic event occurred in 1 patient (0.3%) in the nonsedation group and in 10 patients (2.8%) in the sedation group (difference, −2.5 percentage points; 95% CI, −4.8 to −0.7 [unadjusted for multiple comparisons]). CONCLUSIONS Among mechanically ventilated ICU patients, mortality at 90 days did not differ significantly between those assigned to a plan of no sedation and those assigned to a plan of light sedation with daily interruption. (Funded by the Danish Medical Research Council and others; NONSEDA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01967680.

Background Acute postoperative pain is still an issue in patients undergoing abdominal surgery. Postoperative pain and side effects of analgesic treatment, in particular those of opioids, need to be minimized. Opioid-sparing analgesics, possibly including dexmedetomidine, seem a promising avenue by which to improve postoperative outcomes. Objectives Our primary aim was to determine the analgesic efficacy and opioid-sparing effect of perioperative dexmedetomidine for acute pain after abdominal surgery in adults. Secondary aims were to establish effects of dexmedetomidine on postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), gastrointestinal function and mobilization, together with the side effect profile of dexmedetomidine. Search methods We searched the following databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Institute for Scientific Information (ISI), Web of Science and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and reference lists of articles to May 2014. We searched the Science Citation Index, ClinicalTrials.gov and Current Controlled Trials, and we contacted pharmaceutical companies to identify unpublished and ongoing studies. We applied no language restrictions. We reran the search in May 2015 and found nine studies of interest. We will deal with the studies of interest when we update the review. Selection criteria We included randomized, controlled trials of perioperative dexmedetomidine versus placebo or other drug during abdominal surgery in adults. Trials included one of the following outcomes: amount of 'rescue' opioid, postoperative pain, time to 'rescue' analgesia, participants requiring 'rescue' analgesia, postoperative sedation, PONV, time to first passage of flatus and stool or time to first out-ofbed mobilization.

Purpose The number of patients ≥ 80 years admitted into critical care is increasing. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) added another challenge for clinical decisions for both admission and limitation of life-sustaining treatments (LLST). We aimed to compare the characteristics and mortality of very old critically ill patients with or without COVID-19 with a focus on LLST. Methods Patients 80 years or older with acute respiratory failure were recruited from the VIP2 and COVIP studies. Baseline patient characteristics, interventions in intensive care unit (ICU) and outcomes (30-day survival) were recorded. COVID patients were matched to non-COVID patients based on the following factors: age (± 2 years), Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score (± 2 points), clinical frailty scale (± 1 point), gender and region on a 1:2 ratio. Specific ICU procedures and LLST were compared between the cohorts by means of cumulative incidence curves taking into account the competing risk of discharge and death. Results 693 COVID patients were compared to 1393 non-COVID patients. COVID patients were younger, less frail, less severely ill with lower SOFA score, but were treated more often with invasive mechanical ventilation (MV) and had a lower 30-day survival. 404 COVID patients could be matched to 666 non-COVID patients. For COVID patients, withholding and withdrawing of LST were more frequent than for non-COVID and the 30-day survival was almost half compared to non-COVID patients. Conclusion Very old COVID patients have a different trajectory than non-COVID patients. Whether this finding is due to a decision policy with more active treatment limitation or to an inherent higher risk of death due to COVID-19 is unclear. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00134-022-06642-z.