Background
Case-fatality from COVID-19 has been reported to be relatively high in patients age 65 years or older. We sought to determine the age-specific rates of COVID-19 mortality at the population level.
Methods
We obtained information regarding the total number of COVID-19 reported deaths for six consecutive weeks beginning at the 50th recorded death, among 16 countries that reported a relatively high number of COVID-19 cases as of April 12, 2020. We performed an ecological study to model COVID-19 mortality rates per week by age group (54 years or younger, 55–64 years, and 65 years or older) and sex using a Poisson mixed effects regression model.
Results
Over the six-week period of data, there were 178,568 COVID-19 deaths from a total population of approximately 2.4 billion people. Age and sex were associated with COVID-19 mortality. Compared with individuals ages 54 years or younger, the incident rate ratio (IRR) was 8.1, indicating that the mortality rate of COVID-19 was 8.1 times higher (95%CI = 7.7, 8.5) among those 55 to 64 years, and more than 62 times higher (IRR = 62.1; 95%CI = 59.7, 64.7) among those ages 65 or older. Mortality rates from COVID-19 were 77% higher in men than in women (IRR = 1.77, 95%CI = 1.74, 1.79).
Conclusions
In the 16 countries examined, persons age 65 years or older had strikingly higher COVID-19 mortality rates compared to younger individuals, and men had a higher risk of COVID-19 death than women.
Acute lung injury was frequent in our sample of European ICUs (7.1%); one third of patients presented with mild ALI, but more than half rapidly evolved to ARDS. While the mortality of ARDS remains high, that of mild ALI is twice as low, confirming the grading of severity between the two forms of the syndrome.
Acute renal failure (ARF) in critically ill patients is associated with high mortality. Optimal method and dose of continuous renal replacement therapy could improve survival in these patients. We studied the hypothesis that an increase in dialysis dose obtained by continuous veno-venous hemodiafiltration (CVVHDF) is associated with a better survival than continuous veno-venous hemofiltration (CVVH) among critically ill patients with ARF. In a prospective randomized trial, these two methods were compared in patients undergoing renal replacement therapy in two intensive care units (ICUs). The patients had either CVVH (1-2.5 l/h replacement fluid) or continuous CVVHDF (1-2.5 l/h replacement fluid+1-1.5 l/h dialysate) according to their body weight. 28- and 90-day mortalities, renal recovery, and duration of ICU stay were the main outcome measures. Two hundred and six patients were randomized from October 2000 to December 2003. Twenty-eight-day survivals (%) were, respectively, 39 and 59 (P=0.03) in the CVVH and CVVHDF groups. Three months survivals (%) were, respectively, 34 and 59 (P=0.0005) in the CVVH and CVVHDF groups. Apache II score, age, baseline blood urea nitrogen, and hemodiafiltration (hazard ratio 0.59, 95% confidence interval 0.40-0.87; P=0.008) were independent predictors of survival at 90 days. Renal recovery rate among survivors (71 versus 78% in the CVVH and CVVHDF groups respectively, P=0.62) was not affected by the type of renal replacement therapy. These results suggest that increasing the dialysis dose especially for low molecular weight solutes confers a better survival in severely ill patients with ARF.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.