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.

This secondary analysis of the COVIP study shows a higher 30-day-mortality in critically ill elderly COVID-19 patients who received steroids as part of their treatment.

BackgroundThe 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.MethodsA prospective multi-centre 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 (CFS). Additionally, comorbidities, management strategies and treatment limitations were recorded.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionFrailty provides relevant prognostic information in elderly COVID-19 patients in addition to age and comorbidities.

The primary aim of this study was to assess the outcome of elderly ICU patients treated during the spring and autumn COVID-19 surges in Europe. MethodsA prospective European observation study (The COVIP study) in ICU patients aged 70 years and older admitted with COVID-19 disease from March to December 2020. An electronic Case Record Form was used to register a number of parameters including: SOFA score, Clinical Frailty Scale, comorbidities, usual ICU procedures including pharmacotherapy, limitation of care, ICU length of stay and survival at 30 days. The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (ID: NCT04321265). ResultsIn total 2711 patients were included, 1325 from the first and 1291 from the second surge and 94 in between. Median age was 74 and 75 years in surge 1 and surge 2 respectively. SOFA score was higher in the first surge (median 6 versus 5, p<0.0001). The PaO 2 /FiO 2 ratio at admission was higher during surge 1 and more patients received mechanical ventilation (78% versus 68%, p<0.0001). More patients were given corticosteroids in surge 2 (93 vs 38%, p<0.0001). 30 days survival was lower in the second surge (57.4% vs 49.3%) with adjusted HR of 1.43 (1.18-1.74). ConclusionAn unexpected, but significant, increase in 30-day mortality was observed during the second

No abstract

Syndecan-1 (sdc1) is a surface protein part of the endothelial glycocalyx (eGC). Soluble sdc1 is derived from shedding and indicates damaged eGC. We assessed the predictive value of plasma sdc1 concentrations for future cardiovascular events in acute reperfused ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients. A total of 206 patients admitted for STEMI were included in this study (29% female; age 65 ± 12 years) and followed-up for six months. Plasma samples were obtained post-intervention and analyzed for sdc1 by Enzyme-linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA). Primary outcome was six-month-mortality. Sdc1 did not correlate with biomarkers such as creatine kinase (CK) (r = 0.11; p = 0.01) or troponin (r = −0.12; p = 0.09), nor with infarct size (r = −0.04; p = 0.67) and myocardial salvage index (r = 0.11; p = 0.17). Sdc-1 was associated with mortality (changes per 100 ng/mL sdc-1 concentration; HR 1.08 95% 1.03–1.12; p = 0.001). An optimal cut-off was calculated at >120 ng/mL. After correction for known risk factors sdc1 >120 ng/mL was independently associated with mortality after 6 months. In our study, sdc1 is independently associated with six-month-mortality after STEMI. Combining clinical evaluation and different biomarkers assessing both infarct-related myocardial injury and systemic stress response might improve the accuracy of predicting clinical prognosis in STEMI patients.

No abstract

Virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) are aspiring, new technologies with increasing use in critical care medicine. While VR fully immerses the user into a virtual three-dimensional space, AR adds overlaid virtual elements into a real-world environment. VR and AR offer great potential to improve critical care medicine for patients, relatives and health care providers. VR may help to ameliorate anxiety, stress, fear, and pain for the patient. It may assist patients in mobilisation and rehabilitation and can improve communication between all those involved in the patient’s care. AR can be an effective tool to support continuous education of intensive care medicine providers, and may complement traditional learning methods to acquire key practical competences such as central venous line placement, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation device management or endotracheal intubation. Currently, technical, human, and ethical challenges remain. The adaptation and integration of VR/AR modalities into useful clinical applications that can be used routinely on the ICU is challenging. Users may experience unwanted side effects (so-called “cybersickness”) during VR/AR sessions, which may limit its applicability. Furthermore, critically ill patients are one of the most vulnerable patient groups and warrant special ethical considerations if new technologies are to be introduced into their daily care. To date, most studies involving AR/VR in critical care medicine provide only a low level of evidence due to their research design. Here we summarise background information, current developments, and key considerations that should be taken into account for future scientific investigations in this field. Graphical abstract