IntroductionThe socio-economic impact of critical illnesses on patients and their families in Europe has yet to be determined. The aim of this exploratory study was to estimate changes in family circumstances, social and economic stability, care requirements and access to health services for patients during their first 12 months after ICU discharge.MethodsMulti-center questionnaire-based study of survivors of critical illness at 6 and 12 months after ICU discharge.ResultsData for 293 consenting patients who spent greater than 48 hours in one of 22 UK ICUs were obtained at 6 and 12 months post-ICU discharge. There was little evidence of a change in accommodation or relationship status between pre-admission and 12 months following discharge from an ICU. A negative impact on family income was reported by 33% of all patients at 6 months and 28% at 12 months. There was nearly a 50% reduction in the number of patients who reported employment as their sole source of income at 12 months (19% to 11%) compared with pre-admission. One quarter of patients reported themselves in need of care assistance at 6 months and 22% at 12 months. The majority of care was provided by family members (80% and 78%, respectively), for half of whom there was a negative impact on employment. Amongst all patients receiving care, 26% reported requiring greater than 50 hours a week. Following discharge, 79% of patients reported attending their primary care physician and 44% had seen a community nurse. Mobility problems nearly doubled between pre-admission and 6 months (32% to 64%). Furthermore, 73% reported moderate or severe pain at 12 months and 44% remained significantly anxious or depressed.ConclusionsSurvivors of critical illness in the UK face a negative impact on employment and commonly have a care requirement after discharge from hospital. This has a corresponding negative impact on family income. The majority of the care required is provided by family members. This effect was apparent by 6 months and had not materially improved by 12 months. This exploratory study has identified the potential for a significant socio-economic burden following critical illness.

BackgroundSurvivors of intensive care are known to be at increased risk of developing longer-term psychopathology issues. We present a large UK multicentre study assessing the anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) caseness in the first year following discharge from an intensive care unit (ICU).MethodsDesign: prospective multicentre follow-up study of survivors of ICU in the UK.Setting: patients from 26 ICUs in the UK.Inclusion criteria: patients who had received at least 24 h of level 3 ICU care and were 16 years of age or older.Interventions: postal follow up: Hospital Anxiety and Depression Score (HADS) and the Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) Check List-Civilian (PCL-C) at 3 and 12 months following discharge from ICU.Main outcome measure: caseness of anxiety, depression and PTSD, 2-year survival.ResultsIn total, 21,633 patients admitted to ICU were included in the study. Postal questionnaires were sent to 13,155 survivors; of these 38% (4943/13155) responded and 55% (2731/4943) of respondents passed thresholds for one or more condition at 3 or 12 months following discharge. Caseness prevalence was 46%, 40% and 22% for anxiety, depression and PTSD respectively; 18% (870/4943 patients) met the caseness threshold for all three psychological conditions. Patients with symptoms of depression were 47% more likely to die during the first 2 years after discharge from ICU than those without (HR 1.47, CI 1.19–1.80).ConclusionsOver half of those who respond to postal questionnaire following treatment on ICU in the UK reported significant symptoms of anxiety, depression or PTSD. When symptoms of one psychological disorder are present, there is a 65% chance they will co-occur with symptoms of one of the other two disorders. Depression following critical illness is associated with an increased mortality risk in the first 2 years following discharge from ICU.Trial registrationISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN69112866. Registered on 2 May 2006.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13054-018-2223-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Summary Quality of life after critical illness is becoming increasingly important as survival improves. Various measures have been used to study the quality of life of patients discharged from intensive care. We systematically reviewed validated measures of quality of life and their results. We searched PubMed, CENTRAL, CINAHL, Web of Science and Open Grey for studies of quality of life, measured after discharge from intensive care. We categorised studied populations as: general; restricted to level‐3 care or critical care beyond 5 days; and septic patients. We included quality of life measured at any time after hospital discharge. We identified 48 studies. Thirty‐one studies used the Medical Outcomes Study 36‐Item Short Form Health Survey (SF‐36) and 19 used the EuroQol‐5D (EQ‐5D); eight used both and nine used alternative validated measures. Follow‐up rates ranged from 26–100%. Quality of life after critical care was worse than for age‐ and sex‐matched populations. Quality of life improved for one year after hospital discharge. The aspects of life that improved most were physical function, physical role, vitality and social function. However, these domains were also the least likely to recover to population norms as they were more profoundly affected by critical illness.

Background A more transmissible variant of SARS-CoV-2, the variant of concern 202012/01 or lineage B.1.1.7, has emerged in the UK. We aimed to estimate the risk of critical care admission, mortality in patients who are critically ill, and overall mortality associated with lineage B.1.1.7 compared with non-B.1.1.7. We also compared clinical outcomes between these two groups. Methods For this observational cohort study, we linked large primary care (QResearch), national critical care (Intensive Care National Audit & Research Centre Case Mix Programme), and national COVID-19 testing (Public Health England) databases. We used SARS-CoV-2 positive samples with S-gene molecular diagnostic assay failure (SGTF) as a proxy for the presence of lineage B.1.1.7. We extracted two cohorts from the data: the primary care cohort, comprising patients in primary care with a positive community COVID-19 test reported between Nov 1, 2020, and Jan 26, 2021, and known SGTF status; and the critical care cohort, comprising patients admitted for critical care with a positive community COVID-19 test reported between Nov 1, 2020, and Jan 27, 2021, and known SGTF status. We explored the associations between SARS-CoV-2 infection with and without lineage B.1.1.7 and admission to a critical care unit (CCU), 28-day mortality, and 28-day mortality following CCU admission. We used Royston-Parmar models adjusted for age, sex, geographical region, other sociodemographic factors (deprivation index, ethnicity, household housing category, and smoking status for the primary care cohort; and ethnicity, body-mass index, deprivation index, and dependency before admission to acute hospital for the CCU cohort), and comorbidities (asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, type 1 and 2 diabetes, and hypertension for the primary care cohort; and cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease, metastatic disease, and immunocompromised conditions for the CCU cohort). We reported information on types and duration of organ support for the B.1.1.7 and non-B.1.1.7 groups. Findings The primary care cohort included 198 420 patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Of these, 117 926 (59·4%) had lineage B.1.1.7, 836 (0·4%) were admitted to CCU, and 899 (0·4%) died within 28 days. The critical care cohort included 4272 patients admitted to CCU. Of these, 2685 (62·8%) had lineage B.1.1.7 and 662 (15·5%) died at the end of critical care. In the primary care cohort, we estimated adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) of 2·15 (95% CI 1·75–2·65) for CCU admission and 1·65 (1·36–2·01) for 28-day mortality for patients with lineage B.1.1.7 compared with the non-B.1.1.7 group. The adjusted HR for mortality in critical care, estimated with the critical care cohort, was 0·91 (0·76–1·09) for patients with lineage B.1.1.7 compared with those with non-B.1.1.7 infection. Interpretation Patients with lineage B.1.1.7 were at increased risk of CCU admission and 28-day mortality compared with patients...

Background The global pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has placed a huge strain on UK hospitals. Early studies suggest that patients can deteriorate quickly after admission to hospital. The aim of this study was to model changes in vital signs for patients hospitalised with COVID-19. Methods This was a retrospective observational study of adult patients with COVID-19 admitted to one acute hospital trust in the UK (CV) and a cohort of patients admitted to the same hospital between 2013-2017 with viral pneumonia (VI). The primary outcome was the start of continuous positive airway pressure/non-invasive positive pressure ventilation, ICU admission or death in hospital. We used non-linear mixed-effects models to compare changes in vital sign observations prior to the primary outcome. Using observations and FiO 2 measured at discharge in the VI cohort as the model of normality, we also combined individual vital signs into a single novelty score. Results There were 497 cases of COVID-19, of whom 373 had been discharged from hospital. 135 (36.2%) of patients experienced the primary outcome, of whom 99 died in hospital. In-hospital mortality was over 4-times higher in the CV than the VI cohort (26.5% vs 6%). For those patients who experienced the primary outcome, CV patients became increasingly hypoxaemic, with a median estimated FiO 2 (0.75) higher than that of the VI cohort (estimated FiO 2 of 0.35). Prior to the primary outcome, blood pressure remained within normal range, and there was only a small rise in heart rate. The novelty score showed that patients with COVID-19 deteriorated more rapidly that patients with viral pneumonia. Conclusions Patients with COVID-19 who deteriorate in hospital experience rapidly-worsening respiratory failure, with low SpO 2 and high FiO 2 , but only minor abnormalities in other vital signs. This has potential implications for the ability of early warning scores to identify deteriorating patients.

Background: A new, more transmissible variant of SARS-CoV-2, variant of concern (VOC) 202012/01 or lineage B.1.1.7, has emerged in the UK. We estimate the risk of critical care admission, mortality in critical ill patients, and overall mortality associated with VOC B.1.1.7 compared with the original variant. We also compare clinical outcomes between these variants' groups. Methods: We linked a large primary care (QResearch), the national critical care (ICNARC CMP) and the COVID-19 testing (PHE) database and extracted two cohorts. The first was used to explore the association between VOC B.1.1.7 and critical care admission and 28-day mortality. The second to determine the risk of mortality in critically ill patients with VOC B.1.1.7 compared to those without. We used Royston-Parmar models adjusted for age, sex, region, other socio-demographics and comorbidities (asthma, COPD, type I and II, hypertension). We reported information on types and duration of organ supports for the two variants' groups. Findings: The first cohort included 198,420 patients. Of these, 80,494 had VOC B.1.1.7, 712 were critically ill and 630 died by 28 days. The second cohort included 3432 critically ill patients. Of these, 2019 had VOC B.1.1.7 and 822 died at the end of critical care. Using the first cohort, we estimated adjusted hazard ratios for critical care admission and mortality to be 1.99 (95% CI: 1.59, 2.49) and 1.59 (95% CI: 1.25-2.03) for VOC B.1.1.7 compared with the original variant group, respectively. The adjusted hazard ratio for mortality in critical care, estimated using the second cohort, was 0.93 (95% CI 0.76-1.15) for patients with VOC B.1.1.7, compared to those without. Interpretation: VOC B.1.1.7 appears to be more severe. Patients with VOC B.1.1.7 are at increased risk of critical care admission and mortality compared with patients without. For patients receiving critical care, mortality appears independent of virus strain.

IMPORTANCE Individuals surviving severe COVID-19 may be at increased risk of neuropsychiatric sequelae. Robust assessment of these risks may help improve clinical understanding of the post-COVID syndrome, aid clinical care during the ongoing pandemic, and inform postpandemic planning.OBJECTIVE To quantify the risks of new-onset neuropsychiatric conditions and new neuropsychiatric medication prescriptions after discharge from a COVID-19-related hospitalization, and to compare these with risks after discharge from hospitalization for other severe acute respiratory infections (SARI) during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSIn this cohort study, adults (Ն18 years of age) were identified from QResearch primary care and linked electronic health record databases, including national SARS-CoV-2 testing, hospital episode statistics, intensive care admissions data, and mortality registers in England, from January 24, 2020, to July 7, 2021. EXPOSURES COVID-19-related or SARI-related hospital admission (including intensive care admission).MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES New-onset diagnoses of neuropsychiatric conditions (anxiety, dementia, psychosis, depression, bipolar disorder) or first prescription for relevant medications (antidepressants, hypnotics/anxiolytics, antipsychotics) during 12 months of follow-up from hospital discharge. Maximally adjusted hazard ratios (HR) with 95% CIs were estimated using flexible parametric survival models. RESULTSIn this cohort study of data from 8.38 million adults (4.18 million women, 4.20 million men; mean [SD] age 49.18 [18.45] years); 16 679 (0.02%) survived a hospital admission for SARI, and 32 525 (0.03%) survived a hospital admission for COVID-19. Compared with the remaining population, survivors of SARI and COVID-19 hospitalization had higher risks of subsequent neuropsychiatric diagnoses. For example, the HR for anxiety in survivors of SARI was 1.86 (95% CI, 1.56-2.21) and for survivors of COVID-19 infection was 2.36 (95% CI, 2.03-2.74); the HR for dementia for survivors of SARI was 2.55 (95% CI, 2.17-3.00) and for survivors of COVID-19 infection was 2.63 (95% CI, 2.21-3.14). Similar findings were observed for all medications analyzed; for example, the HR for first prescriptions of antidepressants in survivors of SARI was 2.55 (95% CI, 2.24-2.90) and for survivors of COVID-19 infection was 3.24 (95% CI, 2.91-3.61). There were no significant differences observed when directly comparing the COVID-19 group with the SARI group apart from a lower risk of antipsychotic prescriptions in the former (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.69-0.92). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEIn this cohort study, the neuropsychiatric sequelae of severe COVID-19 infection were found to be similar to those for other SARI. This finding may inform postdischarge support for people surviving SARI.

No abstract