tetano
Editor, Senior Moderator
PLoS One
. 2022 May 26;17(5):e0268734.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0268734. eCollection 2022.
Evaluation of models for prognosing mortality in critical care patients with COVID-19: First- and second-wave data from a German university hospital
Martin Kieninger[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Sarah Dietl[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Annemarie Sinning[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Michael Gruber[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Wolfram Gronwald[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Florian Zeman[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Dirk Lunz[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Thomas Dienemann[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Stephan Schmid[SUP] 5 [/SUP], Bernhard Graf[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Matthias Lubnow[SUP] 6 [/SUP], Thomas Müller[SUP] 6 [/SUP], Thomas Holzmann[SUP] 7 [/SUP], Bernd Salzberger[SUP] 7 [/SUP], Bärbel Kieninger[SUP] 7 [/SUP]
Affiliations
Abstract
Background: In a previous study, we had investigated the intensive care course of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the first wave in Germany by calculating models for prognosticating in-hospital death with univariable and multivariable regression analysis. This study analyzed if these models were also applicable to patients with COVID-19 in the second wave.
Methods: This retrospective cohort study included 98 critical care patients with COVID-19, who had been treated at the University Medical Center Regensburg, Germany, between October 2020 and February 2021. Data collected for each patient included vital signs, dosage of catecholamines, analgosedation, anticoagulation, and antithrombotic medication, diagnostic blood tests, treatment with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), intensive care scores, ventilator therapy, and pulmonary gas exchange. Using these data, expected mortality was calculated by means of the originally developed mathematical models, thereby testing the models for their applicability to patients in the second wave.
Results: Mortality in the second-wave cohort did not significantly differ from that in the first-wave cohort (41.8% vs. 32.2%, p = 0.151). As in our previous study, individual parameters such as pH of blood or mean arterial pressure (MAP) differed significantly between survivors and non-survivors. In contrast to our previous study, however, survivors and non-survivors in this study showed significant or even highly significant differences in pulmonary gas exchange and ventilator therapy (e.g. mean and minimum values for oxygen saturation and partial pressure of oxygen, mean values for the fraction of inspired oxygen, positive expiratory pressure, tidal volume, and oxygenation ratio). ECMO therapy was more frequently administered than in the first-wave cohort. Calculations of expected mortality by means of the originally developed univariable and multivariable models showed that the use of simple cut-off values for pH, MAP, troponin, or combinations of these parameters resulted in correctly estimated outcome in approximately 75% of patients without ECMO therapy.
. 2022 May 26;17(5):e0268734.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0268734. eCollection 2022.
Evaluation of models for prognosing mortality in critical care patients with COVID-19: First- and second-wave data from a German university hospital
Martin Kieninger[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Sarah Dietl[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Annemarie Sinning[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Michael Gruber[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Wolfram Gronwald[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Florian Zeman[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Dirk Lunz[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Thomas Dienemann[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Stephan Schmid[SUP] 5 [/SUP], Bernhard Graf[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Matthias Lubnow[SUP] 6 [/SUP], Thomas Müller[SUP] 6 [/SUP], Thomas Holzmann[SUP] 7 [/SUP], Bernd Salzberger[SUP] 7 [/SUP], Bärbel Kieninger[SUP] 7 [/SUP]
Affiliations
- PMID: 35617276
- DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0268734
Abstract
Background: In a previous study, we had investigated the intensive care course of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the first wave in Germany by calculating models for prognosticating in-hospital death with univariable and multivariable regression analysis. This study analyzed if these models were also applicable to patients with COVID-19 in the second wave.
Methods: This retrospective cohort study included 98 critical care patients with COVID-19, who had been treated at the University Medical Center Regensburg, Germany, between October 2020 and February 2021. Data collected for each patient included vital signs, dosage of catecholamines, analgosedation, anticoagulation, and antithrombotic medication, diagnostic blood tests, treatment with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), intensive care scores, ventilator therapy, and pulmonary gas exchange. Using these data, expected mortality was calculated by means of the originally developed mathematical models, thereby testing the models for their applicability to patients in the second wave.
Results: Mortality in the second-wave cohort did not significantly differ from that in the first-wave cohort (41.8% vs. 32.2%, p = 0.151). As in our previous study, individual parameters such as pH of blood or mean arterial pressure (MAP) differed significantly between survivors and non-survivors. In contrast to our previous study, however, survivors and non-survivors in this study showed significant or even highly significant differences in pulmonary gas exchange and ventilator therapy (e.g. mean and minimum values for oxygen saturation and partial pressure of oxygen, mean values for the fraction of inspired oxygen, positive expiratory pressure, tidal volume, and oxygenation ratio). ECMO therapy was more frequently administered than in the first-wave cohort. Calculations of expected mortality by means of the originally developed univariable and multivariable models showed that the use of simple cut-off values for pH, MAP, troponin, or combinations of these parameters resulted in correctly estimated outcome in approximately 75% of patients without ECMO therapy.