有和没有ICU住院限制的COVID-19患者的虚弱和合并症:一项回顾性观察性研究

IF 3.1
Felix Starlander, Erland Östberg
{"title":"有和没有ICU住院限制的COVID-19患者的虚弱和合并症:一项回顾性观察性研究","authors":"Felix Starlander, Erland Östberg","doi":"10.1186/s44158-025-00268-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Limited resources during the COVID-19 pandemic made ICU admission decisions ethically complex. In Sweden, where ICU bed availability per capita is among the lowest in Europe, clinical judgment guided triage decisions, as prognostic scoring systems like the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) and Age-adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index (ACCI) were not routinely used. This study aimed to compare patients considered eligible for intensive care with those for whom ICU admission was restricted and to evaluate whether a post hoc assessment of frailty and comorbidity aligned with clinical decision making.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective observational study included 204 COVID-19-positive patients admitted to a Swedish secondary hospital during the first pandemic wave. Patients were categorized as either eligible for intensive care (ICU group) or having a documented ICU admission restriction (ICU restriction group). Electronic medical records were reviewed to assign CFS and ACCI scores, and a combined score was calculated to better reflect overall frailty and comorbidity burden.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The ICU group had a mean age of 68 years versus 83 years in the ICU restriction group. Of the ICU group, 26 out of 100 patients (26%) were ultimately admitted to intensive care. Median combined CFS + ACCI scores were 5 (IQR 5-6) in the ICU group and 12 (IQR 11-14) in the ICU restriction group; difference in score: 7 (95% CI, 6-8; p < 0.001). The combined score demonstrated clear separation between the groups with minimal overlap: in the ICU group, 95% of patients had a combined score below 8.3, while in the ICU restriction group, 95% of patients had a score above 8.4.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Marked contrasts in age, frailty, and comorbidity burden distinguished patients eligible for intensive care from those with an ICU admission restriction, reflecting a close correspondence between the prognostic scoring systems and clinical judgment. Integrating the CFS and ACCI into a single combined score sharpened the analysis and may prove useful in future research or as a triage tool, although further validation of this approach is warranted.</p>","PeriodicalId":73597,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Anesthesia, Analgesia and Critical Care (Online)","volume":"5 1","pages":"51"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12333239/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Frailty and comorbidity in COVID-19 patients with and without ICU admission restrictions: a retrospective observational study.\",\"authors\":\"Felix Starlander, Erland Östberg\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s44158-025-00268-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Limited resources during the COVID-19 pandemic made ICU admission decisions ethically complex. In Sweden, where ICU bed availability per capita is among the lowest in Europe, clinical judgment guided triage decisions, as prognostic scoring systems like the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) and Age-adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index (ACCI) were not routinely used. This study aimed to compare patients considered eligible for intensive care with those for whom ICU admission was restricted and to evaluate whether a post hoc assessment of frailty and comorbidity aligned with clinical decision making.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective observational study included 204 COVID-19-positive patients admitted to a Swedish secondary hospital during the first pandemic wave. Patients were categorized as either eligible for intensive care (ICU group) or having a documented ICU admission restriction (ICU restriction group). Electronic medical records were reviewed to assign CFS and ACCI scores, and a combined score was calculated to better reflect overall frailty and comorbidity burden.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The ICU group had a mean age of 68 years versus 83 years in the ICU restriction group. Of the ICU group, 26 out of 100 patients (26%) were ultimately admitted to intensive care. Median combined CFS + ACCI scores were 5 (IQR 5-6) in the ICU group and 12 (IQR 11-14) in the ICU restriction group; difference in score: 7 (95% CI, 6-8; p < 0.001). The combined score demonstrated clear separation between the groups with minimal overlap: in the ICU group, 95% of patients had a combined score below 8.3, while in the ICU restriction group, 95% of patients had a score above 8.4.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Marked contrasts in age, frailty, and comorbidity burden distinguished patients eligible for intensive care from those with an ICU admission restriction, reflecting a close correspondence between the prognostic scoring systems and clinical judgment. Integrating the CFS and ACCI into a single combined score sharpened the analysis and may prove useful in future research or as a triage tool, although further validation of this approach is warranted.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73597,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Anesthesia, Analgesia and Critical Care (Online)\",\"volume\":\"5 1\",\"pages\":\"51\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12333239/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Anesthesia, Analgesia and Critical Care (Online)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s44158-025-00268-5\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Anesthesia, Analgesia and Critical Care (Online)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s44158-025-00268-5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:COVID-19大流行期间有限的资源使ICU的入院决定在伦理上变得复杂。在瑞典,人均ICU床位是欧洲最低的,临床判断指导分诊决定,因为临床虚弱量表(CFS)和年龄调整Charlson共病指数(ACCI)等预后评分系统并未常规使用。本研究旨在比较符合重症监护条件的患者与限制ICU住院的患者,并评估对虚弱和合并症的事后评估是否与临床决策一致。方法:本回顾性观察研究纳入了第一次大流行期间瑞典一家二级医院收治的204例covid -19阳性患者。患者被分类为符合重症监护条件(ICU组)或有记录的ICU入院限制(ICU限制组)。查看电子病历以分配CFS和ACCI评分,并计算综合评分以更好地反映总体虚弱和合并症负担。结果:ICU组的平均年龄为68岁,而ICU限制组的平均年龄为83岁。在ICU组,100例患者中有26例(26%)最终进入重症监护。ICU组CFS + ACCI评分中位数为5分(IQR 5-6), ICU限制组为12分(IQR 11-14);评分差异:7 (95% CI, 6-8;p结论:年龄、虚弱和合并症负担的显著差异区分了适合重症监护的患者和有ICU入院限制的患者,反映了预后评分系统与临床判断之间的密切对应。将CFS和ACCI合并为一个综合评分有助于分析,并可能在未来的研究中证明有用或作为分诊工具,尽管需要进一步验证这种方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Frailty and comorbidity in COVID-19 patients with and without ICU admission restrictions: a retrospective observational study.

Frailty and comorbidity in COVID-19 patients with and without ICU admission restrictions: a retrospective observational study.

Frailty and comorbidity in COVID-19 patients with and without ICU admission restrictions: a retrospective observational study.

Frailty and comorbidity in COVID-19 patients with and without ICU admission restrictions: a retrospective observational study.

Background: Limited resources during the COVID-19 pandemic made ICU admission decisions ethically complex. In Sweden, where ICU bed availability per capita is among the lowest in Europe, clinical judgment guided triage decisions, as prognostic scoring systems like the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) and Age-adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index (ACCI) were not routinely used. This study aimed to compare patients considered eligible for intensive care with those for whom ICU admission was restricted and to evaluate whether a post hoc assessment of frailty and comorbidity aligned with clinical decision making.

Methods: This retrospective observational study included 204 COVID-19-positive patients admitted to a Swedish secondary hospital during the first pandemic wave. Patients were categorized as either eligible for intensive care (ICU group) or having a documented ICU admission restriction (ICU restriction group). Electronic medical records were reviewed to assign CFS and ACCI scores, and a combined score was calculated to better reflect overall frailty and comorbidity burden.

Results: The ICU group had a mean age of 68 years versus 83 years in the ICU restriction group. Of the ICU group, 26 out of 100 patients (26%) were ultimately admitted to intensive care. Median combined CFS + ACCI scores were 5 (IQR 5-6) in the ICU group and 12 (IQR 11-14) in the ICU restriction group; difference in score: 7 (95% CI, 6-8; p < 0.001). The combined score demonstrated clear separation between the groups with minimal overlap: in the ICU group, 95% of patients had a combined score below 8.3, while in the ICU restriction group, 95% of patients had a score above 8.4.

Conclusions: Marked contrasts in age, frailty, and comorbidity burden distinguished patients eligible for intensive care from those with an ICU admission restriction, reflecting a close correspondence between the prognostic scoring systems and clinical judgment. Integrating the CFS and ACCI into a single combined score sharpened the analysis and may prove useful in future research or as a triage tool, although further validation of this approach is warranted.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信