Background Large clinical trials on drugs for hospitalized coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients have shown significant effects on mortality. There may be a discrepancy with the observed... Show moreBackground Large clinical trials on drugs for hospitalized coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients have shown significant effects on mortality. There may be a discrepancy with the observed real-world effect. We describe the clinical characteristics and outcomes of hospitalized COVID-19 patients in the Netherlands during 4 pandemic waves and analyze the association of the newly introduced treatments with mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and discharge alive. Methods We conducted a nationwide retrospective analysis of hospitalized COVID-19 patients between February 27, 2020, and December 31, 2021. Patients were categorized into waves and into treatment groups (hydroxychloroquine, remdesivir, neutralizing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 monoclonal antibodies, corticosteroids, and interleukin [IL]-6 antagonists). Four types of Cox regression analyses were used: unadjusted, adjusted, propensity matched, and propensity weighted. Results Among 5643 patients from 11 hospitals, we observed a changing epidemiology during 4 pandemic waves, with a decrease in median age (67-64 years; P < .001), in in-hospital mortality on the ward (21%-15%; P < .001), and a trend in the ICU (24%-16%; P = .148). In ward patients, hydroxychloroquine was associated with increased mortality (1.54; 95% CI, 1.22-1.96), and remdesivir was associated with a higher rate of discharge alive within 29 days (1.16; 95% CI, 1.03-1.31). Corticosteroids were associated with a decrease in mortality (0.82; 95% CI, 0.69-0.96); the results of IL-6 antagonists were inconclusive. In patients directly admitted to the ICU, hydroxychloroquine, corticosteroids, and IL-6 antagonists were not associated with decreased mortality. Conclusions Both remdesivir and corticosteroids were associated with better outcomes in ward patients with COVID-19. Continuous evaluation of real-world treatment effects is needed. Show less
Background: Aims of this study were to investigate the prevalence and incidence of catheter-related infection, identify risk factors, and determine the relation of catheter-related infection with... Show moreBackground: Aims of this study were to investigate the prevalence and incidence of catheter-related infection, identify risk factors, and determine the relation of catheter-related infection with mortality in critically ill COVID-19 patients. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of central venous catheters (CVCs) in critically ill COVID-19 patients. Eligible CVC insertions required an indwelling time of at least 48 hours and were identified using a full-admission electronic health record database. Risk factors were identified using logistic regression. Differences in survival rates at day 28 of follow-up were assessed using a log-rank test and proportional hazard model. Results: In 538 patients, a total of 914 CVCs were included. Prevalence and incidence of suspected catheter-related infection were 7.9% and 9.4 infections per 1,000 catheter indwelling days, respectively. Prone ventilation for more than 5 days was associated with increased risk of suspected catheter-related infection; odds ratio, 5.05 (95% confidence interval 2.12-11.0). Risk of death was significantly higher in patients with suspected catheter-related infection (hazard ratio, 1.78; 95% confidence interval, 1.25-2.53). Conclusions: This study shows that in critically ill patients with COVID-19, prevalence and incidence of suspected catheter-related infection are high, prone ventilation is a risk factor, and mortality is higher in case of catheter-related infection. Show less
Purpose: Describe the differences in characteristics and outcomes between COVID-19 and other viral pneumonia patients admitted to Dutch ICUs. Materials and methods: Data from the National-Intensive... Show morePurpose: Describe the differences in characteristics and outcomes between COVID-19 and other viral pneumonia patients admitted to Dutch ICUs. Materials and methods: Data from the National-Intensive-Care-Evaluation-registry of COVID-19 patients admitted between February 15th and January 1th 2021 and other viral pneumonia patients admitted between January 1st 2017 and January 1st 2020 were used. Patients' characteristics, the unadjusted, and adjusted in-hospital mortality were compared. Results: 6343 COVID-19 and 2256 other viral pneumonia patients from 79 ICUs were included. The COVID-19 patients included more male (71.3 vs 49.8%), had a higher Body-Mass-Index (28.1 vs 25.5), less comorbidities (42.2 vs 72.7%), and a prolonged hospital length of stay (19 vs 9 days). The COVID-19 patients had a significantly higher crude in-hospital mortality rate (Odds ratio (OR) = 1.80), after adjustment for patient characteristics and ICU occupancy rate the OR was respectively 3.62 and 3.58. Conclusion: Higher mortality among COVID-19 patients could not be explained by patient characteristics and higher ICU occupancy rates, indicating that COVID-19 is more severe compared to other viral pneumonia. Our findings confirm earlier warnings of a high need of ICU capacity and high mortality rates among relatively healthy COVID-19 patients as this may lead to a higher mental workload for the staff. (c) 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Show less
Background To assess trends in the quality of care for COVID-19 patients at the ICU over the course of time in the Netherlands. Methods Data from the National Intensive Care Evaluation (NICE)... Show moreBackground To assess trends in the quality of care for COVID-19 patients at the ICU over the course of time in the Netherlands. Methods Data from the National Intensive Care Evaluation (NICE)-registry of all COVID-19 patients admitted to an ICU in the Netherlands were used. Patient characteristics and indicators of quality of care during the first two upsurges (N = 4215: October 5, 2020-January 31, 2021) and the final upsurge of the second wave, called the 'third wave' (N = 4602: February 1, 2021-June 30, 2021) were compared with those during the first wave (N = 2733, February-May 24, 2020). Results During the second and third wave, there were less patients treated with mechanical ventilation (58.1 and 58.2%) and vasoactive drugs (48.0 and 44.7%) compared to the first wave (79.1% and 67.2%, respectively). The occupancy rates as fraction of occupancy in 2019 (1.68 and 1.55 vs. 1.83), the numbers of ICU relocations (23.8 and 27.6 vs. 32.3%) and the mean length of stay at the ICU (HRs of ICU discharge = 1.26 and 1.42) were lower during the second and third wave. No difference in adjusted hospital mortality between the second wave and the first wave was found, whereas the mortality during the third wave was considerably lower (OR = 0.80, 95% CI [0.71-0.90]). Conclusions These data show favorable shifts in the treatment of COVID-19 patients at the ICU over time. The adjusted mortality decreased in the third wave. The high ICU occupancy rate early in the pandemic does probably not explain the high mortality associated with COVID-19. Show less
Background The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has underlined the urgent need for reliable, multicenter, and full-admission intensive care data to advance our understanding of the... Show moreBackground The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has underlined the urgent need for reliable, multicenter, and full-admission intensive care data to advance our understanding of the course of the disease and investigate potential treatment strategies. In this study, we present the Dutch Data Warehouse (DDW), the first multicenter electronic health record (EHR) database with full-admission data from critically ill COVID-19 patients. Methods A nation-wide data sharing collaboration was launched at the beginning of the pandemic in March 2020. All hospitals in the Netherlands were asked to participate and share pseudonymized EHR data from adult critically ill COVID-19 patients. Data included patient demographics, clinical observations, administered medication, laboratory determinations, and data from vital sign monitors and life support devices. Data sharing agreements were signed with participating hospitals before any data transfers took place. Data were extracted from the local EHRs with prespecified queries and combined into a staging dataset through an extract-transform-load (ETL) pipeline. In the consecutive processing pipeline, data were mapped to a common concept vocabulary and enriched with derived concepts. Data validation was a continuous process throughout the project. All participating hospitals have access to the DDW. Within legal and ethical boundaries, data are available to clinicians and researchers. Results Out of the 81 intensive care units in the Netherlands, 66 participated in the collaboration, 47 have signed the data sharing agreement, and 35 have shared their data. Data from 25 hospitals have passed through the ETL and processing pipeline. Currently, 3464 patients are included in the DDW, both from wave 1 and wave 2 in the Netherlands. More than 200 million clinical data points are available. Overall ICU mortality was 24.4%. Respiratory and hemodynamic parameters were most frequently measured throughout a patient's stay. For each patient, all administered medication and their daily fluid balance were available. Missing data are reported for each descriptive. Conclusions In this study, we show that EHR data from critically ill COVID-19 patients may be lawfully collected and can be combined into a data warehouse. These initiatives are indispensable to advance medical data science in the field of intensive care medicine. Show less
