Post-Intensive Care Syndrome Prevalence Six Months after Critical Covid-19: Comparison between First and Second Waves

5Citations
Citations of this article
30Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To explore the impact of improved intensive care for COVID-19 patients on the prevalence of post-intensive care syndrome (PICS). DESIGN: Ambispective cohort study. PATIENTS: Post-intensive care unit COVID-19 patients from the first and second waves of COVID-19. METHODS: Patients were evaluated at 6 months after infection. PICS was defined as the presence of a 1-min sit-to-stand test (1STS) score < 2.5th percentile or a Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT) below the 2 standard deviation cut-off, or a Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale score ≥ 11. RESULTS: A total of 60 patients were included (34 from wave 1 and 26 from wave 2). Intensive care unit management improved between waves, with shorter duration of orotracheal intubation (7 vs 23.5 days, p = 0.015) and intensive care unit stay (6 vs 9.5 days, p = 0.006) in wave 2. PICS was present in 51.5% of patients after wave 1 and 52% after wave 2 (p = 0.971). Female sex and diabetes were significantly associated with PICS by multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION: Approximately half of post-intensive care unit COVID-19 patients have 1 or more impairments consistent with PICS at 6 months, with an impact on quality of life and participation. Improved intensive care unit management was not associated with a decrease in the prevalence of PICS. Identification of patients at risk, particularly women and diabetic patients, is essential. Further studies of underlying mechanisms and the need for rehabilitation are essential to reduce the risk of PICS.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Rapin, A., Boyer, F. C., Mourvillier, B., Giordano Orsini, G., Launois, C., Taiar, R., … Carazo-Mendez, S. (2022). Post-Intensive Care Syndrome Prevalence Six Months after Critical Covid-19: Comparison between First and Second Waves. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 54, jrm00339. https://doi.org/10.2340/jrm.v54.4363

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free