Cargando…

Validation of a pre-established triage protocol for critically ill patients in a COVID-19 outbreak under resource scarcity: A retrospective multicenter cohort study

INTRODUCTION: In case of COVID-19 related scarcity of critical care resources, an early French triage algorithm categorized critically ill patients by probability of survival based on medical history and severity, with four priority levels for initiation or continuation of critical care: P1 –high pr...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Donat, Nicolas, Mellati, Nouchan, Frumento, Thibault, Cirodde, Audrey, Gette, Sébastien, Guitard, Pierre Gildas, Hoffmann, Clément, Veber, Benoît, Leclerc, Thomas
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10174588/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37167306
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0285690
_version_ 1785040065752203264
author Donat, Nicolas
Mellati, Nouchan
Frumento, Thibault
Cirodde, Audrey
Gette, Sébastien
Guitard, Pierre Gildas
Hoffmann, Clément
Veber, Benoît
Leclerc, Thomas
author_facet Donat, Nicolas
Mellati, Nouchan
Frumento, Thibault
Cirodde, Audrey
Gette, Sébastien
Guitard, Pierre Gildas
Hoffmann, Clément
Veber, Benoît
Leclerc, Thomas
author_sort Donat, Nicolas
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: In case of COVID-19 related scarcity of critical care resources, an early French triage algorithm categorized critically ill patients by probability of survival based on medical history and severity, with four priority levels for initiation or continuation of critical care: P1 –high priority, P2 –intermediate priority, P3 –not needed, P4 –not appropriate. This retrospective multi-center study aimed to assess its classification performance and its ability to help saving lives under capacity saturation. METHODS: ICU patients admitted for severe COVID-19 without triage in spring 2020 were retrospectively included from three hospitals. Demographic data, medical history and severity items were collected. Priority levels were retrospectively allocated at ICU admission and on ICU day 7–10. Mortality rate, cumulative incidence of death and of alive ICU discharge, length of ICU stay and of mechanical ventilation were compared between priority levels. Calculated mortality and survival were compared between full simulated triage and no triage. RESULTS: 225 patients were included, aged 63.1±11.9 years. Median SAPS2 was 40 (IQR 29–49). At the end of follow-up, 61 (27%) had died, 26 were still in ICU, and 138 had been discharged. Following retrospective initial priority allocation, mortality rate was 53% among P4 patients (95CI 34–72%) versus 23% among all P1 to P3 patients (95CI 17–30%, chi-squared p = 5.2e-4). The cumulative incidence of death consistently increased in the order P3, P1, P2 and P4 both at admission (Gray’s test p = 3.1e-5) and at reassessment (p = 8e-5), and conversely for that of alive ICU discharge. Reassessment strengthened consistency. Simulation under saturation showed that this two-step triage protocol could have saved 28 to 40 more lives than no triage. CONCLUSION: Although it cannot eliminate potentially avoidable deaths, this triage protocol proved able to adequately prioritize critical care for patients with highest probability of survival, hence to save more lives if applied.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10174588
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-101745882023-05-12 Validation of a pre-established triage protocol for critically ill patients in a COVID-19 outbreak under resource scarcity: A retrospective multicenter cohort study Donat, Nicolas Mellati, Nouchan Frumento, Thibault Cirodde, Audrey Gette, Sébastien Guitard, Pierre Gildas Hoffmann, Clément Veber, Benoît Leclerc, Thomas PLoS One Research Article INTRODUCTION: In case of COVID-19 related scarcity of critical care resources, an early French triage algorithm categorized critically ill patients by probability of survival based on medical history and severity, with four priority levels for initiation or continuation of critical care: P1 –high priority, P2 –intermediate priority, P3 –not needed, P4 –not appropriate. This retrospective multi-center study aimed to assess its classification performance and its ability to help saving lives under capacity saturation. METHODS: ICU patients admitted for severe COVID-19 without triage in spring 2020 were retrospectively included from three hospitals. Demographic data, medical history and severity items were collected. Priority levels were retrospectively allocated at ICU admission and on ICU day 7–10. Mortality rate, cumulative incidence of death and of alive ICU discharge, length of ICU stay and of mechanical ventilation were compared between priority levels. Calculated mortality and survival were compared between full simulated triage and no triage. RESULTS: 225 patients were included, aged 63.1±11.9 years. Median SAPS2 was 40 (IQR 29–49). At the end of follow-up, 61 (27%) had died, 26 were still in ICU, and 138 had been discharged. Following retrospective initial priority allocation, mortality rate was 53% among P4 patients (95CI 34–72%) versus 23% among all P1 to P3 patients (95CI 17–30%, chi-squared p = 5.2e-4). The cumulative incidence of death consistently increased in the order P3, P1, P2 and P4 both at admission (Gray’s test p = 3.1e-5) and at reassessment (p = 8e-5), and conversely for that of alive ICU discharge. Reassessment strengthened consistency. Simulation under saturation showed that this two-step triage protocol could have saved 28 to 40 more lives than no triage. CONCLUSION: Although it cannot eliminate potentially avoidable deaths, this triage protocol proved able to adequately prioritize critical care for patients with highest probability of survival, hence to save more lives if applied. Public Library of Science 2023-05-11 /pmc/articles/PMC10174588/ /pubmed/37167306 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0285690 Text en © 2023 Donat et al https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Donat, Nicolas
Mellati, Nouchan
Frumento, Thibault
Cirodde, Audrey
Gette, Sébastien
Guitard, Pierre Gildas
Hoffmann, Clément
Veber, Benoît
Leclerc, Thomas
Validation of a pre-established triage protocol for critically ill patients in a COVID-19 outbreak under resource scarcity: A retrospective multicenter cohort study
title Validation of a pre-established triage protocol for critically ill patients in a COVID-19 outbreak under resource scarcity: A retrospective multicenter cohort study
title_full Validation of a pre-established triage protocol for critically ill patients in a COVID-19 outbreak under resource scarcity: A retrospective multicenter cohort study
title_fullStr Validation of a pre-established triage protocol for critically ill patients in a COVID-19 outbreak under resource scarcity: A retrospective multicenter cohort study
title_full_unstemmed Validation of a pre-established triage protocol for critically ill patients in a COVID-19 outbreak under resource scarcity: A retrospective multicenter cohort study
title_short Validation of a pre-established triage protocol for critically ill patients in a COVID-19 outbreak under resource scarcity: A retrospective multicenter cohort study
title_sort validation of a pre-established triage protocol for critically ill patients in a covid-19 outbreak under resource scarcity: a retrospective multicenter cohort study
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10174588/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37167306
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0285690
work_keys_str_mv AT donatnicolas validationofapreestablishedtriageprotocolforcriticallyillpatientsinacovid19outbreakunderresourcescarcityaretrospectivemulticentercohortstudy
AT mellatinouchan validationofapreestablishedtriageprotocolforcriticallyillpatientsinacovid19outbreakunderresourcescarcityaretrospectivemulticentercohortstudy
AT frumentothibault validationofapreestablishedtriageprotocolforcriticallyillpatientsinacovid19outbreakunderresourcescarcityaretrospectivemulticentercohortstudy
AT ciroddeaudrey validationofapreestablishedtriageprotocolforcriticallyillpatientsinacovid19outbreakunderresourcescarcityaretrospectivemulticentercohortstudy
AT gettesebastien validationofapreestablishedtriageprotocolforcriticallyillpatientsinacovid19outbreakunderresourcescarcityaretrospectivemulticentercohortstudy
AT guitardpierregildas validationofapreestablishedtriageprotocolforcriticallyillpatientsinacovid19outbreakunderresourcescarcityaretrospectivemulticentercohortstudy
AT hoffmannclement validationofapreestablishedtriageprotocolforcriticallyillpatientsinacovid19outbreakunderresourcescarcityaretrospectivemulticentercohortstudy
AT veberbenoit validationofapreestablishedtriageprotocolforcriticallyillpatientsinacovid19outbreakunderresourcescarcityaretrospectivemulticentercohortstudy
AT leclercthomas validationofapreestablishedtriageprotocolforcriticallyillpatientsinacovid19outbreakunderresourcescarcityaretrospectivemulticentercohortstudy