4.7 Article

Prevalence and Risk Factor Analysis of Post-Intensive Care Syndrome in Patients with COVID-19 Requiring Mechanical Ventilation: A Multicenter Prospective Observational Study

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
卷 11, 期 19, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm11195758

关键词

COVID-19; critically ill patients; delirium; post-intensive care syndrome

资金

  1. Nestle Health Science Company of Nestle Japan

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In COVID-19 patients requiring mechanical ventilation, nearly 60% experienced persistent PICS, with delirium and duration of mechanical ventilation identified as the main risk factors.
Introduction: Post-intensive care syndrome (PICS) is an emerging problem in critically ill patients and the prevalence and risk factors are unclear in patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This multicenter prospective observational study aimed to investigate the prevalence and risk factors of PICS in ventilated patients with COVID-19 after ICU discharge. Methods: Questionnaires were administered twice in surviving patients with COVID-19 who had required mechanical ventilation, concerning Barthel Index, Short-Memory Questionnaire, and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale scores. The risk factors for PICS were examined using a multivariate logistic regression analysis. Results: The first and second PICS surveys were obtained at 5.5 and 13.5 months (mean) after ICU discharge, with 251 and 209 patients completing the questionnaires and with a prevalence of PICS of 58.6% and 60.8%, respectively, along with the highest percentages of cognitive impairment. Delirium (with an odds ratio of (OR) 2.34, 95% CI 1.1-4.9, and p = 0.03) and the duration of mechanical ventilation (with an OR of 1.29, 95% CI 1.05-1.58, and p = 0.02) were independently identified as the risk factors for PICS in the first PICS survey. Conclusion: Approximately 60% of the ventilated patients with COVID-19 experienced persistent PICS, especially delirium, and required longer mechanical ventilation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据