Burn Treatment Center and COVID-19 ICU, Percy Military Teaching Hospital, Clamart, France.
ICU, Mercy Regional Hospital, Metz, France.
PLoS One. 2023 May 11;18(5):e0285690. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0285690. eCollection 2023.
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.
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.
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.
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.
在 COVID-19 相关的重症监护资源短缺的情况下,法国的一种早期分诊算法根据病史和严重程度,对危重症患者的生存率进行分类,分为四级启动或继续重症监护的优先级:P1-高优先级,P2-中优先级,P3-不需要,P4-不适当。本回顾性多中心研究旨在评估其分类性能及其在容量饱和下帮助挽救生命的能力。
从三家医院回顾性纳入 2020 年春季因重症 COVID-19 而未接受分诊的 ICU 患者。收集人口统计学数据、病史和严重程度项目。在 ICU 入院时和第 7-10 天进行回顾性分配优先级。比较不同优先级之间的死亡率、累积死亡率和存活患者 ICU 出院率、ICU 住院时间和机械通气时间。比较全模拟分诊和无分诊的计算死亡率和生存率。
共纳入 225 例患者,年龄 63.1±11.9 岁。SAPS2 中位数为 40(IQR 29-49)。随访结束时,61 例(27%)死亡,26 例仍在 ICU,138 例出院。在回顾性初始优先级分配后,P4 患者的死亡率为 53%(95%CI 34-72%),而所有 P1 至 P3 患者的死亡率为 23%(95%CI 17-30%,卡方检验 p = 5.2e-4)。死亡累积发生率在 P3、P1、P2 和 P4 患者中呈递增顺序,入院时(Gray 检验 p = 3.1e-5)和重新评估时(p = 8e-5)均如此,而存活患者 ICU 出院率则相反。重新评估增强了一致性。在饱和情况下的模拟表明,这种两步分诊方案可以比无分诊多挽救 28 至 40 条生命。
尽管该分诊方案不能消除潜在可避免的死亡,但它能够充分优先考虑生存率最高的患者的重症监护,因此在应用时可以挽救更多生命。