What changed between the peak and plateau periods of the first COVID-19 pandemic wave? A multicentric Portuguese cohort study in intensive care

ABSTRACT

Objective:

To analyze and compare COVID-19 patient characteristics, clinical management and outcomes between the peak and plateau periods of the first pandemic wave in Portugal.

Methods:

This was a multicentric ambispective cohort study including consecutive severe COVID-19 patients between March and August 2020 from 16 Portuguese intensive care units. The peak and plateau periods, respectively, weeks 10 - 16 and 17 - 34, were defined.

Results:

Five hundred forty-one adult patients with a median age of 65 [57 - 74] years, mostly male (71.2%), were included. There were no significant differences in median age (p = 0.3), Simplified Acute Physiology Score II (40 versus 39; p = 0.8), partial arterial oxygen pressure/fraction of inspired oxygen ratio (139 versus 136; p = 0.6), antibiotic therapy (57% versus 64%; p = 0.2) at admission, or 28-day mortality (24.4% versus 22.8%; p = 0.7) between the peak and plateau periods. During the peak period, patients had fewer comorbidities (1 [0 - 3] versus 2 [0 - 5]; p = 0.002) and presented a higher use of vasopressors (47% versus 36%; p < 0.001) and invasive mechanical ventilation (58.1 versus 49.2%; p < 0.001) at admission, prone positioning (45% versus 36%; p = 0.04), and hydroxychloroquine (59% versus 10%; p < 0.001) and lopinavir/ritonavir (41% versus 10%; p < 0.001) prescriptions. However, a greater use of high-flow nasal cannulas (5% versus 16%, p < 0.001) on admission, remdesivir (0.3% versus 15%; p < 0.001) and corticosteroid (29% versus 52%, p < 0.001) therapy, and a shorter ICU length of stay (12 days versus 8, p < 0.001) were observed during the plateau.

Conclusion:

There were significant changes in patient comorbidities, intensive care unit therapies and length of stay between the peak and plateau periods of the first COVID-19 wave.

Keywords:
COVID-19; Coronavirus infections; SARS-CoV-2; Pandemics; Intensive care; Critical illness; Adrenal cortex hormones; Acute respiratory distress syndrome; Critical care outcomes

RESUMO

Objetivo:

Analisar e comparar as características de pacientes críticos com a COVID-19, a abordagem clínica e os resultados entre os períodos de pico e de platô na primeira onda pandêmica em Portugal.

Métodos:

Este foi um estudo de coorte multicêntrico ambispectivo, que incluiu pacientes consecutivos com a forma grave da COVID-19 entre março e agosto de 2020 de 16 unidades de terapia intensiva portuguesas. Definiram-se as semanas 10 - 16 e 17 - 34 como os períodos de pico e platô.

Resultados:

Incluíram-se 541 pacientes adultos com mediana de idade de 65 [57 - 74] anos, a maioria do sexo masculino (71,2%). Não houve diferenças significativas na mediana de idade (p = 0,3), no Simplified Acute Physiology Score II (40 versus 39; p = 0,8), na pressão parcial de oxigênio/fração inspirada de oxigênio (139 versus 136; p = 0,6), na terapia com antibióticos na admissão (57% versus 64%; p = 0,2) ou na mortalidade aos 28 dias (24,4% versus 22,8%; p = 0,7) entre o período de pico e platô. Durante o período de pico, os pacientes tiveram menos comorbidades (1 [0 - 3] versus 2 [0 - 5]; p = 0,002); fizeram mais uso de vasopressores (47% versus 36%; p < 0,001) e ventilação mecânica invasiva na admissão (58,1% versus 49,2%; p < 0,001), e tiveram mais prescrição de hidroxicloroquina (59% versus 10%; p < 0,001), lopinavir/ritonavir (41% versus 10%; p < 0,001) e posição prona (45% versus 36%; p = 0,04). Entretanto, durante o platô, observou-se maior uso de cânulas nasais de alto fluxo (5% versus 16%; p < 0,001) na admissão, remdesivir (0,3% versus 15%; p < 0,001) e corticosteroides (29% versus 52%; p < 0,001), além de menor tempo de internação na unidade de terapia intensiva (12 versus 8 dias; p < 0,001).

Conclusão:

Houve mudanças significativas nas comorbidades dos pacientes, nos tratamentos da unidade de terapia intensiva e no tempo de internação entre os períodos de pico e platô na primeira onda da COVID-19.

Descritores:
COVID-19; Infecções por coronavírus; SARS-CoV-2; Pandemia; Cuidados intensivos; Estado terminal; Corticosteroides; Síndrome do desconforto respiratório; Cânula; Resultados de cuidados críticos

INTRODUCTION

The surge of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic represented a tremendous challenge for health care systems worldwide, particularly in intensive care units (ICUs). Six months after the COVID-19 pandemic declaration on the 11th of March 2020, over 28 million cases of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and 917,000 deaths had been reported.(¹) Furthermore, it has been estimated that approximately 26% of hospitalized COVID-19 patients required ICU admission.(²) Worldwide reports of mortality rates among critical patients varied widely, ranging from 26% to 97%.(²-¹⁰)

In Portugal, during the first six months of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic between March and August, the total number of confirmed infections in the country reached 58,012, with an overall mortality rate of 3.1%. In the first wave, the peak of confirmed community infections was reached on the 26th of March 2020 and was linked with increased health care system stress and risk of ICU bed shortage, a consequence of a low number of ICU beds (6.4/100000 habitants).(¹¹) A national lockdown cancelled nonemergent clinical activity and increased ICU bed available for critically ill COVID-19 patients.

Early COVID-19 clinical practice and guidelines were changed as data emerged during the initial phases of the pandemic. As a result, epidemiologic data comparing distinct temporal periods of the first pandemic wave are scarce.(³,⁴,⁶-⁸,¹⁰) Clinical data on severely ill COVID-19 patients in the ICU are crucial for improved care, in-hospital patient flow and health care system organization.

This study aimed to analyze and compare COVID-19 patient characteristics, clinical management and outcomes between the peak and plateau periods of the first pandemic wave in Portugal.

METHODS

We performed a multicentric ambispective observational cohort study open to all ICUs between the 1st of March and the 31st of August 2020 in Portugal. The study was endorsed by the Sociedade Portuguesa de Cuidados Intensivos. The ISARIC (International Severe Acute Respiratory and emerging Infections Consortium) was a key partner and source of the standardized clinical data collection tool used by each participating center before the final database merger for this study.(¹²)

Patients with a primary diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-confirmed pneumonia admitted to intensive care units between the 1st of March and 31st of August 2020 were eligible for this study. Patients were consecutively included and followed-up until hospital discharge.

All patients without complete hospital stays by the end of the study period and SARS-CoV-2-infected patients admitted to the ICU for other reasons were excluded from the analysis.

Study variables were collected from the clinical records and included demographics, clinical data, comorbidities, signs and symptoms, laboratory results, therapeutics, length of stay (LOS) and mortality. These variables were collected at hospital admission, ICU admission and hospital discharge. Missing, illogical and outlier values were reported to local investigators for correction, and the final database resulted from the combination of the datasets from each center collected independently.

The initial peak and the following plateau periods corresponded to weeks 10 - 16 and 17 - 34 of 2020. These periods were defined by histogram analysis of the frequency of patient admission in the ICUs during the first wave of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, revealing two clear periods with peak and plateau characteristics, corresponding to a cutoff value of 20 new patient admissions per week.

Statistical analysis

Categorical variables were described as counts and percentages. Dichotomic variables were compared using the chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test as appropriate. For comparisons between groups, the Kruskal-Wallis nonparametric test was used to test whether multiple categories within each variable originated from the same distribution.

Continuous variables were described as the mean and standard deviation (SD) or median and interquartile range (IQR) as appropriate, comparisons were made using t tests or ANOVA for parametric variables, and Mann-Whitney tests were used for nonparametric variables.

Multivariate analysis was performed using logistic regression to assess whether age, sex and comorbidities predicted mortality, as described in a Portuguese population-based cohort study, after adjusting for severity of illness using the Simplified Acute Physiology Score II (SAPS II) score.(¹³)

Statistical analysis was performed using IBM Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS) for Windows, version 23.0 and RStudio Team.

This study was approved by the National Ethics Committee for Clinical Research (2020_EO_02) and the Ethics Committees of each center. Informed consent was waived given the observational character of this study and the exceptional context of the COVID-19 pandemic. This study complied with the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement guidelines for reporting observational studies were used for this manuscript.

RESULTS

Participating centers and patients

Sixteen centers provided data on 596 adult critical COVID-19 patients for the study (Table 1S - Supplementary material). Seven SARS-CoV-2-positive patients were excluded because the primary diagnosis for ICU admission was not pneumonia but acute coronary syndrome or pyelonephritis. Additionally, forty-eight patients from the plateau period were excluded due to continued hospitalization at the time of database closure. The main analysis across the 6-month period included 541 adult patients (Figure 1). Pediatric and neonatal ICUs from four centers provided clinical data for seven children that were separately described (Table 2S - Supplementary material).

Figure 1
Intensive care unit admissions and median age of COVID-19 patients.

Epidemiology

Adult patients in this study were mostly male (71.2%) with a median age of 65 [57 - 74] years, and arterial hypertension (47.1%) was the most frequent comorbidity. Approximately one-third (32.7%) of patients had no comorbidities reported, and these were younger than the others (63 [54 - 68] years versus 67 [59 - 76], p < 0.001). Patient demographic characteristics and comorbidities are detailed in table 1 and hospital presenting symptoms are presented in table 3S (Supplementary material).

Table 1
Baseline characteristics of critical COVID-19 patients and comparison between peak and plateau periods of the first wave in 2020

	Overall	Peak (weeks 10 - 16)	Plateau (weeks 17 - 34)	p value
	541	291	250
Age (years)	65 [57 - 74]	65 [58 - 71]	66 [57 - 76]	0.3
Male sex	385 (71.2)	206 (70.8)	179 (71.6)	0.9
Number of comorbidities	2 [0 - 4]	1 [0 - 3]	2 [0 - 5]	0.002
Hypertension	255 (47.1)	126 (43.3)	129 (51.6)	0.07
Obesity	150 (27.7)	78 (26.8)	72 (28.8)	0.7
Cardiovascular disease	81 (15.0)	37 (12.7)	44 (17.6)	0.1
Pulmonary disease*	65 (12.0)	27 (9.3)	38 (15.2)	0.048
Renal disease	55 (10.2)	25 (8.6)	30 (12.0)	0.2
Neurologic disease†	26 (4.8)	12 (4.1)	14 (5.6)	0.5
Neoplasm disease	26 (4.8)	13 (4.5)	13 (5.2)	0.8
Liver disease	22 (4.1)	12 (4.1)	10 (4.0)	1.0
Asthma	15 (2.8)	10 (3.4)	5 (2.0)	0.5
Hematologic disease	15 (2.8)	6 (2.1)	9 (3.6)	0.4
Diabetes mellitus	15 (2.8)	15 (5.2)	0
Dementia	8 (1.5)	1 (0.3)	7 (2.8)	0.045
HIV/AIDS	7 (1.3)	3 (1.0)	4 (1.6)	0.8
GCS	15 [15 - 15]	15 [14 - 15]	15 [15 -15]	0.04
Hemoglobin (mg/dL)	12.6 [11.2 - 13.9]	12.6 [11.2 - 14.1]	12.7 [11.2 - 13.9]	0.7
White blood cell (10^9/mL)	8.3 [5.6 - 11.2]	8.3 [5.7 - 11.5]	8.1 [5.5 - 10.9]	0.5
Platelet (10^9/mL)	207 [154 - 280]	213 [166 - 287]	204 [150 - 279]	0.11
Total bilirubin (mg/dL)	0.5 [0.4 - 0.8]	0.6 [0.4 - 0.9]	0.5 [0.4 - 0.8]	0.048
Creatinine (mg/dL)	1.0 [0.7 - 1.4]	1.0 [0.7 - 1.3]	1.0 [0.7 - 1.4]	0.9
C-reactive protein (mg/dL)	158 [100 - 242]	155 [102 - 240]	162 [98 - 244]	0.9
PaO2/FiO2 ratio	138 [101 - 202]	139 [101 - 209]	136 [101 - 195]	0.6
pH	7.42 [7.34 - 7.46]	7.42 [7.35 - 7.47]	7.41 [7.33 - 7.46]	0.2
Lactate (mmol/L)	1.4 [1.0 - 8.0]	1.20 [1.0 - 3.0]	1.8 [1.1 - 9.0]	0.001
SAPS II (n = 527)	40 [31 - 52]	40 [31 - 52]	39 [30 - 51]	0.8
IMV‡ (n = 464)	292 (54.0)	169 (58.1)	123 (49.2)	< 0.001
HFNC‡ (n = 404)	55 (10.2)	14 (4.8)	41 (16.4)	< 0.001
NIV‡ n = 405)	34 (6.3)	14 (4.8)	20 (8.0)	0.3
ECMO‡ (n = 406)	6 (1.1)	3 (1.0)	3 (1.2)	0.9
Vasopressors‡ (n = 464)	226 (41.8)	137 (47.1)	89 (35.6)	< 0.001
RRT‡ (n = 464)	20 (3.7)	6 (2.1)	14 (5.6)	< 0.001
Antibiotics§ (n = 311)	187 (60.1)	99 (57.2)	88 (63.8)	0.2
Onset of symptoms to hospital (days)	6[4 - 9]	7 [4 - 9]	6 [3 - 8]	0.002
Hospital to ICU admission (days)	1 [0 - 3]	1 [0 - 3]	1 [0 - 3]	0.7

₂₂
• ^*
  Nonasthma pulmonary disease. † nondementia neurologic disease. ‡ therapies used during the intensive care unit admission day. § antibiotic therapy initiated 24 hours before or after intensive care unit admission. The frequency (n) is indicated whenever it differs from the overall (n = 541). Results expressed as n (%) or median [interquartile range].

Clinical severity, management and mortality

At ICU admission, the Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) II (n = 527) presented a median value of 40 [31 - 52]. The types of respiratory support provided during ICU admission are detailed in table 1. Antibiotic prescription data (n = 311) showed that in 60.1% (n = 187) of cases, prescription took place at admission (24 hours before or after ICU admission), and azithromycin alone or in combination was present in 70.0% of these.

Throughout the ICU stay, nearly two-thirds (61.7%) of the patients were reported to have severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS); respiratory support, therapies in the ICU, and outcomes are shown in table 2.

Table 2
COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome severity, therapies and clinical results during the intensive care unit stay and comparison between peak and plateau periods of the first wave in 2020

	Overall	Peak (weeks 10 - 16)	Plateau (weeks 17 - 34)	p value
	541	291	250
ARDS (n = 334)				0.2
Mild	13 (2.4)	5 (1.7)	8 (3.2)
Moderate	107 (19.8)	63 (21.6)	44 (17.6)
Severe	214 (39.6)	122 (41.9)	92 (36.8)
IMV (n = 520)	399 (73.8)	238 (81.8)	161 (64.4)	< 0.001
ECMO (n = 414)	24 (4.4)	11 (3.8)	13 (5.2)	0.4
Vasopressors (n = 409)	296 (54.7)	175 (60.1)	121 (48.4)	< 0.001
RRT (n = 474)	91 (16.8)	47 (16.2)	44 (17.6)	< 0.001
Prone positioning (n = 408)	221 (40.9)	130 (44.7)	91 (36.4)	0.04
Antibiotics (n = 403)*	323 (80.1)	185 (85.3)	138 (74.2)	0.006
Antivirals (n = 403)	275 (50.8)	201 (69.1)	74 (29.6)	< 0.001
Hidroxichloriquine	197 (36.4)	172 (59.1)	25 (10.0)	< 0.001
Lopinavir/ritonavir	144 (26.6)	119 (40.9)	25 (10.0)	< 0.001
Remdesivir	38 (7.0)	1 (0.3)	37 (14.8)	< 0.001
Antifungals (n = 400)	39 (7.2)	17 (5.8)	22 (8.8)	0.3
Corticosteroids (n = 403)	216 (39.9)	85 (29.2)	131 (52.4)	< 0.001
Tracheostomy (n = 414)	42 (7.8)	22 (7.6)	20 (8.0)	0.5
Survival at Day 28	413 (76.3)	220 (75.6)	193 (77.2)	0.7
ICU survival	412 (76.2)	215 (73.9)	197 (78.8)	0.2
Hospital survival	390 (72.1)	205 (70.4)	185 (74.0)	0.4
ICU LOS (days)	10 [5 - 19]	12 [5 - 22]	8 [4 - 16]	0.001
Hospital LOS (days)	22 [13 - 37]	23 [14 - 41]	21 [12 - 33]	0.02

ARDS - acute respiratory distress syndrome; IMV - invasive mechanical ventilation; ECMO - extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; RRT - renal replacement therapy; ICU - intensive care unit; LOS - length-of-stay.
• ^*
  Antibiotics prescribed throughout the ICU stay. Kruskal-Wallis nonparametric test test was used to test whether categories within each variable originated from the same distribution. Results expressed as n (%) or median [interquartile range].

Overall, the 28-day mortality rate was 23.7%, in-ICU 23.8% and in-hospital 27.9% (Table 2). Patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) (73.8%) during their ICU stay presented a 28-day mortality rate comparable to those receiving any other type of noninvasive oxygen support (respectively, 25.3% versus 17.4%, p = 0.09). There were no reports of patients receiving IMV outside the ICU settings.

Age groups, comorbidities and associated ICU mortality rates are depicted in figure 2.

Figure 2
Age group, comorbidities and associated intensive care unit mortality rates in critically ill COVID-19 patients.

Mortality risk factor analysis (n = 526) revealed that older age (adjusted odds ratio -aOR 1.05; confidence interval - 95%CI 1.03 - 1.07; p < 0.001) was independently associated with increased ICU mortality after adjustment for SAPS II score (aOR 1.02; 95%CI 1.01 - 1.04; p = 0.002), while the number of comorbidities (aOR 1.09; 95%CI 0.90 - 1.06; p = 0.5) and male sex (aOR 0.8; 95%CI 0.50 - 1.24; p = 0.3) were not.

Peak and plateau phase of the first COVID-19 pandemic wave

The temporal distribution of ICU admissions, age and mortality rate between the peak and plateau periods are depicted in figure 1. The peak period occurred between weeks 10 and 16, with an abrupt increase in the number of ICU admissions to a maximum of 92 during week 13, followed by a plateau period between weeks 17 and 34. Approximately half of the patients (53.8%) included in this study were admitted to the ICU during the peak period.

The baseline characteristics of COVID-19 patients between the peak and plateau of the first SARS-CoV-2 wave are detailed in table 1. The number of days from the onset of symptoms until hospital admission (7 [4 - 9] versus 6 [3 - 8]; p = 0.002) or until ICU admission (9 [6 - 11 versus 7 [5 - 10], p = 0.003) were higher during the peak than in the plateau period, and no differences were found regarding the time between hospital to ICU admission, age or severity of illness, as assessed by SAPS II score between periods (Table 1).

During the peak period, patients presented fewer comorbidities (1 [0 - 3] versus 2 [0 - 5]; p = 0.002) and displayed significantly more vasopressor use (47.1% versus 35.6%; p < 0.001) and a higher frequency of IMV (58.1 versus 49.2%; p < 0.001) at ICU admission. Conversely, in the plateau period, there was an increase in high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) use (4.8% versus 16.4%; p < 0.001) at ICU admission, although there were no significant differences in the partial arterial oxygen pressure/fraction of inspired oxygen ratio (PaO₂/FiO₂; 139 versus 136; p = 0.6) between periods (Table 2).

Significant therapeutic differences between the peak and plateau periods were observed, with a reduction in hydroxychloroquine (59.1% versus 10.0%; p < 0.001) and lopinavir/ritonavir (40.9% versus 10.0%; p < 0.001) and an increase in remdesivir (0.3% versus 14.8%; p < 0.001) and corticosteroid therapy (29.2% versus 52.4%, p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the proportion of antibiotics prescribed 24 hours before or after ICU admission (Table 1), although throughout the entire ICU stay, there was a reduction in overall antibiotic prescription between peak and plateau periods (Table 2). Finally, there was a significant decrease in median ICU LOS (days) (12 [5 - 22] versus 8 [4 - 16]; p < 0.001) and hospital LOS (23 [14 - 41] versus 21 [12 - 33]; p = 0.02) and no significant difference in 28-day mortality (24.4% versus 22.8%; p = 0.7) between peak and plateau periods (Table 2).

DISCUSSION

In this study, we showed that clinical characteristics and management of patients admitted to the ICU during the peak and plateau periods of the first COVID-19 pandemic wave in Portugal were different despite similar age, severity of illness and 28-day mortality rate. During the peak period, patients presented fewer comorbidities and had a higher use of IMV, vasopressors, prone positioning, and hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir administration. The plateau period was characterized by higher rates of use of HFNC for respiratory support, increased prescription of remdesivir and corticosteroid therapy, and shorter hospital and ICU LOS.

Although the majority of hospitalized patients and overall confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections in Portugal were female (59% and 55%, respectively), in this cohort of critically ill COVID-19 patients, there was a preponderance of men, which is in line with other studies reporting up to 60-80% of patients in this setting as male.(¹³-¹⁸) Gender-specific immune responses could provide a possible explanation for these findings.(¹⁹)

A high proportion of patients in our study presented comorbidities, although the number of comorbidities was not associated with 28-day mortality.(¹³,¹⁵,²⁰) Of note, we observed patients with more comorbidities in the plateau phase, suggesting an admission bias toward more fit patients in the peak phase. We speculate that this may have been a consequence of less strict criteria for ICU admission, resulting from a larger availability of beds following the lockdown period and the reduction in the ICU admission rate in the plateau period, but our data do not draw such conclusions.

There was a higher frequency of IMV use at ICU admission during the peak period, although clinical severity (SAPS II and PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio) at ICU admission was similar in both periods. These differences could result from the delay between the onset of symptoms until the first hospital encounter in the emergency department, leading to the need for urgent decisions to “intubate and ventilate” by impending severe respiratory failure due to COVID-19 during the peak period. Furthermore, initial COVID-19 recommendations considered that HFNC and noninvasive ventilation (NIV) could be detrimental for hypoxemic patients and increased viral shedding with a potentially higher risk for health care professionals, leading to patient intubation and ventilation in emergency departments and wards for safer ICU transfer.(²¹) As safety data emerged, these recommendations were updated to include NIV and HFNC in the clinical management of hypoxemic patients and postponed the “intubate and ventilate” decision in the later plateau period of the pandemic.

Major differences regarding off-label compassionate use of COVID-19 therapies including three repurposed drugs (hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir/ritonavir and remdesivir) and corticosteroids were observed between periods, in parallel with new data.(²²) The use of hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir in the treatment of COVID-19 was initially suggested due to their in vitro inhibition of coronavirus SARS infection.(²³,²⁴) These drugs did not show any clinical benefit in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and raised concerns for adverse reactions, such as gastrointestinal disorders and cardiotoxicity, with prolongation of the corrected QT interval, particularly in the case of hydroxychloroquine coadministered with azithromycin.(²³,²⁵-²⁷) Remdesivir inhibited SARS-CoV-2 replication in human epithelial cells, and double-blind placebo-controlled RCTs reported a reduction in time to clinical improvement in COVID-19 hospitalized patients as well as a significant reduction in 28-day mortality in patients requiring oxygen support.(²⁸-³²) However, the larger SOLIDARITY open label RCT did not show any clinical benefit for hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir/ritonavir or remdesivir in either ventilated or nonventilated patients. Currently, these COVID-19 compassionate use therapies are not formally recommended in the treatment of critically ill patients.(³³,³⁴)

Antibiotic therapy was consistently prescribed at ICU admission throughout our study. This reflected concerns of bacterial coinfection; however, its incidence in ICU COVID-19 patients has been reported to be low (8.1 - 14%).(³⁵-³⁷) Additionally, the immunomodulatory properties of azithromycin have shown no clinical benefit, and the routine use of antibiotics in COVID-19 patients is not supported by evidence.(³⁸)

Our study presented a large proportion of COVID-19 patients treated with corticosteroids, with a significant increase during the plateau phase. This increase coincided with preliminary results of the RECOVERY trial, available after 16 June 2020, showing a significant reduction in 28-day mortality in hospitalized patients who were receiving either IMV or oxygen alone and were treated with dexamethasone.(³⁹) These findings were later corroborated by the CoDEX trial.(⁴⁰) The increase in corticosteroid therapy between periods in our cohort shows how swiftly clinical practice changed to incorporate data available from these RCTs.

Finally, dynamic changes in the community, national policies, health care systems and clinical management could help to explain the differences in patient characteristics and outcomes observed between the peak and plateau periods of the first wave of COVID-19. In Portugal, the COVID-19 patient ICU admission peak took place between the 10^th and 16th weeks of 2020, while a state of national emergency was declared between weeks 12 and 14 (March 19th and April 2nd) due to the high community infection rate, effectively preventing a shortage of hospital beds and health care professionals. The nationwide number of confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections and ICU admissions both peaked during week 13, implying that the national lockdown effectively contained the spread of the disease and reduced the number of severe COVID-19 patients and the demand on the health care system.

Limitations

Our study had some limitations. The absence of data about the structural capacity of ICUs and hospitals throughout the study period prevented us from asserting whether the capacity of care was effectively surpassed. Even so, study centers reported no cases of mechanically ventilated patients outside the ICU. Study protocol restrictions precluded comparison between centers, and although there was a clear difference between admission rates across centers (Table 1S - Supplementary material), no minimum patient number was defined to include all centers willing to collaborate. We excluded patients with incomplete hospital outcomes to obtain a complete picture of our cohort and avoided patient groups that were still in the ICU or in the hospital with missing outcome data, as seen in earlier publications. This may have introduced a selection bias in our results. Therefore, we followed these patients a posteriori, and the overall hospital mortality rate was low (5 out of 48), without significantly affecting our results.

This was an ambispective study with relevant missing data for some variables characterizing patient severity, such as the report of criteria for ARDS or the use of some drugs, such as antibiotics. We have addressed this statistically, but it is still a relevant limitation. Finally, our study did not aim to evaluate whether specific therapies were beneficial or not, so care must be taken when interpreting and comparing our results with the literature.

CONCLUSION

During the first COVID-19 wave, patient characteristics and clinical management in intensive care changed between peak and plateau periods. During the peak period, there was a higher rate of invasive mechanical ventilation, prone positioning, vasopressors, hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir. Patients in the plateau period had more comorbidities, received greater respiratory support with high flow nasal cannula, remdesivir and corticosteroid therapy and had a shorter intensive care unit length of stay. The mortality rate was similar in both periods. This study adds to the understanding of COVID-19 pandemic dynamics, contributes to health care policies and patient care and establishes a framework for future research.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We would like to thank and acknowledge all the collaborators of the ICUCOVID19_PT group: Centro Hospitalar Universitário Lisboa Norte: Susana Mendes Fernandes, Marta Sousa, Renato Reis, Maria Adão-Serrano, Ana Cracium, Ana Valadas, João Valente, Fábio Rato, Nuno Gaibino, Ria Lakhani, Dulce Correia, Inês Neves, João Ribeiro; Francisco Abecasis (Pediatric ICU). Hospital São Francisco Xavier, Centro Hospitalar Lisboa Ocidental: José Pedro Cidade, Pedro Póvoa, Camila Tapadinhas, Vítor Mendes, Luís Coelho, David Nora, Maria Carolina Paulino, António Tralhão, Rui Morais, Pedro Fidalgo, Patrícia Moniz, Rita Santos, Vasco Costa, Luís Maia Morais, Juvenal Morais, Ivo Castro. Hospital Fernando Fonseca: Luís Melo, Ana Raquel Maia, Paulo Telles Freitas, Isabel Amorim Ferreira, Tiago Ramires, Nuno Martins, Mónica Anselmo, Priscila Diaz, Lisete Nunes, Raquel Silva, Liliana Antunes, Isabel Serra. Hospital de Curry Cabral, Centro Hospitalar Universitário Lisboa Central: Rui Pereira, Diogo Lopes, Luís Val-Flores, Mariana Cascão, Rita Alves, João Teixeira, Ana Martins, Filipe Sousa Cardoso, Jorge Pelicano Paulos, Carla Maravilha, André Roberto, Filipa Cardoso, António Mesquita, Claudina Cruz, Hugo Inácio, Diogo Borges, João Crisóstomo, Catarina Pires, Joana Ferrão, Mário Ferraz, Pedro Xavier, Maria Amaral, César Vieira, Tiago Duarte, Nuno Germano. Hospital de São José, Centro Hospitalar Universitário Lisboa Central: Sara Ventura, Simão Rodeia, Cleide Barrigoto, Rosa Cardiga, Lúcia Proença, João Oliveira, Marta Torre, Filipa Marujo, Joana Martins, Luís Bento. Hospital de Santo António, Centro Hospitalar Universitário do Porto: Irene Aragão, Maria João Ferreira da Silva, Bruno Vale, Patrícia Campos, Rita Pereira. Centro Hospitalar de Vila Nova de Gaia/Espinho: Raul Neto, Tatiana Fonseca, Ana Lúcia, Diana Adrião. Hospital Pedro Hispano: Elena Molinos, João Camões, Danay Pérez. Centro Hospitalar e Universitário de Coimbra: Ana Marques, Susana Cabral, Catarina Silva, Ana Catarino, João Francisco, João Alves; Andrea Dias (Pediatric ICU). Hospital do Espírito Santo de Évora: Nelson Cardoso, Maria Inês Ribeiro, Ana Sousa, Silvia Lourenço, Manuel Chantre Lima. Hospital Vila Franca de Xira: Flávio Marino. Hospital Egas Moniz, Centro Hospitalar Lisboa Ocidental: Filipa Brás Monteiro, Pedro Santos, Francisco Coelho, João Torres, Marta Rebelo, Gabriela Almeida, Tomás Lamas, Isabel Gaspar, Isabel Simões, Eduarda Carmo. Centro Hospitalar Tondela-Viseu: Ana Pinho Oliveira, Carla Eira, Luís Patrão, Carla Rebelo. Hospital Santa Luzia: Rogério Corga da Silva. Hospital de Abrantes, Centro Hospitalar Médio Tejo: André Miguel Neto Real, Rui Assis, João Cardoso, David Ferreira, Nuno Catorze. Hospital de Portimão, Centro Hospitalar Universitário do Algarve: Bruno Sarmento Banheiro. Hospital Dona Estefânia, Centro Hospitalar Universitário Lisboa Central: Filipa Marujo, Joana Martins (Pediatric ICU). Centro Hospitalar Universitário de São João: Carolina Batista (Pediatric ICU) and Cristina Sousa from the Sociedade Portuguesa de Cuidados Intensivos.

REFERÊNCIAS

• ¹
  World Health Organization (WHO). Weekly epidemiological update- 14 September 2020. [cited 2020 Dec 21]. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/weekly-epidemiological-update--14-september-2020
  » https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/weekly-epidemiological-update--14-september-2020
• ²
  Abate SM, Ahmed Ali S, Mantfardo B, Basu B. Rate of intensive care unit admission and outcomes among patients with coronavirus: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2020;15(7):e0235653.
• ³
  Grasselli G, Pesenti A, Cecconi M. Critical care utilization for the COVID-19 outbreak in Lombardy, Italy: early experience and forecast during an emergency response. JAMA. 2020;323(16):1545-6.
• ⁴
  Grasselli G, Zangrillo A, Zanella A, Antonelli M, Cabrini L, Castelli A, Cereda D, Coluccello A, Foti G, Fumagalli R, Iotti G, Latronico N, Lorini L, Merler S, Natalini G, Piatti A, Ranieri MV, Scandroglio AM, Storti E, Cecconi M, Pesenti A; COVID-19 Lombardy ICU Network. Baseline characteristics and outcomes of 1591 patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 admitted to ICUs of the Lombardy region, Italy. JAMA. 2020;323(16):1574-81.
• ⁵
  Pan C, Chen L, Lu C, Zhang W, Xia JA, Sklar MC, et al. Lung recruitability in SARS-CoV-2 Associated acute respiratory distress syndrome: a single-center, observational study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020;201(10):1294-7.
• ⁶
  Bhatraju PK, Ghassemieh BJ, Nichols M, Kim R, Jerome KR, Nalla AK, et al. Covid-19 in critically ill patients in the Seattle region - Case series. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(21):2012-22.
• ⁷
  Yang X, Yu Y, Xu J, Shu H, Xia J, Liu H, et al. Clinical course and outcomes of critically ill patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia in Wuhan, China: a single-centered, retrospective, observational study. Lancet Respir Med. 2020;8(5):475-81.
• ⁸
  Wang D, Hu B, Hu C, Zhu F, Liu X, Zhang J, et al. Clinical characteristics of 138 hospitalized patients with 2019 novel coronavirus-infected pneumonia in Wuhan, China. JAMA. 2020;323(11):1061-9.
• ⁹
  Zhang J, Liu P, Wang M, Wang J, Chen J, Yuan W, et al. The clinical data from 19 critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019: a single-centered, retrospective, observational study. Z Gesundh Wiss. 2022;30(2):361-4.
• ¹⁰
  International Severe Acute and Emerging Infections Consortium, Hall M, Pritchard M, Dankwa EA, Baillie JK, Carson G, Citarella BW, et al. ISARIC Clinical Data Report 20 November 2020. medRxiv. 2020.07.17.20155218; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.17.20155218 [cited 2020 Dec 21]. Available from: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.17.20155218v5
  » https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.17.20155218» https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.17.20155218v5
• ¹¹
  Nuñez D, Gouveia J, Almeida e Souza JP, Paiva JA, Bento L, Moreira P, et al. Atualização da Rede Nacional de Especialidade Hospitalar e de Referenciação - Medicina Intensiva. Available from: http://www.acss.min-saude.pt/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/RNERH_Medicina-Intensiva_v2020.pdf
  » http://www.acss.min-saude.pt/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/RNERH_Medicina-Intensiva_v2020.pdf
• ¹²
  ISARIC. COVID-19 Clinical Research Resources. [cited 2020 Jun 19]. Available from: https://isaric.org/research/covid-19-clinical-research-resources/
  » https://isaric.org/research/covid-19-clinical-research-resources/
• ¹³
  Cardoso FS, Papoila AL, Machado RS, Fidalgo P. Age, sex, and comorbidities predict ICU admission or mortality in cases with SARS-CoV2 infection: a population-based cohort study. Crit Care. 2020;24(1):465.
• ¹⁴
  Grasselli G, Greco M, Zanella A, Albano G, Antonelli M, Bellani G, Bonanomi E, Cabrini L, Carlesso E, Castelli G, Cattaneo S, Cereda D, Colombo S, Coluccello A, Crescini G, Forastieri Molinari A, Foti G, Fumagalli R, Iotti GA, Langer T, Latronico N, Lorini FL, Mojoli F, Natalini G, Pessina CM, Ranieri VM, Rech R, Scudeller L, Rosano A, Storti E, Thompson BT, Tirani M, Villani PG, Pesenti A, Cecconi M; COVID-19 Lombardy ICU Network. Risk factors associated with mortality among patients with COVID-19 in intensive care units in Lombardy, Italy. JAMA Intern Med. 2020;180(10):1345-55.
• ¹⁵
  Halvatsiotis P, Kotanidou A, Tzannis K, Jahaj E, Magira E, Theodorakopoulou M, et al. Demographic and clinical features of critically ill patients with COVID-19 in Greece: the burden of diabetes and obesity. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2020;166:108331.
• ¹⁶
  Ferrando C, Mellado-Artigas R, Gea A, Arruti E, Aldecoa C, Bordell A, Adalia R, Zattera L, Ramasco F, Monedero P, Maseda E, Martínez A, Tamayo G, Mercadal J, Muñoz G, Jacas A, Ángeles G, Castro P, Hernández-Tejero M, Fernandez J, Gómez-Roji M, Candela Á, Ripollés J, Nieto A, Bassas E, Deiros C, Margarit A, Redondo FJ, Martín A, García N, Casas P, Morcillo C, Hernández-Sanz ML; de la Red de UCI Española para COVID-19. Patient characteristics, clinical course and factors associated to ICU mortality in critically ill patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 in Spain: a prospective, cohort, multicentre study. Rev Esp Anestesiol Reanim. 2020;67(8):425-37.
• ¹⁷
  Herrmann J, Adam EH, Notz Q, Helmer P, Sonntagbauer M, Ungemach-Papenberg P, et al. COVID-19 Induced acute respiratory distress syndrome - A multicenter observational study. Front Med (Lausanne). 2020;7:599533.
• ¹⁸
  Roedl K, Jarczak D, Thasler L, Bachmann M, Schulte F, Bein B, et al. Mechanical ventilation and mortality among 223 critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019: a multicentric study in Germany. Aust Crit Care. 2021;34(2):167-75.
• ¹⁹
  Takahashi T, Ellingson MK, Wong P, Israelow B, Lucas C, Klein J, et al. Sex differences in immune responses that underlie COVID-19 disease outcomes. Nature. 2020;588(7837):315-20.
• ²⁰
  Del Sole F, Farcomeni A, Loffredo L, Carnevale R, Menichelli D, Vicario T, et al. Features of severe COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Clin Invest. 2020;50(10):e13378.
• ²¹
  João JM, Mergulhão P, Froes F, Paiva JA, Gouveia J. Recomendações da Sociedade Portuguesa de Cuidados Intensivos para a abordagem do COVID-19 em medicina intensiva. [cited 2020 May 11]. Available from: https://www.spci.pt/media/covid-19/COVID_19_R.pdf
  » https://www.spci.pt/media/covid-19/COVID_19_R.pdf
• ²²
  WHO Solidarity Trial Consortium, Pan H, Peto R, Henao-Restrepo AM, Preziosi MP, Sathiyamoorthy V, Abdool Karim Q, et al. Repurposed Antiviral Drugs for Covid-19 - Interim WHO Solidarity Trial Results. N Engl J Med. 2021;384(6):497-511.
• ²³
  Tang W, Cao Z, Han M, Wang Z, Chen J, Sun W, et al. Hydroxychloroquine in patients with mainly mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019: open label, randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2020;369:m1849.
• ²⁴
  Chu CM, Cheng VC, Hung IF, Wong MM, Chan KH, Chan KS, Kao RY, Poon LL, Wong CL, Guan Y, Peiris JS, Yuen KY; HKU/UCH SARS Study Group. Role of lopinavir/ritonavir in the treatment of SARS: initial virological and clinical findings. Thorax. 2004;59(3):252-6.
• ²⁵
  RECOVERY Collaborative Group, Horby P, Mafham M, Linsell L, Bell JL, Staplin N, Emberson JR, et al. Effect of hydroxychloroquine in hospitalized patients with Covid-19. N Engl J Med. 2020;383(21):2030-40.
• ²⁶
  Cao B, Wang Y, Wen D, Liu W, Wang J, Fan G, et al. A trial of lopinavir-ritonavir in adults hospitalized with severe Covid-19. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(19):1787-99.
• ²⁷
  Dorward J, Gbinigie O, Cai T, Roberts NW, Garrett N, Hayward G, et al. The protease inhibitor lopinavir, boosted with ritonavir, as treatment for COVID-19: a rapid review. Antivir Ther. 2020;25(7):365-76.
• ²⁸
  Beigel JH, Tomashek KM, Dodd LE, Mehta AK, Zingman BS, Kalil AC, Hohmann E, Chu HY, Luetkemeyer A, Kline S, Lopez de Castilla D, Finberg RW, Dierberg K, Tapson V, Hsieh L, Patterson TF, Paredes R, Sweeney DA, Short WR, Touloumi G, Lye DC, Ohmagari N, Oh MD, Ruiz-Palacios GM, Benfield T, Fätkenheuer G, Kortepeter MG, Atmar RL, Creech CB, Lundgren J, Babiker AG, Pett S, Neaton JD, Burgess TH, Bonnett T, Green M, Makowski M, Osinusi A, Nayak S, Lane HC; ACTT-1 Study Group Members. Remdesivir for the treatment of Covid-19 - Final report. N Engl J Med. 2020;383(19):1813-26.
• ²⁹
  Wang Y, Zhang D, Du G, Du R, Zhao J, Jin Y, et al. Remdesivir in adults with severe COVID-19: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial. Lancet. 2020;395(10236):1569-78.
• ³⁰
  Spinner CD, Gottlieb RL, Criner GJ, Arribas López JR, Cattelan AM, Soriano Viladomiu A, Ogbuagu O, Malhotra P, Mullane KM, Castagna A, Chai LYA, Roestenberg M, Tsang OTY, Bernasconi E, Le Turnier P, Chang SC, SenGupta D, Hyland RH, Osinusi AO, Cao H, Blair C, Wang H, Gaggar A, Brainard DM, McPhail MJ, Bhagani S, Ahn MY, Sanyal AJ, Huhn G, Marty FM; GS-US-540-5774 Investigators. Effect of remdesivir vs standard care on clinical status at 11 days in patients with moderate COVID-19: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2020;324(11):1048-57.
• ³¹
  Sheahan TP, Sims AC, Graham RL, Menachery VD, Gralinski LE, Case JB, et al. Broad-spectrum antiviral GS-5734 inhibits both epidemic and zoonotic coronaviruses. Sci Transl Med. 2017;9(396):eaal3653.
• ³²
  Pizzorno A, Padey B, Julien T, Trouillet-Assant S, Traversier A, Errazuriz-Cerda E, et al. Characterization and treatment of SARS-CoV-2 in nasal and bronchial human airway epithelia. Cell Rep Med. 2020;1(4):100059.
• ³³
  Alhazzani W, Evans L, Alshamsi F, Møller MH, Ostermann M, Prescott HC, et al. Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines on the management of adults with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the ICU: first update. Crit Care Med. 2021;49(3):e219-34.
• ³⁴
  World Health Organization (WHO). Therapeutics and COVID-19: living guideline. [cited 2021 Jun 13]. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-2019-nCoV-therapeutics-2021.1
  » https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-2019-nCoV-therapeutics-2021.1
• ³⁵
  Lansbury L, Lim B, Baskaran V, Lim WS. Co-infections in people with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Infect. 2020;81(2):266-75.
• ³⁶
  Langford BJ, So M, Raybardhan S, Leung V, Westwood D, MacFadden DR, et al. Bacterial co-infection and secondary infection in patients with COVID-19: a living rapid review and meta-analysis. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2020;26(12):1622-9.
• ³⁷
  Rouzé A, Martin-Loeches I, Povoa P, Metzelard M, Du Cheyron D, Lambiotte F, Tamion F, Labruyere M, Boulle Geronimi C, Nieszkowska A, Nyunga M, Pouly O, Thille AW, Megarbane B, Saade A, Diaz E, Magira E, Llitjos JF, Cilloniz C, Ioannidou I, Pierre A, Reignier J, Garot D, Kreitmann L, Baudel JL, Fartoukh M, Plantefeve G, Beurton A, Asfar P, Boyer A, Mekontso-Dessap A, Makris D, Vinsonneau C, Floch PE, Weiss N, Ceccato A, Artigas A, Bouchereau M, Duhamel A, Labreuche J, Nseir S; coVAPid Study Group. Early bacterial identification among intubated patients with COVID-19 or influenza pneumonia: a european multicenter comparative cohort study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2021;204(5):546-56.
• ³⁸
  De Waele JJ, Derde L, Bassetti M. Antimicrobial stewardship in ICUs during the COVID-19 pandemic: back to the 90s? Intensive Care Med. 2021;47(1):104-6.
• ³⁹
  The RECOVERY Collaborative Group, Horby P, Lim WS, Emberson JR, Mafham M, Bell JL, Linsell L, et al. Dexamethasone in hospitalized patients with Covid-19. N Engl J Med. 2021 Feb 25;384(8):693-704.
• ⁴⁰
  Tomazini BM, Maia IS, Cavalcanti AB, Berwanger O, Rosa RG, Veiga VC, Avezum A, Lopes RD, Bueno FR, Silva MVAO, Baldassare FP, Costa ELV, Moura RAB, Honorato MO, Costa AN, Damiani LP, Lisboa T, Kawano-Dourado L, Zampieri FG, Olivato GB, Righy C, Amendola CP, Roepke RML, Freitas DHM, Forte DN, Freitas FGR, Fernandes CCF, Melro LMG, Junior GFS, Morais DC, Zung S, Machado FR, Azevedo LCP; COALITION COVID-19 Brazil III Investigators. Effect of dexamethasone on days alive and ventilator-free in patients with moderate or severe acute respiratory distress syndrome and COVID-19: the CoDEX randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2020;324(13):1307-16.

Edited by

Responsible editor: Bruno Adler Maccagnan Pinheiro Besen

Data availability

https://minio.scielo.br/documentstore/1982-4335/SnpKZGHJ8qbSKfd9kPzzgqM/89615e48e1dc95baec3e01cbd32dedb03e693d0b.pdf

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  31 Jan 2023
• Date of issue
  Oct-Dec 2022

History

• Received
  01 Feb 2022
• Accepted
  27 Aug 2022