Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33180830›Full record

Observational studyPloS one2020

COVID-19 in-hospital mortality and mode of death in a dynamic and non-restricted tertiary care model in Germany.

Siegbert Rieg, Maja von Cube, Johannes Kalbhenn, Stefan Utzolino, Katharina Pernice, Lena Bechet, Johanna Baur, Corinna N Lang, Dirk Wagner, Martin Wolkewitz and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

39 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 64 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. [Forecasting models to guide intensive care COVID-19 capacities in Germany].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2023
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Siegbert RiegDivision of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine II, Medical Center-University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-7493-7080
Maja von CubeInstitute of Medical Biometry and Statistics, Faculty of Medicine and Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Johannes KalbhennDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Medical Center-University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Stefan UtzolinoDepartment of General and Visceral Surgery, Medical Center-University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Katharina PerniceDepartment of Cardiovascular Surgery, Heart Center, Medical Center-University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Lena BechetDivision of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine II, Medical Center-University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Johanna BaurDepartment of Medicine III (Interdisciplinary Medical Intensive Care), Medical Center-University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Corinna N LangDepartment of Medicine III (Interdisciplinary Medical Intensive Care), Medical Center-University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Dirk WagnerDivision of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine II, Medical Center-University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Martin WolkewitzInstitute of Medical Biometry and Statistics, Faculty of Medicine and Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Winfried V KernDivision of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine II, Medical Center-University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Paul BieverDepartment of Medicine III (Interdisciplinary Medical Intensive Care), Medical Center-University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
COVID UKF Study Group
University of Freiburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundReported mortality of hospitalised Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19) patients varies substantially, particularly in critically ill patients. So far COVID-19 in-hospital mortality and modes of death under state of the art care have not been systematically studied.

methodsThis retrospective observational monocenter cohort study was performed after implementation of a non-restricted, dynamic tertiary care model at the University Medical Center Freiburg, an experienced acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and extracorporeal membrane-oxygenation (ECMO) referral center. All hospitalised patients with PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were included. The primary endpoint was in-hospital mortality, secondary endpoints included major complications and modes of death. A multistate analysis and a Cox regression analysis for competing risk models were performed. Modes of death were determined by two independent reviewers.

resultsBetween February 25, and May 8, 213 patients were included in the analysis. The median age was 65 years, 129 patients (61%) were male. 70 patients (33%) were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU), of which 57 patients (81%) received mechanical ventilation and 23 patients (33%) ECMO support. Using multistate methodology, the estimated probability to die within 90 days after COVID-19 onset was 24% in the whole cohort. If the levels of care at time of study entry were accounted for, the probabilities to die were 16% if the patient was initially on a regular ward, 47% if in the intensive care unit (ICU) and 57% if mechanical ventilation was required at study entry. Age ≥65 years and male sex were predictors for in-hospital death. Predominant complications-as judged by two independent reviewers-determining modes of death were multi-organ failure, septic shock and thromboembolic and hemorrhagic complications.

conclusionIn a dynamic care model COVID-19-related in-hospital mortality remained very high. In the absence of potent antiviral agents, strategies to alleviate or prevent the identified complications should be investigated. In this context, multistate analyses enable comparison of models-of-care and treatment strategies and allow estimation and allocation of health care resources.

Indexed as

Hospital MortalityAgedAged, 80 and overBetacoronavirusCoronavirus InfectionsCOVID-19Extracorporeal Membrane OxygenationFemaleGermanyHumansIntensive Care UnitsMaleMiddle AgedModels, StatisticalPandemicsPneumonia, Viral

Identifiers

PMID33180830
PMCPMC7660518
OpenAlexW3102019167

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.