Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34636804›Full record

Observational studyCritical care medicine2022

Differences and Similarities Among COVID-19 Patients Treated in Seven ICUs in Three Countries Within One Region: An Observational Cohort Study.

Dieter Mesotten, Daniek A M Meijs, Bas C T van Bussel, Björn Stessel, Jannet Mehagnoul-Schipper, Anisa Hana, Clarissa I E Scheeren, Ulrich Strauch, Marcel C G van de Poll, Chahinda Ghossein-Doha and 6 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readMulticenter StudyObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Critical care medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Dieter MesottenDepartment of Intensive Care, Ziekenhuis Oost-Limburg, Genk, Belgium.
Daniek A M MeijsDepartment of Intensive Care, Maastricht University Medical Center +, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Bas C T van BusselDepartment of Intensive Care, Maastricht University Medical Center +, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Björn StesselUHasselt, Faculty of Medicine and Life Sciences, Diepenbeek, Belgium.
Jannet Mehagnoul-SchipperDepartment of Intensive Care, VieCuri Medisch Centrum, Venlo, The Netherlands.
Anisa HanaDepartment of Intensive Care, Laurentius Ziekenhuis, Roermond, The Netherlands.
Clarissa I E ScheerenDepartment of Intensive Care, Zuyderland Medisch Centrum, Heerlen/Sittard, The Netherlands.
Ulrich StrauchDepartment of Intensive Care, Maastricht University Medical Center +, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Marcel C G van de PollDepartment of Intensive Care, Maastricht University Medical Center +, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Chahinda Ghossein-DohaDepartment of Intensive Care, Maastricht University Medical Center +, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Wolfgang F F A BuhreDivision for Acute and Emergency Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center +, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Johannes BickenbachDepartment of Intensive Care, University Hospital Rheinisch Westfälische Hochschule Aachen, Aachen, Germany.
Margot Vander LaenenDepartment of Intensive Care, Ziekenhuis Oost-Limburg, Genk, Belgium.
Gernot MarxDepartment of Intensive Care, University Hospital Rheinisch Westfälische Hochschule Aachen, Aachen, Germany.
Iwan C C van der HorstDepartment of Intensive Care, Maastricht University Medical Center +, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
COVID Data Platform (CoDaP) Investigators
Maastricht University · NLZiekenhuis Oost-Limburg · BEHasselt University · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo investigate healthcare system-driven variation in general characteristics, interventions, and outcomes in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients admitted to the ICU within one Western European region across three countries.

designMulticenter observational cohort study.

settingSeven ICUs in the Euregio Meuse-Rhine, one region across Belgium, The Netherlands, and Germany. PATIENTS: Consecutive COVID-19 patients supported in the ICU during the first pandemic wave.

interventionsNone. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN

resultsBaseline demographic and clinical characteristics, laboratory values, and outcome data were retrieved after ethical approval and data-sharing agreements. Descriptive statistics were performed to investigate country-related practice variation. From March 2, 2020, to August 12, 2020, 551 patients were admitted. Mean age was 65.4 ± 11.2 years, and 29% were female. At admission, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores were 15.0 ± 5.5, 16.8 ± 5.5, and 15.8 ± 5.3 (p = 0.002), and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores were 4.4 ± 2.7, 7.4 ± 2.2, and 7.7 ± 3.2 (p < 0.001) in the Belgian, Dutch, and German parts of Euregio, respectively. The ICU mortality rate was 22%, 42%, and 44%, respectively (p < 0.001). Large differences were observed in the frequency of organ support, antimicrobial/inflammatory therapy application, and ICU capacity. Mixed-multivariable logistic regression analyses showed that differences in ICU mortality were independent of age, sex, disease severity, comorbidities, support strategies, therapies, and complications.

conclusionsCOVID-19 patients admitted to ICUs within one region, the Euregio Meuse-Rhine, differed significantly in general characteristics, applied interventions, and outcomes despite presumed genetic and socioeconomic background, admission diagnosis, access to international literature, and data collection are similar. Variances in healthcare systems' organization, particularly ICU capacity and admission criteria, combined with a rapidly spreading pandemic might be important drivers for the observed differences. Heterogeneity between patient groups but also healthcare systems should be presumed to interfere with outcomes in coronavirus disease 2019.

Indexed as

Intensive Care UnitsAgedAPACHECohort StudiesCOVID-19Critical CareEuropeFemaleHumansLogistic ModelsMaleMiddle AgedPatient AcuityPatient TransferTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID34636804
PMCPMC8923276
OpenAlexW3205708273

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.