Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39516956›Full record

ArticleJournal of intensive care2024

Long-term health outcomes of COVID-19 in ICU- and non-ICU-treated patients up to 2 years after hospitalization: a longitudinal cohort study (CO-FLOW).

J C Berentschot, L M Bek, M H Heijenbrok-Kal, J van Bommel, G M Ribbers, J G J V Aerts, M E Hellemons, H J G van den Berg-Emons, CO-FLOW collaboration Group

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of intensive care, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Post-COVID-19 physical and mental quality of life: a latent profile analysis and predictive factors.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. 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

9 authors.

J C Berentschot *Department of Respiratory Medicine, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. j.berentschot@erasmusmc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4640-9947
L M Bek *Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
M H Heijenbrok-KalDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
J van BommelDepartment of Intensive Care, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
G M RibbersDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
J G J V AertsDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
M E Hellemons *Department of Respiratory Medicine, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
H J G van den Berg-Emons *Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
CO-FLOW collaboration Group

Funding

ZonMw 10430022010026
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMany patients hospitalized for COVID-19 experience long-term health problems, but comprehensive longitudinal data up to 2 years remain limited. We aimed to (1) assess 2-year trajectories of health outcomes, including comparison between intensive care unit (ICU) treated and non-ICU-treated patients, and (2) identify risk factors for prominent health problems post-hospitalization for COVID-19.

methodsThe CO-FLOW multicenter prospective cohort study followed adults hospitalized for COVID-19 at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months post-discharge. Measurements included patient-reported outcomes (a.o., recovery, symptoms, fatigue, mental health, sleep quality, return to work, health-related quality of life [HRQoL]), and objective cognitive and physical tests. Additionally, routine follow-up data were collected.

results650 patients (median age 60.0 [IQR 53.0-67.0] years; 449/650 [69%] male) surviving hospitalization for COVID-19 were included, of whom 273/650 (42%) received ICU treatment. Overall, outcomes improved over time. Nonetheless, 73% (322/443) of patients had not completely recovered from COVID-19, with memory problems (274/443; 55%), concentration problems (259/443; 52%), and dyspnea (251/493; 51%) among most frequently reported symptoms at 2 years. Moreover, 61% (259/427) had poor sleep quality, 51% (222/433) fatigue, 23% (102/438) cognitive failures, and 30% (65/216) did not fully return to work. Objective outcome measures showed generally good physical recovery. Most outcomes were comparable between ICU- and non-ICU-treated patients at 2 years. However, ICU-treated patients tended to show slower recovery in neurocognitive symptoms, mental health outcomes, and resuming work than non-ICU-treated patients, while showing more improvements in physical outcomes. Particularly, female sex and/or pre-existing pulmonary disease were major risk factors for poorer outcomes.

conclusions73% (322/443) of patients had not completely recovered from COVID-19 by 2 years. Despite good physical recovery, long-term neurocognitive complaints, dyspnea, fatigue, and impaired sleep quality persisted. ICU-treated patients showed slower recovery in neurocognitive and mental health outcomes and resumption of work. Tailoring long-term COVID-19 aftercare to individual residual needs is essential. Follow-up is required to monitor further recovery.

trial registrationNL8710, registration date 12-06-2020.

Indexed as

COVID-19Intensive careLong COVIDLong-term health outcomes

Identifiers

PMID39516956
PMCPMC11546104

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.