To describe critical care patients with COVID-19 across England, Wales and Northern Ireland and compare them with a historic cohort of patients with other viral pneumonias (non-COVID-19) and with international cohorts of COVID-19. Methods: Extracted data on patient characteristics, acute illness severity, organ support and outcomes from the Case Mix Programme, the national clinical audit for adult critical care, for a prospective cohort of patients with COVID-19 (February to August 2020) are compared with a recent retrospective cohort of patients with other viral pneumonias (non-COVID-19) (2017-2019) and with other international cohorts of critical care patients with COVID-19, the latter identified from published reports. Results: 10,834 patients with COVID-19 (70.1% male, median age 60 years, 32.6% non-white ethnicity, 39.4% obese, 8.2% at least one serious comorbidity) were admitted across 289 critical care units. Of these, 36.9% had a PaO 2 /FiO 2 ratio of ≤ 13.3 kPa (≤ 100 mmHg) consistent with severe ARDS and 72% received invasive ventilation. Acute hospital mortality was 42%, higher than for 5782 critical care patients with other viral pneumonias (non-COVID-19) (24.7%), and most COVID-19 deaths (88.7%) occurred before 30 days. Meaningful international comparisons were limited due to lack of standardised reporting. Conclusion: Critical care patients with COVID-19 were disproportionately non-white, from more deprived areas and more likely to be male and obese. Conventional severity scoring appeared not to adequately reflect their acute severity, with the distribution across PaO 2 /FiO 2 ratio categories indicating acutely severe respiratory disease. Critical care patients with COVID-19 experience high mortality and place a great burden on critical care services.

Unplanned intensive care admission is a devastating complication of lung resection and is associated with significantly increased mortality. We carried out a two-year retrospective national multicentre cohort study to investigate the influence of anaesthetic and analgesic technique on the need for unplanned postoperative intensive care admission. All patients undergoing lung resection surgery in 16 thoracic surgical centres in the UK in the calendar years 2013 and 2014 were included. We defined critical care admission as the unplanned need for either tracheal intubation and mechanical ventilation or renal replacement therapy, and sought an association between mode of anaesthesia (total intravenous anaesthesia vs. volatile) and analgesic technique (epidural vs. paravertebral) and need for intensive care admission. A total of 253 out of 11,208 patients undergoing lung resection in the study period had an unplanned admission to intensive care in the postoperative period, giving an incidence of intensive care unit admission of 2.3% (95%CI 2.0-2.6%). Patients who had an unplanned admission to intensive care unit had a higher mortality (29.00% vs. 0.03%, p < 0.001), and hospital length of stay was increased (26 vs. 6 days, p < 0.001). Across univariate, complete case and multiple imputation (multivariate) models, there was a strong and significant effect of both anaesthetic and analgesic technique on the need for intensive care admission. Patients receiving total intravenous anaesthesia (OR 0.50 (95%CI 0.34-0.70)), and patients receiving epidural analgesia (OR 0.56 (95%CI 0.41-0.78)) were less likely to have an unplanned admission to intensive care after thoracic surgery. This large retrospective study suggests a significant effect of both anaesthetic and analgesic technique on outcome in patients undergoing lung resection. We must emphasise that the observed association does not directly imply causation, and suggest that well-conducted, large-scale randomised controlled trials are required to address these fundamental questions.

No abstract

Key PointsQuestionIn critically ill children clinically assessed to require noninvasive respiratory support following extubation, is the first-line use of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy noninferior to continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) in terms of time to liberation from all forms of respiratory support?FindingsIn this randomized, noninferiority trial of 600 children clinically assessed to require noninvasive respiratory support following extubation, the median time to liberation was 50.5 hours for HFNC vs 42.9 hours for CPAP. The 1-sided 97.5% confidence limit for the hazard ratio was 0.70, which failed to meet the noninferiority margin of 0.75.MeaningAmong critically ill children requiring noninvasive respiratory support following extubation, HFNC compared with CPAP following extubation failed to meet the criterion for noninferiority for time to liberation from respiratory support.

IMPORTANCEThe optimal first-line mode of noninvasive respiratory support for acutely ill children is not known.OBJECTIVE To evaluate the noninferiority of high-flow nasal cannula therapy (HFNC) as the first-line mode of noninvasive respiratory support for acute illness, compared with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), for time to liberation from all forms of respiratory support. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Pragmatic, multicenter, randomized noninferiority clinical trial conducted in 24 pediatric critical care units in the United Kingdom among 600 acutely ill children aged 0 to 15 years who were clinically assessed to require noninvasive respiratory support, recruited between August 2019 and November 2021, with last follow-up completed in March 2022. INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized 1:1 to commence either HFNC at a flow rate based on patient weight (n = 301) or CPAP of 7 to 8 cm H 2 O (n = 299). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary outcome was time from randomization to liberation from respiratory support, defined as the start of a 48-hour period during which a participant was free from all forms of respiratory support (invasive or noninvasive), assessed against a noninferiority margin of an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.75. Seven secondary outcomes were assessed, including mortality at critical care unit discharge, intubation within 48 hours, and use of sedation. RESULTSOf the 600 randomized children, consent was not obtained for 5 (HFNC: 1; CPAP: 4) and respiratory support was not started in 22 (HFNC: 5; CPAP: 17); 573 children (HFNC: 295; CPAP: 278) were included in the primary analysis (median age, 9 months; 226 girls [39%]). The median time to liberation in the HFNC group was 52.9 hours (95% CI, 46.0-60.9 hours) vs 47.9 hours (95% CI, 40.5-55.7 hours) in the CPAP group (absolute difference, 5.0 hours [95% CI -10.1 to 17.4 hours]; adjusted hazard ratio 1.03 [1-sided 97.5% CI, 0.86-ϱ]). This met the criterion for noninferiority. Of the 7 prespecified secondary outcomes, 3 were significantly lower in the HFNC group: use of sedation (27.7% vs 37%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.39-0.88]); mean duration of critical care stay (5 days vs 7.4 days; adjusted mean difference, −3 days [95% CI, −5.1 to −1 days]); and mean duration of acute hospital stay (13.8 days vs 19.5 days; adjusted mean difference, −7.6 days [95% CI, −13.2 to −1.9 days]). The most common adverse event was nasal trauma (HFNC: 6/295 [2.0%]; CPAP: 18/278 [6.5%]).CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among acutely ill children clinically assessed to require noninvasive respiratory support in a pediatric critical care unit, HFNC compared with CPAP met the criterion for noninferiority for time to liberation from respiratory support.