Background Practices of Do-Not-Resuscitate (DNR) orders show discrepancies worldwide, but there are only few such studies from Saudi Arabia. Objective: To describe the practice of DNR orders in a Saudi Arabian tertiary care ICU. Methods: This retrospective study included all patients who died with a DNR order at the ICU of King Saud Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, between January 1 to December 31, 2021. The percentage of early DNR (i.e., ≤48 hours of ICU admission) and late DNR (>48 hours) orders were determined and the variables between the two groups were compared. The determinants of late DNR were also investigated. Results: A total of 723 cases met the inclusion criteria, representing 14.9% of all ICU discharges and 63% of all ICU deaths during the study period. The late DNR group comprised the majority of the cases (78.3%), and included significantly more patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), community acquired pneumonia (CAP), acute kidney injury, and COVID-19, and significantly fewer cases of readmissions and malignancies. Septic shock lowered the odds of a late DNR (OR = 0.4, 95% CI: 0.2–0.9; P = 0.02), while ARDS (OR = 3.3, 95% CI: 2–5.4; P < 0.001), ischemic stroke (OR = 2.5, 95% CI: 1.1–5.4; P = 0.02), and CAP (OR = 2, 95% CI: 1.3–3.1; P = 0.003) increased the odds of a late DNR. Conclusion: There was a higher frequency of late DNR orders in our study compared to those reported in several studies worldwide. Cases with potential for a favorable outcome were more likely to have a late DNR order, while those with expected poorer outcomes were more likely to have an early DNR order. The discrepancies highlight the need for clearer guidelines to achieve consistency.

Background: ISARIC mortality score is a risk stratification tool that helps predict the in-hospital mortality of COVID-19 patients. However, this tool was developed and validated in a British population, and thus, the external validation of this tool in local populations is important. Objectives: External validation of the ISARIC mortality score in COVID-19 patients from a large Saudi Arabian intensive care unit (ICU). Methods: This is a retrospective study that included all adult patients with COVID-19 admitted to the ICU of King Saud Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, from March 2020 to June 2021. Patients who were pregnant or had pulmonary tuberculosis/human immunodeficiency virus were excluded along with patients with missing variables. Data were collected to calculate the ISARIC mortality score and then fitting receiver operator characteristic curve against patients’ outcome. Results: A total of 1493 critically ill COVID-19 patients were included. The mortality was 38%, the area under the curve of the score was 0.81 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.79–0.83, P < 0.001) and the cutoff value correctly classified 72.7% of the cohort. The cutoff value of >9 had sensitivity of 70.5% (95% CI: 66.6–74.3); specificity, 73.97% (95% CI: 71–76.8); positive predictive value, 62.4% (95% CI: 59.5–65.2) and negative predictive value, 80.2% (95% CI: 78.2–82.4). Conclusion: The ISARIC score was found to have excellent predictive ability for mortality in critically ill COVID-19 patients in our Saudi Arabian cohort. A cutoff score of >9 was the optimal criterion.

Background: ICU readmission is associated with poor outcomes. Few studies have directly compared the outcomes of early versus late readmissions, especially in Saudi Arabia. Objective: To compare the outcomes between early and late ICU readmissions, mainly with regards to hospital mortality. Methods: This retrospective study included unique patients who, within the same hospitalization, were admitted to the ICU, discharged to the general wards, and then readmitted to the ICU of King Saud Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, between January 01, 2015, and June 30, 2022. Patients readmitted within 2 calendar days were grouped into the Early readmission group, while those readmitted after 2 calendar days were in the Late readmission group. Results: A total of 997 patients were included, of which 753 (75.5%) belonged to the Late group. The mortality rate in the Late group was significantly higher than that in the Early group (37.6% vs. 29.5%, respectively; 95% CI: 1%–14.8%; P = 0.03). The readmission length of stay (LOS) and severity score of both groups were similar. The odds ratio of mortality for the Early group was 0.71 (95% CI: 0.51–0.98, P = 0.04); other significant risk factors were age (OR = 1.023, 95% CI: 1.016–1.03; P < 0.001) and readmission LOS (OR = 1.017, 95% CI: 1.009–1.026; P < 0.001). The most common reason for readmission in the Early group was high Modified Early Warning Score, while in the Late group, it was respiratory failure followed by sepsis or septic shock. Conclusion: Compared with late readmission, early readmission was associated with lower mortality, but not with lower LOS or severity score.