Characteristics, management, and prognosis of elderly patients with COVID-19 admitted in the ICU during the first wave: insights from the COVID-ICU study

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic is a heavy burden in terms of health care resources. Future decision-making policies require consistent data on the management and prognosis of the older patients (> 70 years old) with COVID19 admitted in the intensive care unit (ICU). Methods: Characteristics, management, and prognosis of critically ill old patients (> 70 years) were extracted from the international prospective COVID-ICU database. A propensity score weighted-comparison evaluated the impact of intubation upon admission on Day-90 mortality. Results: The analysis included 1199 (28% of the COVID-ICU cohort) patients (median [interquartile] age 74 [72–78] years). Fifty-three percent, 31%, and 16% were 70–74, 75–79, and over 80 years old, respectively. The most frequent comorbidities were chronic hypertension (62%), diabetes (30%), and chronic respiratory disease (25%). Median Clinical Frailty Scale was 3 (2–3). Upon admission, the PaO2/FiO2 ratio was 154 (105–222). 740 (62%) patients were intubated on Day-1 and eventually 938 (78%) during their ICU stay. Overall Day-90 mortality was 46% and reached 67% among the 193 patients over 80 years old. Mortality was higher in older patients, diabetics, and those with a lower PaO2/FiO2 ratio upon admission, cardiovascular dysfunction, and a shorter time between first symptoms and ICU admission. In propensity analysis, early intubation at ICU admission was associated with a significantly higher Day-90 mortality (42% vs 28%; hazard ratio 1.68; 95% CI 1.24–2.27; p < 0·001). Conclusion: Patients over 70 years old represented more than a quarter of the COVID-19 population admitted in the participating ICUs during the first wave. Day-90 mortality was 46%, with dismal outcomes reported for patients older than 80 years or those intubated upon ICU admission. © The Author(s) 2021. This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http:// creat iveco mmons. org/ licen ses/ by/4. 0/. Open Access *Correspondence: martin.dres@aphp.fr 1 Médecine Intensive Réanimation (Département R3S), Service de Médecine intensive Réanimation, Groupe Hospitalier Universitaire APHPSorbonne Université, Hôpital de la Pitié–Salpêtrière, Site Pitié-Salpêtrière, 47-73, bd de l’Hôpital, 75651 Paris Cedex 13, France Full list of author information is available at the end of the article Page 2 of 11 Dres et al. Ann. Intensive Care (2021) 11:77 Introduction The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a risk factor for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) that is currently a major healthcare challenge worldwide. The prognosis of this disease widely varies between countries, the age of the patients, the characteristics of the population studied, and the severity of the ARDS [1]. Then, the case fatality rates observed in ARDS-related SARS-CoV-2 is close to 30–40% [2–4], but can reach 70% in the older patients [5–7]. Given the heavy burden of ARDS-related SARSCoV-2 infection in terms of health care resources and the worrisome prognosis of this disease, the pandemic has raised several ethical questions. One of them is the decision to admit the oldest patients in the ICU [8], which should be guided by robust data on the outcomes of that population. Therefore, there is an urgent need to provide consistent data on the management and prognosis of the elderly patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) [9]. These data may serve policymakers to properly and fairly allocate health care resources to that population and also to provide transparent information to the patient and caregivers. To date, few studies specifically reported the management and prognosis of the elderly patients in the context of SARS-CoV-2 lower respiratory tract infection [10, 11], but none were focused on a population admitted in ICU. In a large German study enrolling 10,021 patients, 923 (9%) patients over 70  years old received ventilatory support which was associated with 63% in-hospital mortality in those 70–79 years [4]. This result concurred with the dismal prognosis reported in previous studies focused on elderly patients with ARDS not related to SARS-CoV-2 infection [12, 13]. As the debate is still active whether the management of COVID19 should differ from ARDS related to other causes [14], the specific ICU management and outcomes of the old patients with SARS-CoV-2 related ARDS has not been fully described so far. We sought to assess the characteristics, management, and prognosis of the patients over 70  years enrolled in the international COVID-ICU cohort [15].


Introduction
The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a risk factor for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) that is currently a major healthcare challenge worldwide. The prognosis of this disease widely varies between countries, the age of the patients, the characteristics of the population studied, and the severity of the ARDS [1]. Then, the case fatality rates observed in ARDS-related SARS-CoV-2 is close to 30-40% [2][3][4], but can reach 70% in the older patients [5][6][7]. Given the heavy burden of ARDS-related SARS-CoV-2 infection in terms of health care resources and the worrisome prognosis of this disease, the pandemic has raised several ethical questions. One of them is the decision to admit the oldest patients in the ICU [8], which should be guided by robust data on the outcomes of that population. Therefore, there is an urgent need to provide consistent data on the management and prognosis of the elderly patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) [9]. These data may serve policymakers to properly and fairly allocate health care resources to that population and also to provide transparent information to the patient and caregivers. To date, few studies specifically reported the management and prognosis of the elderly patients in the context of SARS-CoV-2 lower respiratory tract infection [10,11], but none were focused on a population admitted in ICU. In a large German study enrolling 10,021 patients, 923 (9%) patients over 70 years old received ventilatory support which was associated with 63% in-hospital mortality in those 70-79 years [4]. This result concurred with the dismal prognosis reported in previous studies focused on elderly patients with ARDS not related to SARS-CoV-2 infection [12,13]. As the debate is still active whether the management of COVID-19 should differ from ARDS related to other causes [14], the specific ICU management and outcomes of the old patients with SARS-CoV-2 related ARDS has not been fully described so far. We sought to assess the characteristics, management, and prognosis of the patients over 70 years enrolled in the international COVID-ICU cohort [15].

Study design, patients
We performed an ancillary analysis of the COVID-ICU study. COVID-ICU was a multi-center, observational, and prospective cohort study conducted in 149 ICUs from 138 centers, across three countries (France, Switzerland, and Belgium) and has been described elsewhere [15]. It received approval from the ethical committee of the French Intensive Care Society (CE-SRLF 20-23) and Swiss and Belgium ethical committees following local regulations. All patients or close relatives were informed that their medical data were anonymously included in the COVID-ICU cohort. Patients and relatives had the possibility not to participate in the study. In case of refusal, the data were not collected accordingly. This manuscript follows the STROBE statement for reporting cohort studies.
For this analysis, we restricted the study population to patients who were 70 and above 70 years of age at the time of the admission to the participating ICU between February 25, 2020, and May 4, 2020, with laboratoryconfirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, and available Day-90 vital status. Laboratory confirmation for SARS-Cov-2 was defined as a positive result of real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay from either nasal or pharyngeal swabs, or lower respiratory tract aspirates [16].

Data collection
Full description of data collection is provided in the Additional file 1. Baseline information collected at ICU admission were: age, sex, body mass index (BMI), active smoking, Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) II score [17], worse Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) [18] during the first 24 h, comorbidities, immunodeficiency (if present), Clinical Frailty Scale [19], the date of the first symptom, and dates of the hospital and ICU admissions. The Clinical Frailty Scale was collected upon ICU admission by the physician in charge of the patient during the medical examination. If the patient was not able to communicate, the physician obtained the information from the relatives. The Clinical Frailty Scale is an ordinal hierarchical scale of 9 ranks, with a score of 1 being very fit, 2 well, 3 managing well, 4 vulnerable, 5 mildly frail, 6 moderately frail, 7 severely frail, 8 very severely frail, and 9 terminally ill. We also collected modes of ventilation and oxygenation and complications over the ICU stay. Patient outcomes included duration of mechanical ventilation, vital status at ICU and hospital discharge, and 28, 60, and 90 days after ICU admission. Lastly, life-sustaining treatment decisions were also collected.

Statistical analyses
Characteristics of patients were described as frequencies and percentages for categorical variables, whereas continuous variables were reported as mean and standard deviation or median and interquartile range. Categorical variables were compared by Chi-square or Fisher's exact test, and continuous variables were compared by Student's t-test or Wilcoxon's rank-sum test. Kaplan-Meier overall survival curves until Day-90 were computed, and were compared using log-rank tests. Detailed statistical analysis is provided is the Additional file 1.
Baseline risk factors of death at Day-90 were assessed using univariate and multivariate Cox regression model stratified on the center variable. Proportional hazard assumption was assessed by inspecting the scaled Schoenfeld residuals and Harrell's test [20]. To assess invasive mechanical ventilation effect on Day-90 mortality, we used a Cox proportional hazard model weighted on inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) using propensity score (PS) defined as the predictive probability of invasive mechanical ventilation conditional on measured baseline covariates [21]. A multivariate logistic regression model was performed to estimate the PS for each patient in that population. To assess the balance of measured covariates between treatment groups, we used the standardized mean differences before and after PS weighting [22]. Then, a Cox proportional hazard model weighted on IPTW was performed to estimate the average treatment effect in the entire eligible population [21]. Hazard ratio and its 95% confidence interval were then estimated for the Day-90 mortality associated with invasive mechanical ventilation at Day-1. This analysis was performed on the complete cases data set, and a sensitivity analysis was performed using multiple imputations due to missing data.
All analyses were performed at a two-sided α level of 5% and conducted with R version 3.5.1 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria).

Predictive factors of mortality at Day-90
Results of the multivariable analysis are reported in Table 2. Because of multicollinearity observed between age and Clinical Frailty Scale, invasive mechanical ventilation at Day-1 and PaO 2 /FiO 2 ratio, renal replacement therapy and the renal component of the SOFA, only Clinical Frailty Scale, PaO 2 /FiO 2 ratio, and the renal component of the SOFA were retained in the model. Day-1 patients' characteristics significantly associated with a higher 90-Day mortality rate identified by the Cox regression model after center stratification were older age, diabetes, higher cardiovascular component of the SOFA score, lower PaO 2 /FiO 2, and a shorter time between first symptoms and ICU admission ( Table 2). The same analysis re-run of missing after multiple imputations data (Additional file 1: Table S2) yielded similar conclusions. Interestingly, being admitted to the ICU after March 29 was also associated with a better outcome (Additional file 1: Figure S3). Kaplan-Meier survival estimates according to age categories, Clinical Frailty Scale, and PaO 2 /FiO 2 ratio at Day-1 of ICU admission are provided in Fig. 2.

Propensity score analysis
Six hundred and forty-four patients had a cardiovascular component of the SOFA < 2, comprising 425 patients intubated on Day-1 and 219 initially treated without

Discussion
Herein, we report the characteristics, management, and outcomes of a large prospective cohort of old critically ill patients during the first wave of the COVID-19 outbreak. Patients over 70 years represented 28% of the COVID-19 population admitted during that period of 8 weeks in the participating ICUs. Their overall Day-90 mortality was 46%, which increased with the age and the Clinical Frailty Scale and reached 67% for the patients over 80 years. Older age, diabetes, a longer time between first symptoms and ICU admission, a SOFA cardiovascular component ≥ 3, a lower PaO 2 /FiO 2 ratio, and being admitted to the ICU during the first month of the pandemic were independent risk factors of Day-90 mortality. Noticeably, our propensity score analysis suggests that an early invasive mechanical ventilation strategy seemed associated with a worse prognosis in that population.  The mortality of elderly patients admitted in the ICU for SARS-Cov-2-related ARDS varied from 77 to 84% [1]. These mortality rates appear very high compared to those reported in ARDS outside COVID-19 [12,23]. For instance, the Large Observational Study to Understand the Global Impact of Severe Acute Respiratory Failure (LUNG SAFE) reported Day-90 mortality rates of 47%, 51%, and 50% for the 70-74 years, 75-79, and > 80 years old patients, respectively (unpublished data, personal communication from the authors) [24]. Our Day-90 mortality (46%) contrasts with early reports (1-3) and the large German cohort of 10,021 patients (923 patients over 70 years) [4] despite a large proportion of patients intubated during their ICU stay in our study (78%). It was, however much higher than the 25% Day-90 mortality observed in the rest of the population of the COVID-ICU cohort (i.e., patients < 70 years old) [15]. Besides, the mortality of our patients over 80 years old seems higher when compared with same-age patients with non-COVID-19-related ARDS, planned [25], or unplanned ICU admission [26]. Several factors such as triage policy before ICU admission, ICU resources at the time of the pandemic, ICU case volume [27] and patients' comorbidities may explain these discrepancies.
Before the context of COVID-19, frailty as measured with the Clinical Frailty Scale in elderly critically ill patients was strongly associated with Day-30 mortality [26]. This tool was even a better predictor of mortality than SOFA score [25] or classical geriatric scales [26].
Recently, in a large observational study performed in the United Kingdom that enrolled 1564 COVID-19 patients with a median age of 74 years, and more than 50% of the population with a Clinical Frailty Scale > 4, the crude hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) for mortality were 3.12 (2.05-4.76) and 4.41 (2.90-6.71) for those with a Clinical Frailty Scale of 5-6 and 7 to 9, respectively [11]. However, the overall low Clinical Frailty Scale reported in our study and our low proportion of vulnerable or frail patients suggest that a significant triage was performed before ICU admission [28]. No national ICU admission criteria policy was provided at the time of the study, and the ICU admission decision was left to the discretion of the physicians in charge of the patient. Whether this triage resulted from intensivist's evaluation, non-intensivists practitioner's judgment, ICU beds occupancy, or the patients themselves should be further investigated.
Old patients admitted to the ICU with COVID-19 are at increased risk of death [3,29] and the decision of ICU admission can be challenging [8]. The use of the Clinical Frailty Scale has proven to be helpful in this context [9]. Besides, the respect of the patient's wishes and values, expressed directly by the patient via advance directives or reported by the healthcare surrogate should have to be taken into consideration [30]. In old patients with an uncertain prognosis, it can be particularly difficult to decide whether or not to admit to the ICU and provide invasive treatments such as mechanical ventilation. In such circumstances, an "ICU-trial of limited-time" has been proposed [31]. However, in the context of COVID-19, this strategy could be challenging as a long invasive mechanical duration is often required to see any clinical improvement. In other words, an ICU trial with a tooshort limited-time could lead to misinterpretation and ethical misconduct. This important point is reinforced by the extremely long durations of invasive mechanical ventilation, and ICU length of stay observed in our surviving patients.
Beyond the admission of elderly patients in the ICU, the decision of the timing of intubation remains crucial. The majority of our patients (62%) were intubated on ICU Day-1. Interestingly, apart from obvious reasons such as hemodynamic instability, relevant clinical differences were scarce between patients who were intubated upon admission and those who were not. For instance, their Clinical Frailty Scale, time between first symptoms and ICU admission, and PaO 2 /FiO 2 ratio were not significantly different, suggesting that the decision of intubation on admission was mainly driven by the experience of the physicians and the limited knowledge of this new disease at that time. As reported by others [32], the proportion of patients being intubated upon ICU admission during the first period of the study decreased from 67 to 56% during the last month (after March 29th, 2020), with being admitted in that latter period independently associated with a lower Day-90 mortality. An early intubation strategy was even associated with a poorer outcome in our matching analysis while further studies are warranted to confirm this finding. Less reluctance of the caregivers to provide non-invasive oxygen strategies along the first COVID-19 wave has been reported [15], but the benefit in terms of survival is still uncertain [33]. These strategies seem promising in that at-risk population where patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation are more likely to experience long-term physical, neuropsychiatric, and quality of life impairments [34,35].
Our study is a large international cohort of old critically ill patients with detailed characteristics and Day-90 outcome. However, despite a large number of participating ICUs, our population sample may be prone to selection biases that may limit generalizability. Since the study was mainly conducted in France (1115, 41 and 43 patients in France, Switzerland, and Belgium, respectively) during a period with high pressure on the health system and before the publication of several core randomized trials [36,37], our findings may differ during subsequent COVID-19 outbreaks, and in countries with different public health care organizations, ICU admission policy, or ICU resources [4]. Comparison with further studies from other countries will help to better allocate health care resources and determine the indications and contraindications of non-invasive ventilatory strategies in this specific population. Besides, we only provided data on patients who were admitted to the ICU, and no information was available on treatments before ICU admission nor on patients for whom an ICU admission was denied in the participating ICUs. Besides, important detailed information is also lacking regarding therapy limitations. This information would have allowed a thorough investigation of ICU-admission criteria used during this surge of ICU resources.

Conclusions
During the first COVID-19 pandemic wave, patients over 70 years old represented more than a quarter of the COVID-19 population in the participating ICUs of that study. Their overall Day-90 mortality was 46% with a dismal prognosis in patients older than 80 years old. Given the very long duration of mechanical ventilation as well as a prolonged ICU and hospital stay in the survivors, further studies are urgently warranted to evaluate the long-term psychological, neurocognitive, and functional outcomes of this high-risk and vulnerable population.