ABSTRACT
Background The worldwide pandemic situation forced many hospitals to adapt COVID-19 management strategies. In this scenario, the Swiss Academy of Medical Sciences (SAMW/ASSM) organized national guidelines based on expert opinion to identify Do-Not-Resuscitate (DNR) patients, to reduce futile ICU admission and resource misuse. However, the practical impact of this standardized national protocol has not been yet evaluated. In our specialized COVID-19 Center, we investigated characteristics and mortality of DNR patients identified according to national standardized protocol, comparing them to non-DNR patients.
Methods This was a pilot retrospective validation study, evaluating consecutive hospital admitted COVID-19 patients. Primary outcome was 30-days survival of DNR patients in comparison to the control group. Secondary outcomes reported quality of treatment of deceased patients, especially of agitation/sedation and dyspnea, using respectively the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale – Palliative care (RASS-PAL) for sedation and agitation (+4/-5) and the modified Borg Scale for dyspnea (1-10).
Results From March 16 to April 1, 2020, 213 consecutive patients were triaged; at 30-days follow-up, 9 patients (22.5%) died in the DNR group, 4 (2.2%) in the control group. The higher mortality rate in the DNR group was further confirmed by Log-Rank Mantel-Cox (23.104, p < 0.0001). In the DNR-group deceased patients, end-of-life support was performed with oxygen (100%), opioids (100%) and sedatives (89%); the mean RASS-PAL improved from 2.2 to -1.8 (p < 0.0001) and the Borg scale improved from 5.7 to 4.7 (p = 0.581).
Conclusion A national standardized protocol identified patients at higher risk of short-term death. Although the legal status of DNRs varies from country to country, the implementation of national standardized protocol could be the way to guarantee a better treatment of COVID-19 patients in a pandemic situation with limited resources.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Project approved with the number ID 2020-01487/CE_3682 by Ethics Committee Comitato Etico Cantonale Via Orico 4 6500, Bellinzona
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
DECLARATION OF CONFLICTING INTERESTS AND FUNDING SOURCES: The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
All Authors declare no conflict of interests.
Revision and clarification in the abstract section and in the Introduction/Discussion section. Just modifications about technical and medical aspects
Data Availability
All data are available under adequate written request