Country differences in hospitalisation, length of stay, admission to Intensive Care Units, and mortality due to SARS-CoV-2 infection at the end of the first wave in Europe: a rapid review of available literature

Elizabeth A Lane, Damien J Barrett, Miriam Casey, Conor G. McAloon, Áine B. Collins, Kevin Hunt, Andrew W. Byrne, David McEvoy, Ann Barber, John Griffin, Patrick Wall, Simon J. More
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.12.20099473

Abstract

Objectives Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus is spreading rapidly worldwide and threatening the collapse of national health care systems. The development of effective resource models are critical for long term health planning. The aim was to evaluate the available literature, to consider parameters affecting hospital resources, to effectively guide health policy and planning for future waves of infection.

Design A detailed search of the literature, using Google Scholar, PubMED, MedRxiv and BioRxiv, was conducted for the time period 1st Dec 2019 to 31st May 2020; using appropriate keywords: resultant articles were scrutinised in detail, and appraised for reported data pertaining to hospitalization and hospital length of stay (LOS).

Results Disease presentation was described in China; 81 % mild, 14 % moderate and 5 % severe. The experience, thus far, in Europe and the USA are suggestive of a higher degree of severity. Initial reports suggest high hospitalisation and ICU admittance rates. More recent reports from the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) lower this estimation. Perhaps the relative age, the level of pre-existing conditions, and other health factors may be contributors to differences. Data from Irish cases suggest hospitalisation rate may be lower in parts of Europe and time dependent. Hospital LOS is described in 55 articles, with median lengths of stay between 3 and 52 days. The evidence regarding the LOS in ICU is reported in 31 studies, 26 deemed relevant. The majority of studies report ICU LOS between 7 to 11 days. Many of these studies are likely skewed towards shorter stay due to study cut-off dates. Indications based on ICU LOS reported for patients continuing care suggest median ICU stay will progressively increase.

Conclusions These parameter estimates are key to the development of an effective health care resource model. Based on our appraisal of the literature, is it essential that Europe manages mitigation measures to ensure that hospital and ICU capacity does not become overwhelmed to manage COVID-19 in subsequent infection waves.

Strengths and limitations of this study

  • The study provides timely information on the differences in hospitalisation, length of stay and ICU length of stay due to COVID-19 in a number of countries worldwide at the end of wave one in Europe;

  • This rapid review builds on a previously available review paper that reported length of stay in the early phase of the pandemic; many more studies outlining length of stay, and in particular, ICU length of stay, are now available;

  • This rapid review reports on study mortality rate giving an interesting insight into differences across countries and continents;

  • Limitations associated with any rapid review are pertinent to this study; a narrow aim was set, and the sources of the literature may be limited by the time-limited constraint of gathering relevant literature; and a number of articles available were in pre-print form and only undergoing peer review; and

  • This rapid review provides evidence-based estimates of Hospital and ICU length of stay due to COVID-19 infection across a number of countries to steer policy and provide parameter estimates for utilisation within a hospital resource model as preparations are made for subsequent waves of infection.

INTRODUCTION

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus is spreading rapidly across the world, threatening the collapse of many national health care systems and exerting a grave impact on the global economy. As of 31st May 2020, data compiled from the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) [1] reported 6,028,135 confirmed infections of COVID-19 cases worldwide with 368,944 deaths recorded. The SARS-CoV-2 virus, first reported in December 2019 in Wuhan China, has spread to 213 countries and territories. By 31st May 2020, European countries, including the European Union (EU-27), the UK, Norway, Switzerland and Iceland have reported 1,429,104 cases and 166,421 deaths following infection with SARS-CoV-2 infection [1]

Clinical presentations of COVID-19 range from asymptomatic to life threatening and fatal. In China, 81 % of COVID-19 cases were considered mild, 14 % severe and 5 % critical [2,3]. The experience in European countries has differed, and varied among countries. The eighth update report from the ECDC [4] indicates that up to 30 % of diagnosed COVID-19 cases were hospitalised in some countries. Individual studies from Italy [5,6] indicated a higher proportion were accessing intensive care unit (ICU) care, with 16 and 18 % of all COVID-19 patients being cared for in an ICU setting. However, the European wide analysis report [4] suggests that 2.4 % of cases presented with severe illness requiring respiratory support or ICU care; the most recent report; the ninth update [7] lowers this estimate (median 2 %).

Worldwide, age and co-morbidities have been demonstrated as major risk factors for the development of severe disease [3,4,7-14]. Children are implicated as possible asymptomatic carriers of SARS-CoV-2 virus and a number of articles report both symptomatic and asymptomatic infection in children [3,15-20]. Many, but not all [17], studies indicate a higher proportion of cases are male [4,7-9, 21-24]; and recent risk assessments conducted by the ECDC [4,7] indicates that males are at higher risk of death compared with their female contemporaries. Close contact with a case is a risk factor [2], and the basis of public health advice includes social distancing and staying at home apart from essential activity [4]. Other factors, including smoking [25] have been highlighted as risk factors for severe infection. There are indications too that infection rate may be altered by blood-group [21,26].

The prevention of infection among health care workers is of critical importance to the management of this pandemic. Of serious concern to policymakers is the clear evidence indicating that both healthcare workers and hospitalised persons are at particularly high risk of exposure [2, 27]. Indeed some of the work conducted early in the epidemic reported that hospital-associated transmission of virus was suspected in 41% of patients [28]. Of concern too, many healthcare authorities are bringing retired medics and nurses back into service. The placement of these people considered vulnerable due to their age must be considered. At a national level, the latest work by Stier et al. [29] emphasizes population density, with attack rates increasing with city size.

Preparedness is key and resource matching to clinical requirement essential. Previous work [30] suggests a large variation in availability of critical care bed in the EU / EEA area, ranging from 29.2 in Germany to 4.2 in Portugal for critical care beds per 100,000 population. Perhaps this is key to understanding the difference in coping between different EU countries. Clearly too, differences will exist between cultures, few western governments will seek to use hospitalisation as a tool for quarantine. An comprehensive review on length of hospital stay in the early part of the pandemic was conducted by Rees et al. [31]. Large variations across studies within China (4 to 53 days) and outside China (4 to 21 days) were reported. However the early studies offered limited evidence for length of ICU stay. Rees et al. [31] reports ICU stay in 8 studies, four within and four outside China, and limited by study subjects so early in the pandemic. Many of the early studies reported hospital length of stay (LOS) for groups with a defined outcome, died or discharged, many too indicated a short follow up time. It is key to consider the influence of those continuing in care. As the infection is spreading across the world, this rapid review paper considers parameters affecting hospital resources resulting from infection with SARS-CoV-2 beyond the evidence published from China. The objective is to evaluate the current scientific literature from across the developed world with the overall aim to influence health policy and support evidence-based decision-making as countries in Europe prepare for a second wave of infection. The proportion of patients hospitalized and their outcomes in terms of mortality rate due to infection with SARS-CoV-2 infection is discussed. The proportion of patients who required critical or ICU care is outlined. Time spent hospitalised, both in a general and an ICU setting, is considered. For those who have been admitted to an ICU, the length of time pre-ICU, the length of time in ICU was collated from available literature. These estimates are central to national resource modelling, which are being developed to aid policymakers to ensure optimal resourcing during subsequent infection waves in this pandemic.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Initial study appraisal

This paper follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses—Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist [32]. A comprehensive search of the scientific literature and national and international government reports was conducted by contributing researchers for the time period 1st December 2019 to 20th May 2020. The search engines Google Scholar, PubMED, MedRxiv and BioRxiv were used, using the following keywords: (“Novel coronavirus” OR “SARS-CoV-2” OR “2019-nCoV” OR “COVID-19”) AND (“length of stay” OR “duration of stay” OR “hospital stay” OR “ICU”). No restriction on language was imposed as long as the abstract was available in English. References within these publications were also searched as additional possibilities for inclusion. Inclusion criteria for ‘the proportion of cases hospitalised’ were papers that reported the proportion of hospitalised and proportion of those hospitalised accessing higher level care including critical care and ICU care. Inclusion criteria for LOS included articles that reported length of hospital stay, length of stay in ICU, and length of stay prior to admission to ICU. Each article was assessed briefly for suitability for inclusion in this study. Papers that did not report hospitalisation, length or duration of time in hospital or in ICU were discarded. The latest governmental reports from the Health Protection Surveillance Centre (HPSC), Ireland [33], and from the Intensive Care National Audit and Research Centre (ICNARC), UK [24] were consulted after the 30th May cut-off.

Study appraisal

All articles and reports that described the proportion of COVID-19 positive cases hospitalised, the proportion of cases that were admitted to higher level care including critical or ICU care, the length of hospital stay or the duration of hospital stay or length of time in critical care or ICU were scrutinised in detail, and appraised for reported data and quality of the scientific evidence. Parameter estimates for the length of stay in non-ICU or in an ICU setting from the relevant articles were recorded and evaluated.

For quality control, studies were (1) selected from search terms outlined above and initially screened by three members of the team (KH, SM and LL), with parameters identified and recorded; (2) reviewed and supplemented by manual search by LL, again with parameters identified and recorded, and (3) the review was then internally reviewed by an additional three members of the team (SM, DB, MC), and cross-referenced with other parameter synthesis documents being developed by the group (all authors). Details of the resultant list (n = 263), which included published and pre-printed articles, were entered in an Excel file. Some 55 studies relating to hospital LOS and 31 studies or reports relating to LOS in ICU were selected for detailed scrutiny as they each reported summary estimates with a corresponding variance.

Source data and management

Data tabulating the number of notified cases and deaths for all countries and Territories worldwide for each calendar date was downloaded in Excel format from the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control [1]. Data was imported into STATA version 14 (STATA Corporation, USA). Sum of cases and deaths were tabulated for European countries of the EU, the UK, Switzerland, Iceland and Norway (n = 31). Cumulative cases and deaths were generated for each calendar day for countries of interest and expressed as a percentage of cumulative deaths to cumulative cases. The crude mortality rate was expressed as a percentage over time, from day of outbreak, defined as the day on which the tenth case was reported, in selected European Countries.

Data regarding the epidemiological situation in Ireland was extracted from the Health Protection Surveillance Centre daily epidemiological reports [33]. Data were entered into Excel, then imported into STATA 14 to generate the trends in cumulative cases, percentage of known cases hospitalised and the percentage of confirmed cases admittance into ICU over time.

RESULTS

TIMEPOINT OF THE PANDEMIC

At study cut-off (31MAY2020), the European first wave of COVID-19 infection was ending and government managed lockdown measures were being eased across the EU, the UK, Switzerland, Norway and Iceland. Figure 1. Illustrates the European Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (ECDC) notified COVID-19 cases and deaths in 31 European countries (EU-27, UK, Switzerland, Norway and Iceland), and the seven day moving average during the first wave of the pandemic; while a mean of 33k cases were notified daily in the 31 European countries during the peak of the first wave of COVID-19 infections between 27MAR2020 to 05APR2020; the ten day period beginning 05JUN2020 recorded just mean of 5.5k daily.

Figure 1.
Figure 1.

The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) notified COVID-19 cases and deaths over time in the EU-27, UK, Switzerland, Norway and Iceland. Data tabulating the notified cases and deaths from all countries is available from the European Centre for Disease Control and Prevention; https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications-data/download-todays-data-geographic-distribution-covid-19-cases-worldwide

HOSPITALISATION RATE

A summary of available scientific literature from the outbreaks worldwide relating to the proportion of COVID-19 cases requiring hospitalisation and the need for stepped up medical care, including critical care and ICU, by country, and hospital length of stay (LOS) where reported is presented in Table 1. Data from 81 studies or reports are presented, of which 55 describe to hospital LOS.

View this table:
Table 1.

A summary of published articles and reports relating to hospitalisation and length of stay (LOS) in hospital following COVID-19 infection, by country. Ordered by end of enrollment date within country.

European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC updates)

The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) collates the laboratory-confirmed cases reported to the European Surveillance System (TESSy) and thus far has published nine update reports as the situation unfolds across Europe [4,7]. Preliminary estimates of severity were collated based on the analysis of data from EU and EEA countries and from the UK. As expected, some data were incomplete or missing in TESSy. The eight update [4] indicates that 48,755 of 152,375 (32 %) were hospitalised based on data from 26 European countries; with a country median 28 % (IQR 14 to 63 %). Severe presentations that required ICU and or respiratory support accounted for 2,859 of 120,788 (2.4 %) cases from 16 countries; median 1.4 % (IQR 0 to 33 %). Among hospitalized cases only, severe illness was reported in 3,567 of 38,960 (9.2 %) cases from 19 countries, median 15 % (IQR 3.8 to 35 %). Death occurred in 1,005 of 9,368 (11 %) of hospitalized cases from 21 countries (3.9 %, IQR 0 to 13 %). Age-specific risk increased among those 60 years and older, thus consideration to age profile within a country is important. The report of 23rd April [7] reported increased rate of hospitalisation with a pooled estimate of 42 % (160,485 of 381,410 cases); based on data from 19 countries, however the country median was 28 % (IQR 16 to 39 %). Severe presentations that required ICU and or respiratory support accounted for 5,456 of 220,412 (2 %) cases with data from 14 countries; median 2 % (IQR 0 to 4 %). Again, hospitalisation increased with age, and for males from 30 years. The changes over time in the crude mortality rate for all notified cases since day of outbreak, defined as the day on which the tenth case was notified, for selected European countries is presented in Figure 2.

Figure 2.
Figure 2.

The crude mortality rate (CMR) expressed as the percentage of notified deaths to cases over time, from number of days lapsed since the notification of the tenth case for 12 selected European countries. Data tabulating the notified cases and deaths from all countries is available from the European Centre for Disease Control and Prevention; https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications-data/download-todays-data-geographic-distribution-covid-19-cases-worldwide

USA Studies

Admission rates to ICU in the USA varied between 4.9 to 11.5 % in the report conducted by the CDC [85]. Myers et al. [89] indicated 8.7 % ICU admission in a study conducted in California in March, whereas Lewnard et al. [99] observed a higher ICU admission rate (25.6 %) also in California. A number of studies conducted in New York outlined ICU admission rates of 14.2 % [13]; 22 % [14]; 23.6 % [92]; and 36% [11]. Of significance, are the mortality rates in hospitalised groups (and specifically not ICU only groups) reported in a number of US studies: 15.4 % [89]; 15.6 % [85]; 21 % [13]; 21 % [91]; and 29 % [11].

In Ireland, the proportion of COVID-19 test positives cases (confirmed cases) hospitalised is reducing with time (Figure 3). Daily epidemiology reports compiled by the Health Protection Surveillance Centre [79] with data to March 30th reports a hospitalisation rate of 27.9 % (834 of 2,990 cases hospitalised) and admission to ICU in 4.2 % of cases (126 of 2,990). The hospitalisation rate reduced over time to 17.5 % (1,968 of 11,261) by April 13th [80]; 13.5 % (2,669 of 9,723) by 29nd April [81]; and 13.1 (2,878 of 21,908 cases by 4th May [82]. The rate of admission to ICU reduced, concomitantly, from 4.2 % of cases (126 of 2,990) [79] to 1.7 % (373 of 21,908) [82] of cases by May 4th. The reports collated by the HPSC [33] in Ireland indicate that proportion of hospitalisations and transfer to ICU increased occurred with age.

Figure 3.
Figure 3.

The cumulative number of notified cases (grey bars) in Ireland between 30th March and 27th May 2020; the percentage of COVID positive cases that were hospitalised (black line); and those that were admitted to ICU (green line) for the same period. Data extracted from publicly available data published by the Health Protection Surveillance Centre (HPSC), Ireland.

LENGTH OF STAY (LOS)

Hospital length of stay

A summary of the literature pertaining to length of hospital stay in non-ICU settings due to COVID-19, by country, is reported in Table 1. The overall length of hospital stay is reported in 55 studies or reports, with overall median lengths of stay between three days and fifty-five days. Figure 4 illustrates the median (and IQR or range) of hospital LOS for relevant articles within China (Figure 4a) and outside China (Figure 4b).

Figure 4.
Figure 4.
Figure 4.

The median (maroon square), or mean (maroon circle), 25th and 75th percentile (navy diamonds) and range (navy x) for relevant articles and reports describing the length of stay (LOS) in hospital due to COVID-19 infection within China (Figure 4a) and outside China (Figure 4b). The Italian report (COVID-19 Group, 2020, n = 31,851) indicates a median of 5 days; no estimate of variance was reported.

Length of stay in ICU

The literature pertaining to length of ICU stay due to COVID-19 is reported in Table 2, including 31 studies and reports. Figure 5 illustrates the central tendency (and IQR or range) for length of stay in ICU for relevant articles. In this figure, 26 studies are presented; Three case studies were excluded due to small numbers of relevant cases [8,55,57]. Median lengths of stay in ICU between 7 to 10 days were observed in studies based in China [21,35,38,39,44,51]. European studies conducted by Graselli et al. [63] in Italy, Ceruti et al. [75] in Switzerland, and the ICNARC report [24] report similar LOS between 7 to 11 days. Earlier reports from the ICNARC [23] indicated shorter LOS for ICU patients, indicating the bias towards shorter stay as fewer patients had progress through their complete stay. However median LOS outlined by studies based in North America were more variable and reported lengths of stay between 3.8 to 14 days for various resolved groups (Figure 3); however three studies highlight the continuing care groups with extended median ICU stays of 20 [101], 23 [110] and 36 days [96]. The Reyes-Gil et al. [90] study was excluded from consideration as it was suspected that all patients contributed to the ICU LOS, even if not admitted to ICU.

View this table:
Table 2.

A summary of published articles and reports relating to length of stay in an ICU setting following COVID-19 infection, by country.

Figure 5.
Figure 5.

The median (maroon diamond), 25th and 75th percentile (navy diamonds), and range (navy x) for 26 relevant articles and reports describing the median (and IQR) length of stay or mean (maroon circle) in an ICU due to COVID-19 infection. The Italian report (COVID-19 Group, 2020) indicates a median of 9 days (including ICU stay for deceased patients); no estimate of variance was reported. The estimate for Argenziano et al [92] also includes hospital LOS, while Reyes-Gil et al [90] is excluded as it is believed that ICU LOS was calculated with patients who were not admitted to ICU. Studies reporting less than ten patients in ICU [8,57,78,83] were also excluded from Figure 5.

Length of hospital stay prior to transfer to ICU

Length of hospital stay prior to transfer to ICU due to COVID-19, by country, is presented in Table 2. Six studies made reference to time in hospital prior to ICU transfer, including two small case series [57,83], thus excluded from consideration. A short LOS prior to ICU admission is outlined in the remainder articles; including 0 days in Fan et al. [21], 1 day in the UK ICNARC report [24] and Kim et al [104], and 2 days in Vanderburg et al [98].

Length of hospital post ICU

Length of hospital stay was rarely reported among the studies scrutinized, and thus not described here.

STUDY MORTALITY RATE

The overall mortality rate for each study is illustrated in Figure 6.

Figure 6.
Figure 6.

The navy bars indicate the overall mortality rate reported by each study that relates hospitalisation and or hospital length of stay (LOS). The median or mean age reported for study participants is presented. Studies are ordered by country, and by end of enrolment date within country.

DISCUSSION

HOSPITALISATION RATE

The relative variation in disease severity is very clear in the published literature from China, with 81 % mild presentation, 14 % moderate presentation with 5 % severe or critical presentations that require high-level on-going care in critical care beds or within the ICU environment [3]. Nevertheless, the experience, thus far, in Europe and the USA would suggest some countries are experiencing a higher degree of severity of COVID-19 being reported. Early indications from Italy suggested hospitalisation rates of 30 % and admission to ICU between 16 to 18 % [5,6]. While the eighth update report from the ECDC [4] restates this but suggests, based on data from 16 EU countries, that respiratory and or ICU support is needed in 2.4 % of cases; the ninth ECDC report [7] slightly revises this country specific median 2 % (IQR 0 to 4 %). Observational studies conducted in the USA also report high rates of hospitalisation [85], high proportion of patients admitted to ICU care and very high mortality rates in hospitalised patients, even among studies with large numbers [11,89,91,91,99,104]. The cause of the differences in disease presentation between countries is not clear. Perhaps differences in case definition, the relative age of the population, the level of pre-existing conditions within the population, and other health factors may be contributing to these differences. Thus far, the experience in Italy suggests that mitigation measures must be carefully managed to ensure ICU capacity is not reached or breached. However, another major influencer on hospitalisation rate will be the definition of a suspect case and the extent of COVID-19 testing within the community; the detection of a greater number of milder cases, diagnosed within the community will ultimately influence the hospitalisation rate. The influence of community testing is becoming evident in Ireland; as April progressed, it was clear in each subsequent HPSC report [79,80,81,82] that the rate of hospitalisation and proportion of patients admitted to ICU was reducing. This is evidence perhaps that a broader case suspect definition and a wider testing approach will impact the overall rate of hospitalisation and admission to ICU.

LENGTH OF STAY (LOS)

Length of stay in hospital (Non-ICU)

The overall length of hospital stay varied between 3 and 52 days among studies. Two of these studies were case series based on the observations of 10 [56] or 12 [83] patients, a further article [22] was based on data extracted from publicly available datasets. The studies are very diverse in their reporting and presentation of hospital length data. The largest study is from Italy [66] reporting the median hospital stay of 5 days for cases that did not require ICU level of care. However, no range or confidence interval is described by this report. Similar to the shorter duration of hospital stay in Italy, a more recent study conducted in the USA [13], which examined hospital records of 5,700 sequential admissions to New York hospitals, reported a short length of stay, with a median 4.1 days (IQR 2.3 to 6.8). The hospital length of stay varies dramatically among different studies. Perhaps differences in hospital capacity, overcrowding, government policy, funding source and other factors might influence length of stay. Of interest Richardson et al. [13] indicates 45 patients were re-admitted to hospital for further care, indicating perhaps the pressure on bed availability. Argenziano et al. [92] outlines the critical situation faced in some Emergency Departments in New York and describes the death of 14.7 % of ED only patients; patients who died in the emergency room prior to being admitted to hospital. Given the large variation in length of stay and the difference between continents; the studies relating to hospital LOS outside an ICU setting were not appropriate to use to calculate a central tendency.

Length of stay in hospital (ICU)

With the exception of Bi et al. [51], the majority of Chinese studies reported median ICU stays of 7 to 10 days [21,35,38,39,44]. The Bi et al. [51] study reported exceptionally long hospital and ICU stays, with a median 34 day duration of stay in ICU, for 19 critically ill patients. Similar median lengths of stay have been reported in Italy. The Italian report [66] dated 28th May 2020 describes median LOS of 9 days if admitted to an ICU setting (n = 31,851); however, actual length of time in ICU and proportion or number of patients cared for in ICU were not specified. It is important to note too that this report while including a large number of cases, only includes those who have died, and hence will not reflect the possible longer stay of survivors. Another Italian study conducted by Grasselli et al. [63] reports the median length of ICU stay was 9 days (IQR 6 to 13 days) for 1,581 patients. A Swiss study, too, outlined the median length of stay was 9 days for 41 patients followed to discharge [75]. It is noticeable that length of ICU stay is more variable in US studies. In particular studies that breakdown length of stay into those completed stay compared to patients continuing care. It is evident that care must be taken with interpretation, continuing care groups are reported to have longer stays; median LOS of 11.4 [96]; 14 [109]; and 23 days [92] are outlined. Albeit, the Argenziano et al. study [92] similar to the Italian report [66] reports hospital LOS rather than specific ICU LOS. A smaller case series conducted by Valente-Acosta [110] in Mexico highlights this continuing care group; this study describes a case series of 33 patients admitted to ICU in Mexico city, the median LOS of 23 days is indicative that LOS in ICU can be significant; although their continuing care group is only n = 4. The authors of the UK ICNARC [24] report highlight the continued bias towards shorter stay; with both survivor and non-survivor groups reported to have a median LOS of 11 and 9 days, respectively [24]. Indeed, earlier reports from INCARC [23} reported shorter LOS of ICU patients, as fewer persons had progressed through to completion of treatment. It is evident that study cut-off, and short follow ups, have influenced reported ICU LOS; it is clear that the influence of continuing care groups will lengthen length of ICU stay somewhat in time.

Length of hospital stay prior to transfer to ICU

The Median length of hospital stay prior to transfer to ICU was short varying from 0 to 2 days in the relevant articles (21,24,98,104] indicating the short time at which patients not admitted directly to ICU are identified for stepped up care.

STUDY MORTALITY RATE

It is evident from the data reported in Figure 6 that overall mortality rate varies among studies. In the studies from Asia, the mortality rates were generally low, although rates higher than 10% were noted in 6 studies. In contrast, the mortality rates reported in European and North American studies were substantially higher, in almost all cases exceeding 10% and often much higher. Apparent too, that median (or mean) age differs among these studies; the median age is lower in Asia, only two (of 31) studies report groups with a median age in their sixties, while Wu and Grogan [3] report an overall mortality rate of 2.3 % with 87 % of participants aged between 30 and 79. In contrast, the European and North American studies document an older median age, only one UK study conducted by Boddington et al. [67] reports a median age in the forties (48) for the first few hundred UK COVID-19 cases; indeed 23 of 26 studies conducted in Europe and North America report median age above 60 in Europe of North America. Criteria for hospitalisation will have varied between countries and continents, and are thus likely to influence the relative severity among hospitalised patients. Important too, to note, that some studies such as Bi et al. [51] have clearly indicated that hospitalisation was used as a tool for isolation or quarantine, which is a practice not generally conducted in Europe or North America. An alteration in case definition may also be a factor, and should be further explored. Atypical case presentations for pneumonia are described in the elderly [112,113], and a US review [113] outlines tachypnoea, delirium, unexplained tachycardia or lowered blood pressure as presenting symptoms in the elderly. Early studies from China refer to COVID-19 pneumonia, while more recent studies refer to COVID-19 illness. Differences in case presentation due to age might be a contributor to the relative lower numbers of elderly patients not being included in the studies within China. The influence of pre-existing conditions and BMI within the geographical area also cannot be overlooked.

CONCLUSIONS

Differences in the severity of case presentations and outcomes have been described between continents, and countries should base its expectation on those cases observed in countries of similar demographics. Advice from the ECDC suggests hospitalisation rates of up to 42 % can be expected; and admission to critical care and ICU levels in up to 3 % of cases, to allow for spare capacity, as mitigation measures are relaxed in our jurisdiction. There is no doubt that the case definition in use and the availability of community testing will determine the hospitalisation rate within a country. In countries where community testing has been significant, we can expect the rate of hospitalisation and the proportion requiring ICU level care to be lower. Data in Ireland certainly supports this assertion.

The length of stay in hospital outside of the ICU setting, due to COVID-19 is highly variable in the literature, with median estimates varying from 3 to 52 days. Studies diverged in their inclusion criterion. It is likely that the aim of hospitalisation varied among countries. Discharge criteria diverged in different jurisdictions, whether it related to a patient required to test negative prior to discharge or where there was pressure to free up overcrowded hospitals. Indeed, it is reported that some countries used hospitalisation to ensure quarantine.

As the pandemic spreads rapidly throughout the world, more and more evidence regarding the length of stay in ICU following COVID-19 has been reported. Many of these reports indicate a median ICU length of stay between 7 to 11 days; however a number of these studies report length of stay based only on resolved cases, and as such duration of stay is likely skewed towards a short stay due to bias towards those who have completed their ICU stay and are now discharged or have died. Thus the upper estimates of the range should be considered for use in resource models. It is apparent too that the data generated by each individual country during the initial months of the outbreak will be critical to estimate the parameters used for any national resource model.

Data Availability

Data can be made available on request.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

The authors do not have a financial or personal relationship with other people or organisations that could inappropriately influence or bias the content of the paper.

FUNDING

All authors were employed through their home institutions. No additional funding was used.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. Download today’s data on the geographic distribution of COVID-19 cases worldwide. 2020. Accessed 31MAY2020 at: https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications-data/download-todays-data-geographic-distribution-covid-19-cases-worldwide
  2. 2.↵
    World Health Organization (WHO). 2020. Report of the WHO-China Joint Mission on Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) 2020 [cited 2020 1 March]. Accessed at: https://www.who.int/docs/defaultsource/coronaviruse/who-china-joint-mission-on-covid-19-final-report.pdf.
  3. 3.↵
    Wu Z, McGoogan JM. Characteristics of and Important Lessons From the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Outbreak in China: Summary of a Report of 72?314 Cases From the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention. JAMA 2020: E1-E4. ePUB February 24, 2020. DOI:10.1001/jama.2020.2648 5.
  4. 4.↵
    European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control 2020. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic: increased transmission in the EU/EEA and the UK – eighth update, 8th April 2020. Stockholm. Accessed at: https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/covid-19-rapid-risk-assessment-coronavirus-disease-2019-eighth-update-8-april-2020.pdf
  5. 5.↵
    Cereda D, Tirani M, Rovida F, et al. The early phase of the COVID-19 outbreak in Lombardy, Italy. Preprint. 2020. Accessed at: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2003.09320.pdf
  6. 6.↵
    Grasselli G, Presenti A, Cecconi M. Critical care Utilization for the COVID 19 outbreak in Lombardy Italy. JAMA Opinion 2020; E1 – E2. ePUB March 13, 2020. Accessed at: https://jamanetwork.com/ by a NUS Libraries User
  7. 7.↵
    European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control 2020. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic: increased transmission in the EU/EEA and the UK – ninth update, 23rd April 2020. Stockholm. Accessed at: https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/covid-19-rapid-risk-assessment-coronavirus-disease-2019-ninth-update-23-april-2020.pdf
  8. 8.↵
    Chen N, Zhou M, Dong X, et al. Epidemiological and clinical characteristics of 99 cases of 2019 novel coronavirus pneumonia in Wuhan, China: a descriptive study. Lancet. 2020; 395: 507–13.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.
    COVID-19 Surveillance Group. Istituto Superiore di Sanità. Sorveglianza Integrata. Characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 patients dying in Italy. Report based on available data on April 13th, 2020. Accessed 15APR2020.
  10. 10.
    Gang S, Kim L, Whitaker M, et al. Hospitalization Rates and Characteristics of Patients Hospitalized with Laboratory-Confirmed Coronavirus Disease 2019 — COVID-NET, 14 States, March 1–30, 2020. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2020; 69: 458–464. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6915e3
    OpenUrl
  11. 11.↵
    Paranjpe I, Russak AJ, De Freitas JK, et al. Clinical characteristics of hospitalized Covid-19 patients in New York City. MedRxiv Preprint 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.19.20062117
  12. 12.
    Qian Z, Alaa AM, van der Schaar M, Ercole A. 2020 Between-centre differences for COVID-19 ICU mortality from early data in England. MedRxiv Preprint 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.19.20070722.
  13. 13.↵
    Richardson S, Hirsch JS, Narasimhan M, et al. Presenting Characteristics, Comorbidities, and Outcomes Among 5700 Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19 in the New York City Area. JAMA 2020. ePUB April 22, 2020. DOI:10.1001/jama.2020.6775.
  14. 14.↵
    Russell, TW, Hellewell J, Jarvis CI, et al. Estimating the infection and case fatality ratio for coronavirus disease (COVID-19) using age-adjusted data from the outbreak on the Diamond Princess cruise ship, February 2020. Eurosurveillance 2020; 25(12): pii=2000256. https://doi.org/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.12.2000256
  15. 15.
    Chan JF-W, Yuan S Kok K-H, et al. A familial cluster of pneumonia associated with the 2019 novel coronavirus indicating person-to-person transmission: a study of a family cluster. Lancet 2020; 395: 514–523.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.
    Hu Z, Song C, Xu C, et al. 2020. Clinical characteristics of 24 asymptomatic infections with COVID-19 screened among close contacts in Nanjing, China, Sci China Life Sci 63.
  17. 17.↵
    Korean Society of Infectious Diseases, et al., 2020 Report on the Epidemiological Features of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Outbreak in the Republic of Korea from January 19 to March 2, 2020 J Korean Med Sci. 2020 Mar 16;35(10):e112. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2020.35.e112
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.
    Liao J, Fan S, Chen J et al. Epidemiological and clinical characteristics of COVID 19 in adolescents and young adults. MedRxiv Preprint 2020. doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.03.10.20032136
  19. 19.
    Qiu H, Wu J, Hong L, Luo Y, Song Q, Chen D. 200 Clinical and epidemiological features of 36 children with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Zhejiang, China: an observational cohort study Lancet Inf Dis DOI: 10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30198-5.
  20. 20.
    Tao Y, Cheng P, Chen W, Wan P, Chen Y, Yuan G, Chen J, Huo D, Guan G, Sun D, Tan J, Yang G, Zeng W, Zhu C. 2020 High incidence of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, Chongqing, China. MedRxiv; 2020 https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.03.16.20037259.
  21. 21.↵
    Fan H, Zhang L, Huang B, et al. Retrospective Analysis of Clinical Features in 101 Death Cases with COVID-19. MedRxiv 2020; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.03.09.20033068
  22. 22.↵
    Linton NM, Kobaysahi T, Yang Y et al., Incubation Period and Other Epidemiological Characteristics of 2019 Novel Coronavirus Infections with Right Truncation: A Statistical Analysis of Publicly Available Case Data. Journ Clin Med 2020; 9: 538. DOI: 10.3390/jcm9020538
    OpenUrl
  23. 23.↵
    Intensive Care National Audit & Research Centre (ICNARC). Report on COVID-19 in critical care 01 May 2020. Assessed at: https://www.icnarc.org/DataServices/Attachments/Download/f48efee2-d38b-ea11-9125-00505601089b on 02MAY2020
  24. 24.↵
    Intensive Care National Audit & Research Centre (ICNARC). Report on COVID-19 in critical care 29 May 2020. Assessed at: https://www.icnarc.org/DataServices/Attachments/Download/8419d345-c7a1-ea11-9126-00505601089b30MAYMAY2020
  25. 25.↵
    Vardavas CI, Nikitara K. COVID-19 and smoking: A systematic review of the evidence Tobacco Induced Diseases 2020; 18: 20
    OpenUrl
  26. 26.↵
    Zeng X, Fan H, Lu D et al. Association between ABO blood groups and clinical outcomes of coronavirus disease 2019: Evidence from two cohorts. MedRxiv 2020; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.15.20063107
  27. 27.↵
    Istituto Superiore di Sanità. Sorveglianza Integrata COVID-19 in Italia: 29 May 2020. Accessed at: https://www.epicentro.iss.it/en/coronavirus/bollettino/Infografica_29maggio%20ENG.pdf
  28. 28.↵
    Wang D, Hu B, Hu C, et al. Clinical characteristics of 138 hospitalized patients with 2019 novel coronavirus infected pneumonia in Wuhan, China. JAMA. 2020; 323: 1061–1069. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2020.1585.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. 29.↵
    Stier A, Marc G, Berman LM, Bettencourt A. COVID-19 attack rate increases with city size. MedRxiv Preprint 2020. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.03.22.20041004
  30. 30.↵
    Rhodes A, Ferdinande P, Flaatten H, Guidet B, Metnitz PG, Moreno RP. The variability of critical care bed numbers in Europe. Intensive Care Med. 2012;38: 1647–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-012-26278 PMID: 22777516.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  31. 31.↵
    Rees et al., COVID-19 length of hospital stay - a systematic review and data synthesis Eleanor M Rees1*† Preprint Research
  32. 32.↵
    Tricco AC, Erin Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, Moher D, Peters MDJ, Horsley T, Weeks L, Hempel S, Akl EA, Chang C, McGowan J, Stewart L, Hartling L, Aldcroft A, Wilson MG, Garritty G, Lewin S, Godfrey CM, Macdonald MT, Langlois EV, Soares-Weiser K, Moriarty J, Clifford T, Tunçalp Ö, Straus SE, 2020. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med 169: 467–473.
    OpenUrl
  33. 33.↵
    HPSC Epi Team. 2020. Daily Epidemiology Reports compiled by the PSC are available at: https://www.hpsc.ie/a-z/respiratory/coronavirus/novelcoronavirus/casesinireland/epidemiologyofcovid-19inireland/
  34. 34.
    Huang C, Wang Y, Li X, et al. Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China. Lancet. 2020; 395: 497–506.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. 35.
    Yang X, Yu Y, Xu J et al. Clinical course and outcomes of critically ill patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia in Wuhan, China: a single-centered, retrospective, observational study. Lancet Respir Med 2020; 8: 475–481. DOI: 10.1016/S2213-2600(20)30079-5
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. 36.
    Xu XW, Wu XX, Jiang XG, et al. Clinical findings in a group of patients infected with the 2019 novel coronavirus (SARS-Cov-2) outside of Wuhan, China: retrospective case series. BMJ. 2020;368: m606
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  37. 37.
    Guan WJ, Ni ZY, Hu Y, et al. China Medical Treatment Expert Group for Covid-19. Clinical characteristics of coronavirus disease 2019 in China. N Engl J Med. 2020; doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2002032
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. 38.
    Zhou F, Yu T, Du R, Fan G, Liu Y, Liu Z, et al. Clinical course and risk factors for mortality of adult inpatients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China: a retrospective cohort study. The Lancet. 2020; 395: 1054–1062. DOI:10.1016/SO140-6736(20)30566-3.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  39. 39.
    Cao B, Wang Y, Wen D, et al. A Trial of Lopinavir-Ritonavir in Adults Hospitalized with Severe Covid-19. NEJM 2020; 382, 1778-1799. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2001282.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. 40.
    Liu L, Gao J-Y, Hu W-m, et al. 2020. Clinical characteristics of 51 patients discharged from hospital with COVID-19 in Chongqing, China. MedRxiv Preprint. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.02.20.20025536
  41. 41.
    Chen J, Qi T, Li L et al. Clinical progression of patients with COVID-19 in Shanghai, China J Inf 2020; 80:e1–e6.
    OpenUrl
  42. 42.
    Zhao W, Yu S, Zha X et al. Clinical characteristics and durations of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 in Beijing: a retrospective cohort study. MedRxiv 2020; https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.13.20035436v2
  43. 43.
    Wang R, Pan M, Xhang X, et al. Epidemiological and clinical features of 125 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in Fuyang, Anhiu, China Int J Inf Dis 2020; 95; 421–428.
    OpenUrl
  44. 44.
    Zhang G, Hu C, Luo L, et al. Clinical features and outcomes of 221 patients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China MedRxiv 2020; Doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.03.02.20030452.
  45. 45.
    Chen T, Wu D, Chen H et al., Clinical characteristics of 113 deceased patients with coronavirus disease 2019-retrospective study BMJ 2020; 368:m1091 doi: 10.1136/bmj.m1091
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  46. 46.
    Yuan et al, The correlation between viral clearance and biochemical outcomes of 94 COVID-19 infected discharged patients. Inflammation Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00011-020-01342-0.
  47. 47.
    Chen X, Zheng F, Qing Y et al. Epidemiological and clinical features of 291 cases with coronavirus disease 2019 in areas adjacent to Hubei, China-a double-center observational study. MedRxIV 2020; https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.03.20030353v1
  48. 48.
    Lu Y, Lv Q, Wu X et al. Progression, recovery and fatality in patients with SARS-CoV-2 related pneumonia in Wuhan, China-a single-centered, retrospective, observational study CHINA. Medrxiv 2020; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.12.20099739
  49. 49.
    Wang Z, Ji JS, Liu Y et al. Survival analysis of hospital length of stay of novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pneumonia patients in Sichuan China. MedRxiv 2020; https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.07.20057299v1
  50. 50.
    Huang M, Li M, Xiao F. et al. Preliminary evidence from a multicentre prospective observational study of the safety and efficacy of chloroquine for the treatment of COVID-19. Medrxiv 2020; https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.26.20081059v1
  51. 51.↵
    Bi Q, Hong C, Meng J et al., Characterizing clinical progression of COVID-19 among patients in Shenzhen, China: an 2 observational cohort study. MedRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.22.20076190
  52. 52.
    Liu X, Zhou H, Zhou Y, et al. Risk Factors Associated with Disease Severity and Length of Hospital Stay in COVID-19 Patients. J Infect 2020; https://di.org/10.1016/j.jinf.2020.04.008
  53. 53.
    Wu J, Huang J, Zhu G et al. Systemic corticosteroids show no benefit in severe and critical COVID-19 patients in Wuhan, China-A retrospective cohort study. MedRxiv 2020; https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.11.20097709v1
  54. 54.
    Yu B, Chenze L, Chen P et al. Low dose of hydroxychloroquine reduces fatality of critically ill patients with COVID-19. Sci China Life Sci 2020; 63 : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11427-020-1732-2.
  55. 55.↵
    Ki M, and the Task Force for 2019-nCoV. Epidemiologic characteristics of early cases with 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) disease in Korea Epi & Health 2020; 42, Article ID: e2020007, https://doi.org/10.4178/epih.e2020007
    OpenUrl
  56. 56.↵
    Lo IL, Lio CF, Cheong HH et al. Evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 RNA shedding in clinical specimens and clinical characteristics of 10 patients with COVID-19 in Macau. Int J Bio Sci 2020; 16, 1698–1707.
    OpenUrl
  57. 57.↵
    Young EB, Xiang SW, Kalimuddin S, et al. Epidemiological features and clinical course of patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 Singapore, JAMA 2020; doi:10.1001/jama.2020.3204
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  58. 58.
    Sami R, Soltaninejad F, Amra B et al., A one-year hospital-based prospective COVID-19 open-cohort in the Eastern Mediterranean region: The Khorshid COVID Cohort (KCC) study. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.11.20096727
  59. 59.
    Davoudi-Monfared E, Rahmani H, Khalili H et al. Efficacy and safety of interferon β-1a in treatment of severe COVID-19-A randomized clinical trial. MedRxiv 2020 ; https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.28.20116467v1
  60. 60.
    Mallat J, Hamed F, Balkis M, et al. Hydroxychloroquine is associated with slower viral clearance in clinical COVID-19 patients with mild to moderate disease: A retrospective study. Medrixiv 2020; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.27.20082180
  61. 61.
    Shabrawishi M, Al-Gethamy MM, Naser AY et al. Clinical, Radiological and Therapeutic Characteristics of Patients with COVID2 19 in Saudi Arabia. MedRxiv Preprint https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.07.20094169
  62. 62.
    Almazeedi S, Al-Youha S, Jamal MH et al. Clinical Characteristics, Risk Factors and Outcomes Among the First Consecutive 1,096 Patients Diagnosed with COVID-19: The Kuwait Experience 2020. Medrxiv preprint. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.09.20096495
  63. 63.↵
    Grasselli G, Zangrillo A, Zanella A, et al. Baseline Characteristics and Outcomes of 1591 Patients Infected With SARS-CoV-2 Admitted to ICUs of the Lombardy Region, Italy JAMA 2020 323:1574–1581. Published online April 6, 2020. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.5394
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  64. 64.
    Giacomelli A, Ridolfo AL, Milazzo L et al., 30-day mortality in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 during the first wave of the Italian epidemic: A prospective cohort study Pharmaolog Res 158 104931.
  65. 65.
    Giacomelli A, Ridolfo AL, Milazzo L et al., 30-day mortality in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 during the first wave of the Italian epidemic: A prospective cohort study Pharmaolog Res 158 104931.
  66. 66.↵
    SARS-CoV-2 Surveillance Group, Istituto Superiore di Sanità. Sorveglianza Integrata Characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 patients dying in Italy Report based on available data on May 28th 2020. Accessed 30MAY2020 https://www.epicentro.iss.it/en/coronavirus/bollettino/Report-COVID-2019_28_may_2020.pdf
  67. 67.↵
    Boddington NL, Charlett A, Elgohan S, et al. UK STUDY COVID-19 in Great Britain-epidemiological and clinical characteristics of the first few hundred (FF100) cases-a descriptive case series and case control analysis.pdf. MedRxiv 2020; https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.18.20086157v1
  68. 68.
    Sapey E, Gallier S, Mainey C, et al. Ethnicity and risk of death in patients hospitalised for COVID-19 infection-an observational cohort study in an urban catchment area MedRxiv 2020; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.05.20092296
  69. 69.
    Docherty AB, Harrison EM, Green CA, et al. Features of 16,749 hospitalised UK patients with COVID-19 using the ISARIC WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol. MedRxiv 2020; https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.23.20076042v1
  70. 70.
    Shah A, Front JN, Aaron L et al., UK Systemic hypoferraemia and severity of hypoxaemic respiratory failure in COVID-19. MedRxiv 2020; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.11.20092114
  71. 71.
    Perez Tanoira R, Perez-Garcai F, Romanyk et al., Prevalence and risk factors for mortality related to COVID-19 in a severely affected area of Madrid, Spain MedRxiv 2020; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.25.20112912
  72. 72.
    Heili Frades S, Minguez P, Fernadez IM, et al., SPAIN COVID-19 Outcomes in 4712 consecutively confirmed SARS-CoV2 cases in the city of Madrid. MedRxiv 2020; https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.22.20109850v2
  73. 73.
    Borobia AM, Carcas AJ, Arnalich F, et al. A cohort of patients with COVID-19 in a major teaching hospital in Europe. Medrxiv 2020; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.29.20080853
  74. 74.
    Casas Rojo J, Santos JMA, Nunez-Cortes JM, et al. Clinical characteristics of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in Spain-results from the SEMICOVID-19 Network. Medrxiv 2020; https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.24.20111971v1
  75. 75.↵
    Ceruti S, Roncador M, Gie O et al. Reduced mortality and shortened ICU stay in SARS-COV-2 patients: a low PEEP strategy. MedRxiv Preprint https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.03.20089318v1
  76. 76.
    Reilev M, Bruun Kristensen K, Pottegard A et al. Characteristics and predictors of hospitalization and death in the first 9,519 cases with a positive RT-PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 in Denmark-A nationwide cohort. MedRxiv 2020; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.24.20111823
  77. 77.
    De Smet R, Mellaerts B, Vandewinckele H et al. Frailty and mortality in hospitalized older adults with COVID-19: retrospective observational study. MedRxiv preprint https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.26.20113480
  78. 78.↵
    Feuth T, Saaresranta T, Karlsson A et al. Is sleep apnoea a risk factor for Covid-19? Findings from a retrospective cohort study. MedRxiv 2020; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.14.20098319.
  79. 79.↵
    Health Protection Surveillance Centre (HPSC). Epidemiology of COVID-19 in Ireland. 1st April 2020. 2020. Accessed at: https://www.hpsc.ie/a-z/respiratory/coronavirus/novelcoronavirus/casesinireland/COVID-19%20Epidemiology%20report%20for%20NPHET%2001.04.2020%20_website.pdfon 05APR2020.
  80. 80.↵
  81. 81.↵
  82. 82.↵
  83. 83.↵
    The COVID-19 Investigation Team, CDC. Clinical and virologic characteristics of the first 12 patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the United States Nature Med Lett 2020; DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-020-0877-5
  84. 84.
    Ebinger JE, Achamallah N, Hongwei J et al. Pre-existing traits associated with Covid-19 illness severity. MedRxiv 2020; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.29.20084533
  85. 85.↵
    CDC COVID-19 Response Team 2020. Severe Outcomes among patients with Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19)-United States, Feb 12 to March 16, 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 69, 343–346.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  86. 86.
    Palaiodimos L, Kokkinidis DG, Li W, et al. Severe obesity is associated with higher in-hospital mortality in a cohort of patients with COVID-19 in the Bronx, New York. MedRxiv 2020; https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.05.20091983v1
  87. 87.
    Fadel R, Morrison AR, Vahia A. Early Short Course Corticosteroids in Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19, Clinical Infectious Diseases, 2020. ciaa601, https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciaa601
  88. 88.
    Rosenberg ES, Dufort EM, Tomoko U et al. Association of Treatment With Hydroxychloroquine or Azithromycin With In-Hospital Mortality in Patients With COVID-19 in New York State JAMA doi:101001/jama.2020.8630.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  89. 89.↵
    Myers LC, Parodi SM, Escobar GJ Liu V. Characteristics of Hospitalized Adults With COVID-19 in an Integrated Health Care System in California. JAMA Res Lett 2020; doi:10.1001/jama.2020.7202
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  90. 90.↵
    Reyes Gil et al. Correlation of coagulation parameters with clinical outcomes in Coronavirus-19 affected minorities in United States: Observational cohort MedRxiv preprint 2020. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.01.20087932
  91. 91.↵
    Cummings MJ, Baldwin MR, Abrams D, et al. Epidemiology, clinical course, and outcomes of critically ill adults with COVID-19 in New York City: a prospective cohort study. MedRxiv 2020; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.15.20067157
  92. 92.↵
    Argenziano MG, Bruce SL, Slater CL, et al. Characterization and clinical course of 1000 patients with COVID-19 in New York: retrospective case series. MedRxiv Preprint 2020. doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.20.20072116
  93. 93.
    Carlucci PM, Ahuja T, Petrilli C et al. Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin plus zinc vs hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin alone: outcomes in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. 2020. Medrxiv Preprint https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.02.20080036
  94. 94.
    Bode, B., Garrett, V., Messler, J., McFarland, R., Crowe, J., Booth, R., & Klonoff, D. C. (2020). Glycemic Characteristics and Clinical Outcomes of COVID-19 Patients Hospitalized in the United States. Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology. 2020; https://doi.org/10.1177/1932296820924469
  95. 95.
    Badawi O, Liu X, Berman I, Amelung PJ, Doerfler M, Chandra S. Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on severity of illness and resources required during intensive care in the greater New York City area. MedRxiv 2020; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.08.20058180.
  96. 96.↵
    Petrilli CM, Jones SA, Yang J, et al. Factors associated with hospital admission and critical illness among 5279 people with coronavirus disease 2019 in New York City-prospective cohort study BMJ 2020;369: m1966.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  97. 97.
    Mercuro NJ, Yen CF, Shim DJ, et al. Risk of QT Interval Prolongation Associated With Use of Hydroxychloroquine With or Without Concomitant Azithromycin Among Hospitalized Patients Testing Positive for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). JAMA Cardiol. Published online May 01, 2020. doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2020.1834
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  98. 98.↵
    Vanderburg, S, Alipanah N, Crowder R et al. Management and Outcomes of Critically-Ill Patients with COVID-19 Pneumonia at a Safety-net Hospital in San Francisco, a Region with Early Public Health Interventions: A Case Series. Medrxiv 2020; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.27.20114090
  99. 99.↵
    Lewnard, JA, Liu VX, Jackson ML, et al. Incidence, clinical outcomes, and transmission dynamics of hospitalized 2019 coronavirus disease among 9,596,321 individuals residing in California and Washington, United States: a prospective cohort study. 2020; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.12.20062943
  100. 100.
    Auld SC, Caridi-Scheible M, Blum JM et al. ICU and ventilator mortality among critically ill adults with COVID-19. 2020. Medrxiv 2020; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.23.20076737
  101. 101.↵
    Shekhar R, Upadhyay S, Sheikh A et al. Early experience with COVID-19 patients at Academic Hospital in Southwestern United States. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.15.20094284
  102. 102.
    Garibaldi BT, Kiksel J, Mushelli J, et al. Patient trajectories and risk factors for severe outcomes among persons hospitalized for COVID-19 in the Maryland/DC region. Medrxiv 2020.
  103. 103.
    Crotty MP, Akins R, Aguyen A, et al. Investigation of subsequent and co-infections associated with SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) in hospitalized patients. MedRxiv Preprint 2020 https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.29.20117176
  104. 104.↵
    Kim L, Garg S, O’Halloran A et al., et al. Interim Analysis of Risk Factors for Severe Outcomes among a Cohort of Hospitalized Adults Identified through the U.S. Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)-Associated Hospitalization Surveillance Network (COVID-NET) MedRxiv preprint. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.18.20103390
  105. 105.
    Ip A, Berry DA, Hansen E. Hydrochloroquine and tocilizumab therapy in COIVD-19 patients – An observational study. MedRxiv preprint 2020 https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.21.20109207
  106. 106.
    Murillo-Zamora E, Hernandez-Suarez C. Survival in adult inpatients with COVID-19. 2020. Medrxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.25.20110684
  107. 107.
    Price DJ, Shearer FM, Meehan MT, et al. Early analysis of the Australian COVID-19 epidemic MedRxiv 2020; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.25.20080127v1
  108. 108.
    Wu MA, Fossali T, Pandolfi L et al. COVID-19: the key role of pulmonary capillary leakage. An observational cohort study. MedRxiv preprint https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.17.20104877
  109. 109.↵
    Bhatraju PK, Ghassemieh BJ, Nickols M, Kim R, Jerome KR, Nalla AK, Greninger AL, Pipavath S, Wurfel MM, Evans L, Kritek PA, West TE, Luk A, Gerbino A, Dale CR, Goldman JD, O’Mahony S, Mikacenic C. 2020. Covid-19 in Critically Ill Patients in the Seattle Region — Case Series. NEJM DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2004500
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  110. 110.↵
    Valente-Acosta B, Hoyo-Ulloa I, Espinosa-Aguilar L, et al. COVID-19 severe pneumonia in Mexico City – First experience in a Mexican hospital MedRxiv 2020; https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.26.20080796v1.full.pdf
  111. 111.
    Wen Y, Wei L, Li Y et al. Epidemiological and clinical characteristics of COVID-19 in Shenzhen, the largest migrant city of China. MedRxiv; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.03.22.20035246
  112. 112.↵
    Jung YJ, Yoon JL, Kim HS et al. Atypical clinical presentation of geriatric syndrome in elderly patients with pneumonia or coronary artery disease. Annals Ger Med Res 2017; 21 158–163.
    OpenUrl
  113. 113.↵
    Malone ML, Hogan TM, Perry A, Biese K, Bonner A, Pagel P, Unroe KT. COVID-19 in older adults - Key points for emergency department providers. J of Geri Emerg Med. 2020;1(4):1–11.
    OpenUrl
  114. 114.
    D’Adamo H, Yoshikawa T, Ouslander JG. Coronavirus Disease 2019 in Geriatrics and Long-Term Care: The ABCDs of COVID-19. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2020;68(5):912–917. doi:10.1111/jgs.16445
    OpenUrlCrossRef
Back to top
Posted June 22, 2020.
Download PDF
Data/Code
Email
Country differences in hospitalisation, length of stay, admission to Intensive Care Units, and mortality due to SARS-CoV-2 infection at the end of the first wave in Europe: a rapid review of available literature
Elizabeth A Lane, Damien J Barrett, Miriam Casey, Conor G. McAloon, Áine B. Collins, Kevin Hunt, Andrew W. Byrne, David McEvoy, Ann Barber, John Griffin, Patrick Wall, Simon J. More
medRxiv 2020.05.12.20099473; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.12.20099473
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools

Subject Area