Critical illness is associated with multiple undesired impacts, including residual psychological distress, frequently associated with recollections of critical illness. Dignity-related distress is highly prevalent among the one-fifth of critically ill patients who are alert. The distress may be associated with unpleasant recollections of care. We examined whether patients at risk for dignity-related distress had recall of their reported distress approximately 1 week after assessment and whether this recall differed from another high-risk group, specifically patients undergoing dialysis for end-stage renal disease.

The prospective cohort study included patients with critical illness and patients with end-stage renal disease enrolled from intensive care units (ICUs) and dialysis units at 1 academic center. Distress was assessed using the Patient Dignity Inventory (PDI). Participants received in-patient or telephonic follow-up 7–10 days after the initial interaction. Follow-up encounters focused on recollection of key aspects of the interpersonal interaction as well as the content of the PDI.

A total of 32 critically ill patients participated in initial assessment and follow-up. In total, 26 dialysis patients participated in both phases. The groups’ demographics differed. Fifty percent (n = 16) of critically ill patients and 58% (n = 15) of dialysis patients reported a mean score per item of >1.6, corresponding with severe distress on the PDI. Among the ICU patients, the 95% upper 2-sided confidence interval for the median level of recall was commensurate with the participant having had no recall of the initial interview beyond remembering that there was an interview. The end-stage renal disease group did not demonstrate significantly better recall.

Dignity-related distress is high in both critically ill patients and those with end-stage renal disease; however, recollection of assessment is poor in both groups. Any intervention designed to mitigate dignity-related distress will need either to be immediately deployable or not to be reliant upon recollection for impact.

Several meta-analyses have suggested the beneficial effect of vitamin D on patients infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2. This umbrella meta-analysis aims to evaluate influence of vitamin D supplementation on clinical outcomes and the mortality rate of COVID-19 patients.

Present study was designed as an umbrella meta-analysis. The following international databases were systematically searched till March 2023: Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, and Embase.

Random-effects model was employed to perform meta-analysis. Using AMSTAR critical evaluation tools, the methodological quality of the included meta-analyses was evaluated.

Adult patients suffering from COVID-19 were studied.

Overall, 13 meta-analyses summarising data from 4 randomised controlled trial and 9 observational studies were identified in this umbrella review. Our findings revealed that vitamin D supplementation and status significantly reduced mortality of COVID-19 [Interventional studies: (ES = 0·42; 95 % CI: 0·10, 0·75, P < 0·001; I2 = 20·4 %, P = 0·285) and observational studies (ES = 1·99; 95 % CI: 1·37, 2·62, P < 0·001; I2 = 00·0 %, P = 0·944). Also, vitamin D deficiency increased the risk of infection and disease severity among patients.

Overall, vitamin D status is a critical factor influencing the mortality rate, disease severity, admission to intensive care unit and being detached from mechanical ventilation. It is vital to monitor the vitamin D status in all patients with critical conditions including COVID patients.

Severe COVID-19 survivors experience long-term neuropsychiatric morbidity, particularly those who developed delirium, with a negative impact on health-related quality of life (HRQoL).

To identify the cases of delirium in severe COVID-19 patients and to describe its association with post-hospital discharge HRQoL.

In the context of the longitudinal MAPA project, we included adult patients (≥ 18 years old) admitted with COVID-19 to the Intensive Care Medicine Department (ICMD) of a Portuguese University Hospital (October 2020-April 2021). Exclusion criteria were: ICMD length of stay ≤24h, terminal illness, major auditory loss, or inability to communicate at the time of assessment. Delirium during ICMD stay was ascertained based on patients’ clinical records. HRQoL was evaluated using the 5-Level EQ-5D questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L), at a scheduled telephone follow-up appointment on average 1-2 months after hospital discharge.

Overall, 124 patients were included with a median age of 62 (range: 24-86) years, being mostly male (65%). About 19% had delirium, 42% were deeply sedated and 43% required invasive mechanical ventilation. Most survivors reported problems on the EQ-5D-5L domains: usual activities (85%), mobility (73%) and anxiety/depression (65%). Patients with delirium reported more pain/discomfort (75%vs46%; p=0.011) and considerably anxiety/depression (83%vs60%; p=0.032).

These findings pointed that COVID-19 patients who experienced delirium reported worse HRQoL, regarding pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression. This study highlights the importance of not only prevention but also early screening of delirium during hospital stay, as well as the crucial role of the timely interventions at discharge, in order to minimize delirium long-term impacts.

No significant relationships.

Long-term neuropsychiatric consequences of critical illness are well known. Therefore, it is expected that critical COVID-19 patients might also present several psychiatric symptoms such as depression, with inevitable negative effect on health-related quality of life (HRQoL), commonly used as an indicator of illness and treatment impact.

To identify depressive symptoms in critical COVID-19 survivors and to examine its association with HRQoL domains.

This preliminary study involved critical COVID-19 patients admitted into the Intensive Care Medicine Department (ICMD) of a University Hospital, between October and December of 2020. Patients with an ICMD length of stay (LoS)≤24h, terminal illness, major auditory loss, or inability to communicate at the follow-up time were excluded. From 1-2 months after discharge, all participants were evaluated by telephone at follow-up appointment, with Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) (depression) and EuroQol 5-dimension 5-level EQ-5D-5L (HRQoL). This study is part of the longitudinal MAPA project.

Eighty-three patients were included with a median age of 63 years (range: 31-86) and the majority were male (63%). The most reported problems on EQ-5D-5L domains were usual activities (82%) and mobility (76%). About 27% presented depressive symptoms, and with more problems of self-care (68%vs41%; p=0.029), pain/discomfort (86%vs49%; p=0.002), and anxiety/depression (96%vs54%; p<0.001).

These preliminary results are in line in previous studies in critical COVID-19 survivors, with depression being associated with worse HRQoL. Bearing this in mind, follow-up approaches with an early screening and treatment of these psychiatric symptoms will be fundamental to optimize the recovery of these patients.

No significant relationships.

Evidence suggest that critically ill COVID-19 patients are at higher risk of developing anxiety symptoms, which may be related to or exacerbated by patients concerns regarding their health status and recovery.

To assess anxiety symptoms in critically ill COVID-19 survivors, 1-2 months after hospital discharge and to analyze its association with concerns reported by patients regarding their own health status and recovery.

In the framework of MAPA prospective research, this preliminary study included COVID-19 patients admitted in the Intensive Care Medicine Department (ICMD) of a University Hospital. Patients were excluded if they had an ICMD length of stay (LoS) ≤24h, terminal illness, major auditory impairment or inability to communicate at the evaluation time. Participants were assessed at a scheduled telephone follow-up appointment, with Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale (GAD-7). Additional questions were asked to assess the survivors’ post-discharge concerns regarding discrimination against for COVID-19, infection of a family member, re-infection or sequelae related to COVID-19.

Eighty-three patients were included (median age=63 years; 63% male) and 24% had anxiety symptoms. Anxiety scores were higher in survivors who reported being afraid of being discriminated against for COVID-19 (30% vs 10%; p=0.034), being re-infected (100% vs 79%; p=0.032) and having sequelae (94% vs 44%; p<0.001).

These findings revealed that anxiety is common in COVID-19 survivors and is associated with post-discharge patients concerns that may limit patient daily living. This study emphasizes the importance of psychological assessment and follow-up of the COVID-19 survivors, in order to support these patients recovery.

No significant relationships.

Post-extubation dysphagia in critically ill patients is known to affect about 18 per cent of mixed medical-surgical intensive care unit patients. This study investigated the incidence of post-extubation dysphagia in adult intensive care unit patients with coronavirus disease 2019.

This study was a retrospective analysis of consecutive intensive care unit patients prospectively screened for dysphagia. Systematic screening of all extubated intensive care unit patients at our tertiary centre was performed using the Bernese intensive care unit dysphagia algorithm. The primary outcome measure was the incidence of post-extubation dysphagia.

A total of 231 critically ill adult coronavirus disease 2019 positive patients were included, and 81 patients remained in the final analysis after exclusion criteria were applied (e.g. patients transferred). Dysphagia screening positivity was 25 of 81 (30.9 per cent), with 28.2 per cent (22 of 78) having confirmed dysphagia by specialist examination within 24 hours (n = 3 lost to follow up).

In this observational study, it was observed that the incidence of dysphagia in adult critically ill coronavirus disease 2019 patients was about 31 per cent (i.e. increased when compared with a historical pre-pandemic non-coronavirus disease 2019 intensive care unit cohort).

Enteral sildenafil may be used in the intensive care unit for treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension. We aimed to determine if initial enteral sildenafil dosing is safe in children receiving concurrent vasoactive infusions.

We performed a single-centre retrospective chart review that included patients less than 2 years of age in paediatric and cardiovascular intensive care units at an academic medical centre from 1 January, 2010 to 30 November, 2016. Included patients received concomitant enteral sildenafil and a continuously infused vasoactive agent. Exclusion criteria consisted of mechanical circulatory support, any form of dialysis, or a suspicion of septic shock at the time of sildenafil initiation. We sought to identify patients who developed worsening hemodynamic instability after initiation of enteral sildenafil defined as one or more of the following observations within 24 hours of sildenafil initiation: sildenafil discontinuation, total fluid bolus receipt >10 ml/kg, increased vasoactive support, epinephrine intravenous push administration, and/or the initiation of mechanical circulatory support.

Worsening hemodynamic instability was identified in 35% of the 130-patient cohort. Patients younger than 4 months were at increased risk of further hemodynamic instability compared with older patients (56% versus 44%, p = 0.0003) despite receiving lower median doses (1.28 mg/kg/day versus 1.78 mg/kg/day, p = 0.01).

Critically ill children receiving vasoactive infusions may be at increased risk for further hemodynamic instability after initiation of enteral sildenafil, particularly in younger patients. This population may benefit from lower starting enteral sildenafil doses of 0.25 mg/kg/dose or less every 8 hours to avoid further hemodynamic compromise.