OBJECTIVE: To describe the demand for critical care hospital admissions in Victoria resulting from the rapid rise in the number of pandemic (H1N1) 2009 influenza cases, and to describe the role of modelling tools to assist with the response to the pandemic. DESIGN AND SETTING: Prospective modelling with the tools FluSurge 2.0 and FluAid 2.0 (developed by the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) over 12 weeks from when the pandemic "Contain" Phase was declared on 22 May 2009, compared with data obtained from daily hospital reports of pandemic (H1N1) 2009 influenza-related admissions and transfers to intensive care units (ICUs). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The effect on hospitals as projected by the FluAid 2.0 model compared with observed hospital admissions and ICU admissions. RESULTS: Prospective use of the FluAid 2.0 model provided valuable health intelligence for assessment and projection of hospitalisation and critical care demand through the first 10 weeks of the pandemic in Victoria. The observed rate of hospital admissions for pandemic (H1N1) 2009 was broadly consistent with a 5% gross clinical attack rate, with 0.3% of infected patients being hospitalised. Transfers to ICUs occurred at a rate of 20% of hospital admissions, and were associated with vulnerable patient groups, and severe respiratory failure in 82% of patients admitted to ICUs. Most patients treated in ICUs (85%) survived after an average ICU length of stay of 9 days (SD, 6.5 days). Mechanical ventilation was required by 72% of patients admitted to ICUs, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) was used for 7%. Pre-existing haematological malignancy accounted for half of all the deaths in patients admitted to ICUs with pandemic (H1N1) 2009 influenza. CONCLUSIONS: Prospective use of modelling tools informed critical decisions in the planning and management of the pandemic. Early estimation of the clinical attack rate, hospitalisation rates, and demand for ICU beds guided implementation of surge capacity. ECMO emerged as an important treatment modality for pandemic (H1N1) 2009 influenza, and will be an important consideration for future pandemic planning.
OBJECTIVE: To describe the demand for critical care hospital admissions in Victoria resulting from the rapid rise in the number of pandemic (H1N1) 2009 influenza cases, and to describe the role of modelling tools to assist with the response to the pandemic. DESIGN AND SETTING: Prospective modelling with the tools FluSurge 2.0 and FluAid 2.0 (developed by the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) over 12 weeks from when the pandemic "Contain" Phase was declared on 22 May 2009, compared with data obtained from daily hospital reports of pandemic (H1N1) 2009 influenza-related admissions and transfers to intensive care units (ICUs). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The effect on hospitals as projected by the FluAid 2.0 model compared with observed hospital admissions and ICU admissions. RESULTS: Prospective use of the FluAid 2.0 model provided valuable health intelligence for assessment and projection of hospitalisation and critical care demand through the first 10 weeks of the pandemic in Victoria. The observed rate of hospital admissions for pandemic (H1N1) 2009 was broadly consistent with a 5% gross clinical attack rate, with 0.3% of infected patients being hospitalised. Transfers to ICUs occurred at a rate of 20% of hospital admissions, and were associated with vulnerable patient groups, and severe respiratory failure in 82% of patients admitted to ICUs. Most patients treated in ICUs (85%) survived after an average ICU length of stay of 9 days (SD, 6.5 days). Mechanical ventilation was required by 72% of patients admitted to ICUs, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) was used for 7%. Pre-existing haematological malignancy accounted for half of all the deaths in patients admitted to ICUs with pandemic (H1N1) 2009 influenza. CONCLUSIONS: Prospective use of modelling tools informed critical decisions in the planning and management of the pandemic. Early estimation of the clinical attack rate, hospitalisation rates, and demand for ICU beds guided implementation of surge capacity. ECMO emerged as an important treatment modality for pandemic (H1N1) 2009 influenza, and will be an important consideration for future pandemic planning.
Authors: Cornelia Adlhoch; Maria Wadl; Michael Behnke; Luis Alberto Peña Diaz; Jörg Clausmeyer; Tim Eckmanns Journal: Influenza Other Respir Viruses Date: 2012-07-13 Impact factor: 4.380
Authors: Paul Smetanin; David Stiff; Anand Kumar; Paul Kobak; Ryan Zarychanski; Neil Simonsen; Frank Plummer Journal: Can J Infect Dis Med Microbiol Date: 2009 Impact factor: 2.471
Authors: Ed DeLaney; Michael J Smith; Brian T Harvey; Keith J Pelletier; Michael P Aquino; Justin M Stone; Gerald C Jean-Baptiste; Julie H Johnson Journal: J Extra Corpor Technol Date: 2010-12
Authors: Famke Aeffner; Anna Bratasz; Emilio Flaño; Kimerly A Powell; Ian C Davis Journal: Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol Date: 2012-06-07 Impact factor: 6.914
Authors: Christianne Joy Lane; Manas Bhatnagar; Karen Lutrick; Ryan C Maves; Debra Weiner; Daisy Rios Olvera; Timothy M Uyeki; J Perren Cobb; Joan C Brown Journal: Crit Care Explor Date: 2022-01-05
Authors: Adrian R Tramontana; Biju George; Aeron C Hurt; Joseph S Doyle; Katherine Langan; Alistair B Reid; Janet M Harper; Karin Thursky; Leon J Worth; Dominic E Dwyer; C Orla Morrissey; Paul D R Johnson; Kirsty L Buising; Simon James Harrison; John F Seymour; Patricia E Ferguson; Bin Wang; Justin T Denholm; Allen C Cheng; Monica Slavin Journal: Emerg Infect Dis Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 6.883
Authors: Andrea Schaffer; David Muscatello; Michelle Cretikos; Robin Gilmour; Sean Tobin; James Ward Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2012-10-12 Impact factor: 3.295