Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Severe COVID-19: How are these patients today Cover

Full Article

Introduction

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic infected over 700 million people, causing >6 million deaths worldwide (1).

COVID-19, caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, is a multiorgan disease, mostly affects the respiratory system. Viral pneumonia and respiratory failure are the leading causes of hospitalisation (2), with a high admission rate to both hospital wards (20%) and Intensive Care Units (ICUs) (6%) (3).

The natural history of COVID-19, as well as its long-term sequelae that are estimated to occur in about 10% of infected individuals (4), are not fully understood (5). The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network, and the Royal College of General Practitioners proposed a definition for long COVID syndrome as ‘signs and symptoms that develop during or after an infection consistent with COVID-19 and persist for >12 weeks and are not explained by an alternative diagnosis’ (6). Common symptoms are dyspnoea (7), fatigue, anxiety, depression, and sleep problems, which can significantly impair health-related quality of life (8). To identify these patients, the British Thoracic Society has suggested algorithms for assessing survivors of COVID-19 in the first 3 months after hospital discharge based on the severity of acute COVID-19 (9). The European Respiratory Society (ERS) Task Force has also concurred with the recommendation (2). Pulmonary fibrosis (PF), persistent ground-glass opacities (GGOs), reduced carbon monoxide diffusion capacity, restrictive ventilatory impairment, and fatigue 1–8 months after infection are predictors of the long-term consequences of COVID-19 (2). Patients with SARS-CoV-2 may experience a range of clinical presentations, from asymptomatic infection to critical illness (10).

The aim of this study is to evaluate patients who had severe COVID-19 requiring admission to ICU in three different periods after infection: up to 6 months, between 7 months and 12 months, and after 12 months.

According to COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines, severe illness corresponds to ‘individuals who have peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2) <94% on room air at sea level, a ratio of arterial partial pressure of oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO2/FiO2) <300 mmHg, a respiratory rate >30 breaths/min, or lung infiltrates >50%’; critical illness relates to ‘individuals who have respiratory failure, septic shock, and/or multiple organ dysfunction’ (10).

Materials and methods

This is a retrospective, observational, and descriptive study including patients with severe SARS-CoV-2 infection admitted to ICU 1 at Unidade Local de Saúde de Lisboa Ocidental from January to September 2021. Patients with respiratory symptoms or functional limitations (≥1 point on the modified Medical Research Council Dyspnoea Scale (11) or ≥2 points on the Post-COVID Functional Status Scale (12)) 3 months post-discharge were included.

Symptoms were assessed at two points: 4 months post-discharge and three to 6 months after the first evaluation. Functional and imaging assessments were performed up to 6 months, between 7–12 months and beyond 12 months post-discharge.

Respiratory function was assessed through spirometry, plethysmography, diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide (DLCO) by single breath, and assessment of muscle strength through maximal respiratory pressures. Patients were classified according to ERS/American Thoracic Society (ATS) 2005 and ACCP 2000–2002 criteria, as having restrictive ventilatory impairment (forced vital capacity [FVC] <80% of predicted and total lung capacity [TLC] <80% of predicted) or obstructive impairment (forced expiratory volume in 1 s [FEV1/FVC] <lower limit of normal), reduced DLCO (<80% of predicted), and decreased maximal respiratory pressures (maximal inspiratory pressure [MIP] and maximal expiratory pressure [MEP] <60% of predicted). Acceptability criteria followed ERS/ATS 2005 guidelines.

Imaging changes were also assessed using chest computed tomography (CT). Patients were categorised as having inflammatory changes (GGOs) and fibrotic changes (PF manifested through traction bronchiectasis or honeycomb pattern and residual lung fibrosis with fibrotic cicatricial changes), organising pneumonia (OP), or coexisting inflammatory and fibrotic changes.

Data were collected from clinical records, chest CT reports, and respiratory functional studies. Descriptive analysis of all variables was performed. Categorical variables are presented as frequencies (absolute count and percentage); continuous variables are presented as mean and standard deviation (SD) or median and interquartile range, depending on the empirical distribution of the variables. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to analyse the normality of the distribution of each continuous variable.

This study was approved by the Unidade Local de Saúde de Lisboa Ocidental Ethics Committee.

Results

This study included 34 patients, with 50.0% (n = 17) being female and 50.0% (n = 17) male, with a mean age of 66.6 ± 9.9 years (range 40–84 years). Regarding smoking habits, 58.8% (n = 20) of patients had no prior smoking habits, and 41.2% (n = 14) of patients were former smokers with an average smoking history of 32.0 ± 19.8 pack-years. Thirty patients had at least one comorbidity, with the most frequent being: arterial hypertension (n = 22; 64.7%), obesity (n = 14; 41.2%), dyslipidaemia (n = 13; 38.2%), type 2 diabetes mellitus (n = 11; 32.4%), and depression (n = 5; 14.7%). Regarding respiratory pathology, 14.7% (n = 5) of patients had obstructive sleep apnoea, 8.8% (n = 3) had asthma, and 2.9% (n = 1) had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

During ICU stay, most patients (n = 26; 76.5%) required invasive mechanical ventilation with a median duration of 8 days (6–11), range 2–93 days; eight patients (23.5%) required only non-invasive ventilation with a mean duration of 4.8 ± 1.6 days (range 2–6 days). The median length of stay in the ICU was 9 days (6–12), range 4–93 days.

All ICU patients with Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection received systemic corticosteroids treatment according to ICU’s protocol. Patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) received 1 mg/kg/day of methylprednisolone, and the other patients received dexamethasone 6 mg once daily up to 10 days plus standard of care.

Post-discharge, only four patients (11.8%) still had respiratory insufficiency requiring oxygen therapy, which was discontinued 3 months later, at a post-discharge assessment conducted by the Intensive Care Team. None of the patients required long-term oxygen therapy.

These patients were assessed in their first pulmonology appointment with a median time of 4 months ((4, 5), range 2–11 months) after discharge.

Symptoms

In the initial assessment, the main symptoms reported by patients were dyspnoea (n = 34; 100.0%), non-productive cough (n = 12; 35.3%), and asthenia/fatigue (n = 7; 20.6%). Regarding dyspnoea, most patients had Modified Medical Research Council Dyspnea Scale (mMRC) 1 (n = 17; 50.0%), followed by mMRC 2 (n = 9; 26.5%) and mMRC 3 (n = 8; 23.5%).

In the subsequent consultation 3–6 months after the first visit, the main symptoms identified were dyspnoea (n = 17; 51.5%), non-productive cough (n = 6; 18.2%), and asthenia/fatigue (n = 3; 9.1%). Notably, 36.4% (n = 12) of patients were asymptomatic. One patient discontinued follow-up. Regarding dyspnoea, most patients had mMRC 0 (n = 16; 48.5%), followed by mMRC 1 (n = 12; 36.4%) and mMRC 2 (n = 5; 15.2%), with no patients having mMRC 3.

Respiratory functional assessment
Up to 6 months

A total of 24 patients underwent pulmonary function tests (PFTs) during this period, with a median time of 5 months (4, 5), range 1–6 months (Table 1). The respiratory tests of two patients were not acceptable, so they were excluded.

Table 1.

Respiratory functional evaluation.

Up to 6 months post-discharge7-12 months post-discharge>12 months post-discharge
PatientAge (years)SexMonthsFVC (%)FEV1 (%)FEV1/FVC (%)TLC (%)DLCO (%)DLCO/VA (%)PIM (%)PEM (%)MonthsFVC (%)FEV1 (%)FEV1/FVC (%)TLC (%)DLCO (%)DLCO/VA (%)PIM (%)PEM (%)MonthsFVC (%)FEV1 (%)FEV1/FVC (%)TLC (%)DLCO (%)DLCO/VA (%)PIM (%)PEM (%)
156M49310085.98091116144110xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxX
268M49510383.6581728658501210311686.99x941067162xxxxxxxXx
370F4899488.3780608160941210411188.84x6489122184xxxxxxxxx
467F5No acceptability criteria12939079.84xxx6054xxxxxxxxx
555M210311890.27908292107741112112581.57x7679xxxxxxxxxxx
675FxxxxxxxxX710111083.3477791066258xxxxxxxxx
772Mxxxxxxxxx12838779.26x981396058xxxxxxxxX
872F510510884.4189688312670xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
966F510710480.6785688810578xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
1063M411511678.958975837967xxxxxxxxX229910380.35x6887xx
1172F513813879.541129287122110xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
1281F510711979.9782678812098xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
1362Mxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx1611010775.56x9510310370
1469F510410380.87814966164141xxxxxxxxx1310310482.12x6482xx
1577F210010080907085xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
1663F3919889.9285607511390xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
1772F512111679.771079190106155xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
1877M49610179.29555697166xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
1968M510110882.188548609268xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
2067M5787372.756947729078xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
2167M610710576.2389861026041xxxxxxxxx1811511879.9xxxxx
2266Mxxxxxxxxx119010086.3x8311910685xxxxxxxxx
2370Mxxxxxxxxx911311578.18x8688xxxxxxxxxxx
2462F511110881.8x8694162157xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
2552F312011581.9710678844548xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
2675M510611279.7180628210355xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
2767M111310974.96x7979xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
2871Mxxxxxxxxx89811488.42675180120101xxxxxxxxx
2970F6808073.9181669812086xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
3077F4No acceptability criteriaxxxxxxxxx18809493.29xxxxx

DLCO, diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide; DLCO/VA, carbon monoxide diffusion capacity adjusted to alveolar volume; F, female; FEV1, forced expiratory volume in 1 s¡ FVC, forced vital capacity; M, male; PEM, maximum expiratory pressure; PIM, maximum inspiratory pressure; TLC, total lung capacity; x, evaluation not performed. The values presented are in%.

The values in bold in Table 1 indicate results that are below the reference values.

Of the remaining 22 patients, the following mean values were obtained: FVC (103.6 ± 13.7%), FEV1(105.8 ± 13.4%), FEV1/FVC ratio (81.1 ± 4.7%), and TLC (87.8 ± 10.5%). From the analysis of these data, it was found that one patient (4.6%) had restrictive ventilatory impairment (TLC 69.0%). Obstructive ventilatory impairment was not identified.

Regarding diffusing capacity of the included patients, the DLCO mean value was 70.6 ± 14.1%, and diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide divided by alveolar volume – the DLCO/VA mean value was 84.6 ± 12.3%. Of these patients, nine (40.9%) showed a decrease in DLCO but a normal DLCO/VA (mean 67.6 ± 4.6% and 86.0 ± 5.2%, respectively). Six patients (27.3%) had a decrease in both DLCO and DLCO/VA (mean 56.3 ± 12.2% and 70.2 ± 6.7%, respectively).

Considering maximal respiratory pressures, only 20 patients underwent this test, with a MIP mean value of 102.4 ± 33.6% and a MEP mean value of 86.8 ± 33.7%. Of these patients, two patients (10.0%) showed a decrease in both MIP and MEP (mean 51.5% and 49.0%, respectively), and two patients (10.0%) showed only a decrease in MEP (48.0%).

7–12 months

In this period, nine patients underwent pulmonary function assessment, with a mean time of 10.4 ± 1.9 months (Table 1). Of these patients, the following mean values were obtained: FVC (100.7 ± 11.6%), FEV1(107.6 ± 12.6%), and FEV1/FVC ratio (83.6 ± 4.1%). Among them, only two patients underwent plethysmography, and both of them showed restrictive ventilatory impairment (mean TLC 72.0%). No patient had obstructive ventilatory impairment.

Regarding diffusing capacity, only eight patients were tested, with a DLCO mean value of 78.9 ± 15.4% and DLCO/VA of 100.8 ± 20.9%. Of these, two patients (25.0%) had a decrease in DLCO with normal DLCO/VA (mean 57.5% and 84.5%, respectively), and one patient (12.5%) had a decrease in both DLCO and DLCO/VA (76.0% and 79.0%, respectively).

Only seven patients underwent measurement of MIP (85.9 ± 28.9%) and MEP (86.0 ± 46.5%). Two patients (28.6%) had a decrease in MEP (mean 56.0%).

After 12 months

Five patients underwent pulmonary function assessment, with an average time of 17.4 ± 3.3 months (Table 1).

Within these patients, the following mean values were acquired: FVC (101.4 ± 13.5%), FEV1(105.2 ± 8.6%), and FEV1/FVC ratio (82.2 ± 6.6%). None of them underwent plethysmography, so it is impossible to assess the presence of restrictive ventilatory impairment. No obstructive ventilatory impairment was found.

Three patients underwent diffusion tests (mean DLCO 75.7% and DLCO/VA 90.7%), and two patients (66.7%) had a decrease in DLCO with normal DLCO/VA (mean 66.0% and 84.5%, respectively).

Only one patient underwent MIP and MEP measurement, and no alterations were observed.

Of the 22 initial patients, only six patients underwent two respiratory functional assessments due to reasons such as normal initial evaluation, subtle changes, or missed appointments, among others. Of these, five patients had function impairments in the first assessment: two with decreased DLCO; one with decreased DLCO and DLCO/VA; one with decreased DLCO, MIP, and MEP; and one with decreased MEP. Upon reassessment, 40.0% of patients (n = 2) improved: one with improvement in DLCO/VA and one in DLCO, MIP, and MEP. Patient with reduced MEP did not have MEP measured in the second assessment.

Imaging evaluation
Up to 6 months

During this period, 25 patients underwent chest CT scans, with an average time of 4.2 ± 1.2 months. The following changes were identified: GGOs (n = 12; 48.0%), OP (n = 3; 12.0%), PF (n = 3; 12.0% – evident fibrosis n = 2, 8.0% and residual fibrosis n = 1, 4.0%), and GGOs with fibrosis (n = 3; 12.0%). Five patients (20.0%) showed no abnormalities. Incidentally, a 16 mm nodule was identified in one of the exams, which was confirmed to be a primary lung adenocarcinoma. The patient was referred to an oncology pulmonology consultation.

7–12 months

Twenty patients underwent chest CT evaluation, with an average time of 9.5 ± 2.2 months. The following changes were recognised: GGOs (n = 7; 35.0%), PF (n = 7; 35.0% – evident fibrosis n = 2, 10.0% and residual fibrosis n = 5, 25.0%), and GGOs with PF (n = 2; 10.0%). Four patients (20.0%) showed no abnormalities.

13–18 months

Seven patients underwent imaging evaluation, with an average time of 15.6 ± 2.2 months. The following changes were identified: GGOs (n = 1; 14.3%), OP (n = 1; 14.3%), PF (n = 1; 14.3% – evident fibrosis), and GGOs with fibrosis (n = 1; 14.3%). Three patients (42.9%) showed no abnormalities.

After 18 months

Twelve patients underwent chest CT scans, with an average time of 22.8 ± 1.9 months. The following changes were recognised: PF (n = 5; 41.7% – evident fibrosis n = 1, 8.3% and residual fibrosis n = 4, 33.3%), GGOs (n = 4; 33.3%), and GGOs with fibrosis (n = 1; 8.3%). Two patients (16.7%) showed no abnormalities.

In this study, 22 patients underwent two or more pulmonary imaging evaluations. Table 2 presents the main imaging findings of each patient at the different assessment times. From data analysis, 54.6% (n = 12) of the patients remained stable and 45.5% (n = 10) had a progressive imaging improvement over the evaluations. Of these 10 patients, 6 (60.0%) patients had residual fibrosis, 2 (20.0%) improvement in inflammatory changes, and 2 (20.0%) complete resolution of initial findings. 32 patients were submitted at least to one chest CT scan (2– 26 months). Analysing latest CT scans, 11 patients (34.4%) presented inflammatory changes, 8 (25.0%) fibrotic changes, and 4 (12.5%) had both. CT scan was normal in 9 patients (28.1%).

Table 2.

Imaging evaluation.

Up to 6 months post-discharge7–12 months post-discharge13–18 months post-discharge>18 months post-discharge
PatientAge (years)SexMonthsFindingsMonthsFindingsMonthsFindingsMonthsFindings
156M4OPxxxx21PFr
268M4OP10GGO + PFrxx22GGO + PFr
370F3GGO12GGO subtlexx24GGO subtle
467F5PFr12PFrxxxx
555M2GGO8GGOxx24GGO
675F4GGO + PFxxxxxx
772M5GGO + OP12Nxx24N
872F5GGO12PFrxx23PFr
966F5Nxxxxxx
1063M3PF11PFxx24PFr
1172F6GGOxxxxxx
1281F6GGO + PFr12PFrxxxx
1362Mxx7PF18GGO + PFxx
1469F3GGO10GGOxxxx
1577F2GGO7GGOxx20GGO subtle
1663F3GGOxxxxxx
1772F5N11Nxx24N
1877M5GGOxxxxxx
1968M5PF; 16 mm nodule in the RUL – primary lung adenocarcinomaxx13PF26PF
2067M3GGOxxxx20GGO
2166M6Nxxxxxx
2270Mxx7GGO18Nxx
2362F4Nxx15Nxx
2452F3GGO7GGOxxxx
2575M6GGO + PF9PFrxxxx
2667Mxx7GGO + PFrxxxx
2771Mxx9PFr17OP22PFr
2870Fxx7GGOxxxx
2946Mxx7N15Nxx
3046Fxx12Nxxxx
3140M4Nxxxxxx
3277F5GGOxx13GGOxx

GGO, ground-glass opacity; N, normal; OP, organising pneumonia; PF, pulmonary fibrosis; PFr, pulmonary fibrosis residual; RUL, right upper lobe; x, evaluation not performed.

Discussion

The main purpose of this study was to evaluate patients with severe SARS-CoV-2 infection, who had been admitted to ICU, for a follow-up period up to 18 months post-discharge. Our study show that persistent symptoms and physiologic and radiologic abnormalities are common at 3-month follow-up. Dyspnoea was the primary symptom reported by patients after SARS-CoV-2 infection, followed by dry cough and asthenia/fatigue. There was a progressive improvement in this symptomatology in the second assessment. In line with our results, dyspnoea was the most frequent respiratory symptom 1–4 months after infection in some reports (13, 14); however, these studies assessed patients with different severity levels of COVID. In a study involving patients with ICU admission, dyspnoea was also the most frequently reported symptom (15). Previously, significant improvements in dyspnoea were also observed in assessments conducted between 6 months and 1 year after SARS-CoV-2 infection in ICU-admitted patients (16, 17).

Regarding the main respiratory functional changes between 3 months and 12 months post-COVID infection, some studies showed a persistently decrease in DLCO, as well as a restrictive ventilatory impairment and obstructive ventilatory impairment (16, 18). In a 6-month evaluation study, in addition to the reduction in DLCO, a decrease in MIP was one of the most frequent alterations (19).

In our evaluation up to the first 6 months post-discharge, the main lung function abnormalities observed were a decrease in DLCO, followed by a decrease in MIP and MEP, and restrictive ventilatory impairment. A decrease in MIP was present in 10.0% of our patients. Longitudinal analysis between 7 months and 12 months after SARS-Cov-2 infection also showed us that the main alterations were a decrease in DLCO, restrictive ventilatory impairment, and a decrease in MEP. After 12 months post-discharge, the only lung function impairment that persisted was a decrease in DLCO. Our results are in line with other study of Wu and colleagues that showed that approximately one-third of COVID-19 patients had persistently impaired DLCO at 12 months after COVID-19 (20). Among patients who underwent two respiratory functional assessments, five (83.3%) had some impairment in their function, with improvement observed in 50.0% (n = 3) of the patients. The literature also demonstrated a gradual improvement in respiratory function in critically ill COVID patients throughout the period from discharge to 6 months (21) and 12 months (22).

In terms of average values of respiratory function tests, severe abnormalities were not observed, being a decrease in DLCO the most pronounced impairment. These are in line with findings in the literature, as demonstrated in a study of 18 patients who survived COVID-19 and required mechanical ventilation, where lung function tests at 6 months postdischarge did not show significant limitations (FVC: 92 ± 16%; FEV1: 92 ± 20%; and DLCO/VA: 81 ± 16%) (23).

We evaluated MIP and MEP as indicators of inspiratory and expiratory muscle strength, respectively (24), useful for assessing muscle function in lower respiratory tract infections (25), including severe SARS-CoV-2 infection, which can cause lung damage leading to limitations in respiratory muscle strength (26). MIP and MEP can be influenced by ICU-related myopathy and corticosteroid-induced myopathy (27). Over half of the patients in this study required invasive mechanical ventilation, likely contributing to observed abnormalities and complicating interpretation. The prevalence of respiratory muscle weakness post-SARS-CoV-2 remains unclear, as these assessments are rarely reported. Small studies suggest that inspiratory muscle training offers physiological benefits during recovery (28).

Regarding pulmonary radiological abnormalities, up to the first 6 months after SARS-CoV-2 infection, the main radiological findings were GGOs, OP, fibrosis, and ground-glass opacities with fibrosis (GGO-F). Between 7 months and 12 months, the more frequent CT pattern findings were GGO, fibrosis, or both simultaneously. After 12 months, the CT findings observed were the same: GGO, PF, or both. Over time, there was a decrease in GGOs (consistent with inflammatory changes) and persistence of fibrotic changes. Two patients initially described as having marked PF transitioned to residual fibrosis in the re-evaluation. This chest CT longitudinal evaluation reveals persistent abnormality in the lung interstitium and may suggest an explanation for the observed reduction of the diffusion capacity of the lung physiologically. Several studies assessing patients after hospitalisation for COVID-19 show that fibrotic sequelae were present four to 12 months post-discharge in 20 to 33.3% of patients (29, 30). In this study, fibrotic changes were present in 37.5% of patients 4–26 months after infection. Therefore, it is evident that fibrosis occurs in a significant proportion of individuals who had COVID-19 pneumonia. Some authors also found that abnormalities present in chest CT eventually decrease over time (17, 30). Our results support this, since in 45.5% of the patients, there was an improvement of CT abnormalities after 12 months of follow-up. Thus, in some patients, these sequelae may represent a regressive interstitial syndrome (2) and not a diffuse progressive interstitial lung disease. However, more long-term studies are needed to evaluate these patients.

A main limitation of our study was the small sample size, preventing us from correlating PFT changes with radiological abnormalities. However, according to the literature, respiratory functional impairment after COVID-19 pneumonia is associated with persistent pulmonary radiological abnormalities (13, 18, 20).

Another limitation is the study’s retrospective nature, which hindered the collection of certain variables within specific time frames, complicating analysis. Additionally, the evaluation of CT scans by different radiologists and machines introduced subjectivity and potential bias.

Conclusions

Our study shows that patients with severe COVID-19 requiring ICU admission can fully recover. However, some patients may experience persistent symptoms, commonly referred to as long COVID, which can last beyond 12 months after hospitalisation. This persistent symptomatology with respiratory functional changes (particularly a reduction in DLCO) and imaging findings (most frequently residual PF) tends to improve over time.

Nevertheless, further studies are required to assess the long-term consequences of this disease in patients requiring ICU admission.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/pneum-2025-0002 | Journal eISSN: 2247-059X | Journal ISSN: 2067-2993
Language: English
Page range: 8 - 16
Published on: Apr 16, 2025
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: Volume open

© 2025 Sara Andreia Góis Morgado, Margarida V. Matias, Eva Brysch, Ana A. Santos, João Sousa Torres, Marta Rebelo, Eduarda Carmo, Fernando Nogueira, published by Romanian Society of Pneumology
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.