Annals of Intensive Care (Apr 2024)

Association of socioeconomic deprivation with outcomes in critically ill adult patients: an observational prospective multicenter cohort study

  • Morgan Benaïs,
  • Matthieu Duprey,
  • Laura Federici,
  • Michel Arnaout,
  • Pierre Mora,
  • Marc Amouretti,
  • Irma Bourgeon-Ghittori,
  • Stéphane Gaudry,
  • Pierre Garçon,
  • Danielle Reuter,
  • Guillaume Geri,
  • Bruno Megarbane,
  • Jordane Lebut,
  • Armand Mekontso-Dessap,
  • Jean-Damien Ricard,
  • Daniel da Silva,
  • Etienne de Montmollin

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13613-024-01279-1
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 14, no. 1
pp. 1 – 11

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Background The influence of socioeconomic deprivation on health inequalities is established, but its effect on critically ill patients remains unclear, due to inconsistent definitions in previous studies. Methods Prospective multicenter cohort study conducted from March to June 2018 in eight ICUs in the Greater Paris area. All admitted patients aged ≥ 18 years were enrolled. Socioeconomic phenotypes were identified using hierarchical clustering, based on education, health insurance, income, and housing. Association of phenotypes with 180-day mortality was assessed using Cox proportional hazards models. Results A total of 1,748 patients were included. Median age was 62.9 [47.4–74.5] years, 654 (37.4%) patients were female, and median SOFA score was 3 [1–6]. Study population was clustered in five phenotypes with increasing socioeconomic deprivation. Patients from phenotype A (n = 958/1,748, 54.8%) were without socioeconomic deprivation, patients from phenotype B (n = 273/1,748, 15.6%) had only lower education levels, phenotype C patients (n = 117/1,748, 6.7%) had a cumulative burden of 1[1–2] deprivations and all had housing deprivation, phenotype D patients had 2 [1–2] deprivations, all of them with income deprivation, and phenotype E patients (n = 93/1,748, 5.3%) included patients with 3 [2–4] deprivations and included all patients with health insurance deprivation. Patients from phenotypes D and E were younger, had fewer comorbidities, more alcohol and opiate use, and were more frequently admitted due to self-harm diagnoses. Patients from phenotype C (predominant housing deprivation), were more frequently admitted with diagnoses related to chronic respiratory diseases and received more non-invasive positive pressure ventilation. Following adjustment for age, sex, alcohol and opiate use, socioeconomic phenotypes were not associated with increased 180-day mortality: phenotype A (reference); phenotype B (hazard ratio [HR], 0.85; 95% confidence interval CI 0.65–1.12); phenotype C (HR, 0.56; 95% CI 0.34–0.93); phenotype D (HR, 1.09; 95% CI 0.78–1.51); phenotype E (HR, 1.20; 95% CI 0.73–1.96). Conclusions In a universal health care system, the most deprived socioeconomic phenotypes were not associated with increased 180-day mortality. The most disadvantaged populations exhibit distinct characteristics and medical conditions that may be addressed through targeted public health interventions.

Keywords