Background: Estimating survival and long-term quality of life after intensive care has been a crucial bioethical endeavour in recent decades to improve end-of-life decision-making. Scientific studies have also shown that patient frailty influences survival, but only a few long-term data are available. Methods: We conducted a prospective observational study at the Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care of Semmelweis University, Hungary, to investigate the association between physical status on admission, the chance of survival, and the long-term quality of life of the patient. We recorded the pre-admission frailty score (Clinical Frailty Scale), APACHE II, and SAPS II scores on admission. The first follow-up was 3 months after discharge when the quality of life of the patient was assessed using the EQ5-D questionnaire. During the second follow-up one year later, we recorded the EQ5-D, Mini-Mental Test, and the Beck Depression Inventory scales. Results: Our study demonstrated that the ROC analysis of predicted overall mortality based on CFS score is similar in accuracy to that of predicted mortality by APACHE II and SAPS II point systems. The multivariate logistic regression calculations show that the best performing of the three independent variables is the SAPS II estimator (78.5%), but the estimators of both acute condition scoring systems (APACHE and SAPS) can be improved (79.5% vs. 84%) when taking into account the CFS value. The prevalence of mood and mental disorders among patients who survived one year was not different from that of the general population. Conclusions: The physiological scoring systems examined are all suitable for estimating the risk of overall mortality. The CFS shows similar efficacy and appears to be additive in value, with scales describing the severity of acute illness, which are indicative of the chronic condition of the patient.

Background: Professional knowledge and experience of healthcare organization went through continuous change and development with the progression of COVID-19 pandemic waves. However, carefully developed guidelines for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) remained largely unchanged regardless of the epidemic situation, with the largest change being a more prominent bioethical approach. It would be possible to further improve the quality of CPR by systematic data collection, the facilitation of prospective studies, and further development of the methodology based on this evidence, as well as by providing information and developing provisions on interventions with expected poor outcomes, and ultimately by refusing resuscitation. Methods: This study involved the critical collection and analysis of literary data originating from the Web of Science and PubMed databases concerning bioethical aspects and the efficacy of CPR during the COVID-19 pandemic. Results: According to the current professional recommendation of the European Resuscitation Council (ERC), CPR should be initiated immediately in case of cardiac arrest in the absence of an exclusionary circumstance. One such circumstance is explicit refusal of CPR by a well-informed patient, which in practice takes the form of a prior declaration. ERC prescribes the following conjunctive conditions for do-not-attempt CPR (DNACPR) declarations: present, real, and applicable. It is recommended to take the declaration as a part of complex end-of-life planning, with the corresponding documentation available in an electronic database. The pandemic has brought significant changes in resuscitation practice at both lay and professional levels as well. Incidence of out-of-hospital resuscitation (OHCA) did not differ compared to the previous period, while cardiac deaths in public places almost halved during the epidemic (p < 0.001) as did the use of AEDs (p = 0.037). The number of resuscitations performed by bystanders and by the emergency medical service (EMS) also showed a significant decrease (p = 0.001), and the most important interventions (defibrillation, first adrenaline time) suffered a significant delay. Secondary survival until hospital discharge thus decreased by 50% during the pandemic period. Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic provided a significant impetus to the revision of guidelines. While detailed methodology has changed only slightly compared to the previous procedures, the DNACPR declaration regarding self-determination is mentioned in the context of complex end-of-life planning. The issue of safe environment has come to the fore for both lay and trained resuscitators. Future Directions: Prospective evaluation of standardized methods can further improve the patient’s autonomy and quality of life. Since clinical data are controversial, further prospective controlled studies are needed to evaluate the real hazards of aerosol-generating procedures.