ABSTRACT
Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is an inflammatory process in the lungs that induces non-hydrostatic protein-rich pulmonary edema. ARDS occurs in roughly half of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia patients, with most of them requiring intensive care. Oxygen saturation, partial pressure of the oxygen, and the fraction of the inspired oxygen are health indicators that may indicate a severe illness necessitating further investigation. As treatments have evolved, a typical pattern of ARDS has likewise evolved. In cases where mechanical ventilation is required, the use of low tidal volumes (<6 ml/kg ideal body weight) and airway pressures (plateau pressure <30 cmH2O) was recommended. For patients with moderate/severe ARDS (partial pressure to fractional inspired oxygen ratio <20), prone positioning was recommended for at least 16 hours per day. By contrast, high-frequency oscillation was not recommended. The use of inhaled vasodilators was recommended in patients with persistent hypoxemia despite invasive ventilation and prone position until extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). The use of a conservative fluid management strategy was suggested for all patients. Mechanical ventilation with high positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) was suggested for patients with ARDS with a ratio of arterial oxygen partial pressure to fractional inspired oxygen (PF) ratios. ECMO was suggested as an adjunct to protective mechanical ventilation for patients with severe ARDS. In the absence of adequate evidence, research recommendations were made for corticosteroids and extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal. While decades of research have been conducted, treatment options for underlying pathologies remain limited, and mechanical ventilation, which removes carbon dioxide from the body, remains essential to achieving better clinical outcomes. This review aims to identify the best ARDS treatments that are currently available.
ABSTRACT
The adverse events and complications of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) continue to challenge the medical profession despite the worldwide vaccination against the severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the causative agent of COVID-19. Other than typical respiratory manifestations, COVID-19 also presents a wide range of neurological manifestations. This article underlines the pooled incidence of COVID-19-induced seizures in patients with epilepsy and without epilepsy. Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocols, we conducted a bibliographical search, and an initial search revealed 1,375 articles. In total, 21 articles were included in the final analysis by following the inclusion criteria. A total of 11,526 patients from 21 published articles that met the predetermined search criteria were included. The median age of the patients was 61.9 years, of whom 51.5% were males. A total of 255 patients presented with seizures as the first manifestation of COVID-19 with a prevalence of 2.2% (95% confidence interval = 0.05-0.24, p < 0.01) (I 2 = 97%), of which 71 patients had previously been diagnosed with epilepsy. Among patients with epilepsy, 49 patients had seizures as an initial presentation of SARA-CoV-2 with an incidence of 72% (0.54-0.85, p = 0.1) (I 2 = 34). Although the incidence of COVID-19-induced seizures is not high compared to other neurological manifestations, seizure incidence in epileptic patients with COVID-19 is remarkably high. New-onset seizures in any patient should be considered a presentation of COVID-19 in the absence of other causative factors.
ABSTRACT
Given the immune system's importance for cancer surveillance and treatment, we have investigated how it may be affected by SARS-CoV-2 infection of cancer patients. Across some heterogeneity in tumor type, stage, and treatment, virus-exposed solid cancer patients display a dominant impact of SARS-CoV-2, apparent from the resemblance of their immune signatures to those for COVID-19+ non-cancer patients. This is not the case for hematological malignancies, with virus-exposed patients collectively displaying heterogeneous humoral responses, an exhausted T cell phenotype and a high prevalence of prolonged virus shedding. Furthermore, while recovered solid cancer patients' immunophenotypes resemble those of non-virus-exposed cancer patients, recovered hematological cancer patients display distinct, lingering immunological legacies. Thus, while solid cancer patients, including those with advanced disease, seem no more at risk of SARS-CoV-2-associated immune dysregulation than the general population, hematological cancer patients show complex immunological consequences of SARS-CoV-2 exposure that might usefully inform their care.