Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 7 de 7
Filter
1.
Neurologist ; 26(5): 196-224, 2021 Sep 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1398198

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Central nervous system complications are reported in an increasing number of patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). COVID-19-related Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) is of particular importance given its association with higher mortality rates and prolonged respiratory failure. REVIEW SUMMARY: We conducted a systematic review of published cases for COVID-19-related GBS, and provide a summary of clinical management strategies for these cases. Sixty-three studies, including 86 patients, were included. Seventy-six cases with reported outcome data were eligible for the outcome analysis. Ninety-nine percent of patients were diagnosed with COVID-19 before diagnosis of GBS (median: 14 d prior, interquartile range: 7 to 20). Intravenous immunotherapy (intravenous immunoglobulin: 0.4 g/kg/d for 5 d) was the most frequently used treatment approach. The review indicated that the outcome was not favorable in 26% of cases (persistent neurological deficits). A mortality rate of 3.5% was observed in patients with COVID-19-related GBS. CONCLUSIONS: Although evidence to support specific treatments is lacking, clinicians should consider the benefits of immunotherapy and plasma exchange in addition to the standard antimicrobial and supportive therapies for patients who meet the diagnostic criteria for acute sensory and motor polyradiculoneuritis. Intravenous immunoglobulin treatment alone is not shown to result in improved outcomes or mortality. More extensive studies aimed at exploring the neurological manifestations and complications of COVID-19 and distinctive treatment options for COVID-19-related GBS are warranted.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Drug Treatment , Guillain-Barre Syndrome/drug therapy , Immunoglobulins, Intravenous/therapeutic use , SARS-CoV-2/drug effects , Thyroid Neoplasms/drug therapy , Guillain-Barre Syndrome/diagnosis , Humans , Plasma Exchange/methods , Plasmapheresis/adverse effects , Plasmapheresis/methods
2.
Crit Care Res Pract ; 2021: 6682944, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1247438

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Acute respiratory failure from COVID-19 pneumonia is a major cause of death after SARS-CoV-2 infection. We investigated whether PaO2/FiO2, oxygenation index (OI), SpO2/FiO2, and oxygen saturation index (OSI), commonly used to assess the severity of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), can predict mortality in mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients. METHODS: In this single-centered retrospective pilot study, we enrolled 68 critically ill mechanically ventilated adult patients with confirmed COVID-19. Physiological variables were recorded on the day of intubation (day 0) and postintubation days 3 and 7. The association between physiological parameters, PaO2/FiO2, OI, SpO2/FiO2, and OSI with mortality was assessed using multiple variable logistic regression analysis. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was conducted to evaluate the performance of the predictive models. RESULTS: The ARDS severity indices were not statistically different on the day of intubation, suggesting similar baseline conditions in nonsurviving and surviving patients. However, these indices were significantly worse in the nonsurviving as compared to surviving patients on postintubation days 3 and 7. On intubation day 3, PaO2/FiO2 was 101.0 (61.4) in nonsurviving patients vs. 140.2 (109.6) in surviving patients, p=0.004, and on day 7 106.3 (94.2) vs. 178.0 (69.3), p < 0.001. OI was 135.0 (129.7) in nonsurviving vs. 84.8 (86.1) in surviving patients (p=0.003) on day 3 and 150.0 (118.4) vs. 61.5 (46.7) (p < 0.001) on day 7. OSI was 12.0 (11.7) vs. 8.0 (10.0) (p=0.006) on day 3 and 14.7 (13.2) vs. 6.5 (5.4) (p < 0.001) on day 7. Similarly, SpO2/FiO2 was 130 (90) vs. 210 (90) (p=0.003) on day 3 and 130 (90) vs. 230 (50) (p < 0.001) on day 7, while OSI was 12.0 (11.7) vs. 8.0 (10.0) (p=0.006) on day 3 and 14.7 (13.2) vs. 6.5 (5.4) (p < 0.001) on day 7 in the nonsurviving and surviving patients, respectively. All measures were independently associated with hospital mortality, with significantly greater odds ratios observed on day 7. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for mortality prediction was greatest on intubation day 7 (AUC = 0.775, 0.808, and 0.828 for PaO2/FiO2, OI, SpO2/FiO2, and OSI, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Decline in oxygenation indices after intubation is predictive of mortality in COVID-19 patients. This time window is critical to the outcome of these patients and a possible target for future interventions. Future large-scale studies to confirm the prognostic value of the indices in COVID-19 patients are warranted.

3.
A A Pract ; 14(14): e01371, 2020 Dec 21.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-992617

ABSTRACT

Respiratory failure in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients with prolonged endotracheal intubation may require a tracheostomy and percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube placement to facilitate recovery. Both techniques are considered high-risk aerosol-generating procedures and present a heightened risk of exposure to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) for operating room personnel. We designed, simulated, and implemented a portable, continuous negative pressure, operative field barrier system using standard equipment available in hospitals to enhance health care provider safety during high-risk aerosol-generating procedures.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/transmission , Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal/methods , Gastrostomy/methods , Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures/methods , Tracheostomy/methods , Aerosols , Air Pressure , COVID-19/prevention & control , Enteral Nutrition , Filtration , Humans , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Male , Middle Aged , Operating Rooms , Patient Isolation
4.
BMJ Open Respir Res ; 7(1)2020 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-835494

ABSTRACT

Patients with COVID-19 often need therapeutic interventions that are considered high aerosol-generating procedures. These are either being performed by healthcare providers with potentially inadequate personal protective equipment or the procedures are being delayed until patients clear their viral load. Both scenarios are suboptimal. We present a simple, cost-effective method of creating a portable negative pressure environment using equipment that is found in most hospitals to better protect healthcare providers and to facilitate more timely care for patients with COVID-19.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Occupational Exposure/prevention & control , Operating Rooms/methods , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Surgical Drapes , Aerosols , COVID-19 , Humans , Pressure , SARS-CoV-2 , Suction
5.
Saudi J Anaesth ; 14(3): 378-382, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-591107

ABSTRACT

Necessary procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic include electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). Providing ECT has been considered an essential service during COVID-19 in the Singapore healthcare system, not least to contribute to disease control within a society in part due to the nature of the ECT patient population. There is limited evidence-based scientific information available regarding a procedural framework for ECT during a respiratory pandemic, when much attention in the healthcare system is focused on different areas of clinical care. This article attempts to describe such a framework for ECT procedures acknowledging limited solid scientific evidence at this time and being mindful of future changes to these suggestions as testing, immunization, and treatment options develop. This approach can be adopted in whole or in part to assist practitioners to protect the patient and themselves during the procedure.

6.
Oral Maxillofac Surg Cases ; 6(3): 100160, 2020 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-437502

ABSTRACT

Oral and maxillofacial surgery in patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19, presents a high risk of exposure and cross contamination to the operative room personnel. We designed, simulated and implemented a continue negative pressure operative field barrier to provide an additional layer of protection, using standard equipment readily available in most operative rooms during oral and maxillofacial procedures.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL