Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
1.
Front Cardiovasc Med ; 8: 710946, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1399130

ABSTRACT

Objectives: To evaluate the impact of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) on the inflammatory response and viral clearance in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. Methods: We included 229 patients with confirmed COVID-19 in a multicenter, retrospective cohort study. Propensity score matching at a ratio of 1:3 was introduced to eliminate potential confounders. Patients were assigned to the ACEI/ARB group (n = 38) or control group (n = 114) according to whether they were current users of medication. Results: Compared to the control group, patients in the ACEI/ARB group had lower levels of plasma IL-1ß [(6.20 ± 0.38) vs. (9.30 ± 0.31) pg/ml, P = 0.020], IL-6 [(31.86 ± 4.07) vs. (48.47 ± 3.11) pg/ml, P = 0.041], IL-8 [(34.66 ± 1.90) vs. (47.93 ± 1.21) pg/ml, P = 0.027], and TNF-α [(6.11 ± 0.88) vs. (12.73 ± 0.26) pg/ml, P < 0.01]. Current users of ACEIs/ARBs seemed to have a higher rate of vasoconstrictive agents (20 vs. 6%, P < 0.01) than the control group. Decreased lymphocyte counts [(0.76 ± 0.31) vs. (1.01 ± 0.45)*109/L, P = 0.027] and elevated plasma levels of IL-10 [(9.91 ± 0.42) vs. (5.26 ± 0.21) pg/ml, P = 0.012] were also important discoveries in the ACEI/ARB group. Patients in the ACEI/ARB group had a prolonged duration of viral shedding [(24 ± 5) vs. (18 ± 5) days, P = 0.034] and increased length of hospitalization [(24 ± 11) vs. (15 ± 7) days, P < 0.01]. These trends were similar in patients with hypertension. Conclusions: Our findings did not provide evidence for a significant association between ACEI/ARB treatment and COVID-19 mortality. ACEIs/ARBs might decrease proinflammatory cytokines, but antiviral treatment should be enforced, and hemodynamics should be monitored closely. Since the limited influence on the ACEI/ARB treatment, they should not be withdrawn if there was no formal contraindication.

2.
Crit Care Med ; 48(11): e1079-e1086, 2020 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-725837

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: An ongoing outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 is spreading globally. Acute hypoxemic respiratory failure is the most common complication of coronavirus disease 2019. However, the clinical effectiveness of early high-flow nasal oxygen treatment in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure has not been explored. This study aimed to analyze the effectiveness of high-flow nasal oxygen treatment and to identify the variables predicting high-flow nasal oxygen treatment failure in coronavirus disease 2019 patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. DESIGN: A multicenter, retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Three tertiary hospitals in Wuhan, China. PATIENTS: Forty-three confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 adult patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure treated with high-flow nasal oxygen. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Mean age of the enrolled patients was 63.0 ± 9.7 years; female patients accounted for 41.9%. High-flow nasal oxygen failure (defined as upgrading respiratory support to positive pressure ventilation or death) was observed in 20 patients (46.5%), of which 13 (30.2%) required endotracheal intubation. Patients with high-flow nasal oxygen success had a higher median oxygen saturation (96.0% vs 93.0%; p < 0.001) at admission than those with high-flow nasal oxygen failure. High-flow nasal oxygen failure was more likely in patients who were older (p = 0.030) and male (p = 0.037), had a significant increase in respiratory rate and a significant decrease in the ratio of oxygen saturation/FIO2 to respiratory rate index within 3 days of high-flow nasal oxygen treatment. In a multivariate logistic regression analysis model, male and lower oxygen saturation at admission remained independent predictors of high-flow nasal oxygen failure. The hospital mortality rate of the cohort was 32.5%; however, the hospital mortality rate in patients with high-flow nasal oxygen failure was 65%. CONCLUSIONS: High-flow nasal oxygen may be effective for treating coronavirus disease 2019 patients with mild to moderate acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. However, high-flow nasal oxygen failure was associated with a poor prognosis. Male and lower oxygenation at admission were the two strong predictors of high-flow nasal oxygen failure.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Hypoxia/therapy , Intubation, Intratracheal/methods , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Adult , Aged , COVID-19 , Cohort Studies , Coronavirus Infections/complications , Female , Humans , Hypoxia/etiology , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/complications , Positive-Pressure Respiration , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
3.
Respir Res ; 21(1): 157, 2020 Jun 22.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-610251

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Several previously healthy young adults have developed Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), and a few of them progressed to the severe stage. However, the factors are not yet determined. METHOD: We retrospectively analyzed 123 previously healthy young adults diagnosed with COVID-19 from January to March 2020 in a tertiary hospital in Wuhan. Patients were classified as having mild or severe COVID-19 based on their respiratory rate, SpO2, and PaO2/FiO2 levels. Patients' symptoms, computer tomography (CT) images, preadmission drugs received, and the serum biochemical examination on admission were compared between the mild and severe groups. Significant variables were enrolled into logistic regression model to predict the factors affecting disease severity. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was applied to validate the predictive value of predictors. RESULT: Age; temperature; anorexia; and white blood cell count, neutrophil percentage, platelet count, lymphocyte count, C-reactive protein, aspartate transaminase, creatine kinase, albumin, and fibrinogen values were significantly different between patients with mild and severe COVID-19 (P < 0.05). Logistic regression analysis confirmed that lymphopenia (P = 0.010) indicated severe prognosis in previously healthy young adults with COVID-19, with the area under the curve (AUC) was 0.791(95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.704-0.877)(P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: For previously healthy young adults with COVID-19, lymphopenia on admission can predict severe prognosis.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Hospital Mortality , Pandemics/statistics & numerical data , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Age Factors , COVID-19 , COVID-19 Testing , China/epidemiology , Clinical Laboratory Techniques/methods , Cohort Studies , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Female , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Intensive Care Units/statistics & numerical data , Logistic Models , Male , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Predictive Value of Tests , Prognosis , ROC Curve , Radiography, Thoracic/methods , Retrospective Studies , Risk Assessment , Survival Rate , Tertiary Care Centers , Tomography, X-Ray Computed/methods , Young Adult
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL