Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 4 de 4
Filter
1.
BMC Infect Dis ; 21(1): 1040, 2021 Oct 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1455942

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a declared global pandemic, causing a lot of death. How to quickly screen risk population for severe patients is essential for decreasing the mortality. Many of the predictors might not be available in all hospitals, so it is necessary to develop a simpler screening tool with predictors which can be easily obtained for wide wise. METHODS: This retrospective study included all the 813 confirmed cases diagnosed with COVID-19 before March 2nd, 2020 in a city of Hubei Province in China. Data of the COVID-19 patients including clinical and epidemiological features were collected through Chinese Disease Control and Prevention Information System. Predictors were selected by logistic regression, and then categorized to four different level risk factors. A screening tool for severe patient with COVID-19 was developed and tested by ROC curve. RESULTS: Seven early predictors for severe patients with COVID-19 were selected, including chronic kidney disease (OR 14.7), age above 60 (OR 5.6), lymphocyte count less than < 0.8 × 109 per L (OR 2.5), Neutrophil to Lymphocyte Ratio larger than 4.7 (OR 2.2), high fever with temperature ≥ 38.5℃ (OR 2.2), male (OR 2.2), cardiovascular related diseases (OR 2.0). The Area Under the ROC Curve of the screening tool developed by above seven predictors was 0.798 (95% CI 0.747-0.849), and its best cut-off value is > 4.5, with sensitivity 72.0% and specificity 75.3%. CONCLUSIONS: This newly developed screening tool can be a good choice for early prediction and alert for severe case especially in the condition of overload health service.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , Male , Mass Screening , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2
2.
Chest ; 159(4): 1426-1436, 2021 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-921554

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Sigh is a cyclic brief recruitment maneuver: previous physiologic studies showed that its use could be an interesting addition to pressure support ventilation to improve lung elastance, decrease regional heterogeneity, and increase release of surfactant. RESEARCH QUESTION: Is the clinical application of sigh during pressure support ventilation (PSV) feasible? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a multicenter noninferiority randomized clinical trial on adult intubated patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure or ARDS undergoing PSV. Patients were randomized to the no-sigh group and treated by PSV alone, or to the sigh group, treated by PSV plus sigh (increase in airway pressure to 30 cm H2O for 3 s once per minute) until day 28 or death or successful spontaneous breathing trial. The primary end point of the study was feasibility, assessed as noninferiority (5% tolerance) in the proportion of patients failing assisted ventilation. Secondary outcomes included safety, physiologic parameters in the first week from randomization, 28-day mortality, and ventilator-free days. RESULTS: Two-hundred and fifty-eight patients (31% women; median age, 65 [54-75] years) were enrolled. In the sigh group, 23% of patients failed to remain on assisted ventilation vs 30% in the no-sigh group (absolute difference, -7%; 95% CI, -18% to 4%; P = .015 for noninferiority). Adverse events occurred in 12% vs 13% in the sigh vs no-sigh group (P = .852). Oxygenation was improved whereas tidal volume, respiratory rate, and corrected minute ventilation were lower over the first 7 days from randomization in the sigh vs no-sigh group. There was no significant difference in terms of mortality (16% vs 21%; P = .337) and ventilator-free days (22 [7-26] vs 22 [3-25] days; P = .300) for the sigh vs no-sigh group. INTERPRETATION: Among hypoxemic intubated ICU patients, application of sigh was feasible and without increased risk. TRIAL REGISTRY: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT03201263; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov.


Subject(s)
Positive-Pressure Respiration , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , Aged , Female , Humans , Intubation, Intratracheal , Male , Middle Aged , Pilot Projects , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/physiopathology , Respiratory Insufficiency/physiopathology , Respiratory Mechanics
3.
PeerJ ; 8: e10497, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-948184

ABSTRACT

Background and objectives: The timing of invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) is controversial in COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory hypoxemia. The study aimed to develop a novel predictor called cumulative oxygen deficit (COD) for the risk stratification. Methods: The study was conducted in four designated hospitals for treating COVID-19 patients in Jingmen, Wuhan, from January to March 2020. COD was defined to account for both the magnitude and duration of hypoxemia. A higher value of COD indicated more oxygen deficit. The predictive performance of COD was calculated in multivariable Cox regression models. Results: A number of 111 patients including 80 in the non-IMV group and 31 in the IMV group were included. Patients with IMV had substantially lower PaO2 (62 (49, 89) vs. 90.5 (68, 125.25) mmHg; p < 0.001), and higher COD (-6.87 (-29.36, 52.38) vs. -231.68 (-1040.78, 119.83) mmHg·day) than patients without IMV. As compared to patients with COD < 0, patients with COD > 30 mmHg·day had higher risk of fatality (HR: 3.79, 95% CI [2.57-16.93]; p = 0.037), and those with COD > 50 mmHg·day were 10 times more likely to die (HR: 10.45, 95% CI [1.28-85.37]; p = 0.029). Conclusions: The study developed a novel predictor COD which considered both magnitude and duration of hypoxemia, to assist risk stratification of COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory distress.

4.
Front Med (Lausanne) ; 7: 541, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-769242

ABSTRACT

Background: Lung mechanics during invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) for both prognostic and therapeutic implications; however, the full trajectory lung mechanics has never been described for novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients requiring IMV. The study aimed to describe the full trajectory of lung mechanics of mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients. The clinical and ventilator setting that can influence patient-ventilator asynchrony (PVA) and compliance were explored. Post-extubation spirometry test was performed to assess the pulmonary function after COVID-19 induced ARDS. Methods: This was a retrospective study conducted in a tertiary care hospital. All patients with IMV due to COVID-19 induced ARDS were included. High-granularity ventilator waveforms were analyzed with deep learning algorithm to obtain PVAs. Asynchrony index (AI) was calculated as the number of asynchronous events divided by the number of ventilator cycles and wasted efforts. Mortality was recorded as the vital status on hospital discharge. Results: A total of 3,923,450 respiratory cycles in 2,778 h were analyzed (average: 24 cycles/min) for seven patients. Higher plateau pressure (Coefficient: -0.90; 95% CI: -1.02 to -0.78) and neuromuscular blockades (Coefficient: -6.54; 95% CI: -9.92 to -3.16) were associated with lower AI. Survivors showed increasing compliance over time, whereas non-survivors showed persistently low compliance. Recruitment maneuver was not able to improve lung compliance. Patients were on supine position in 1,422 h (51%), followed by prone positioning (499 h, 18%), left positioning (453 h, 16%), and right positioning (404 h, 15%). As compared with supine positioning, prone positioning was associated with 2.31 ml/cmH2O (95% CI: 1.75 to 2.86; p < 0.001) increase in lung compliance. Spirometry tests showed that pulmonary functions were reduced to one third of the predicted values after extubation. Conclusions: The study for the first time described full trajectory of lung mechanics of patients with COVID-19. The result showed that prone positioning was associated with improved compliance; higher plateau pressure and use of neuromuscular blockades were associated with lower risk of AI.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...