Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 11 de 11
Filter
1.
Front Immunol ; 12: 738532, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1686470

ABSTRACT

Background: The benefits of intravenous immunoglobulin administration are controversial for critically ill COVID-19 patients. Methods: We analyzed retrospectively the effects of immunoglobulin administration for critically ill COVID-19 patients. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) with propensity score was used to account for baseline confounders. Cluster analysis was used to perform phenotype analysis. Results: Between January 1 and February 29, 2020, 754 patients with complete data from 19 hospitals were enrolled. Death at 28 days occurred for 408 (54.1%) patients. There were 392 (52.0%) patients who received intravenous immunoglobulin, at 11 (interquartile range (IQR) 8, 16) days after illness onset; 30% of these patients received intravenous immunoglobulin prior to intensive care unit (ICU) admission. By unadjusted analysis, no difference was observed for 28-day mortality between the immunoglobulin and non-immunoglobulin groups. Similar results were found by propensity score matching (n = 506) and by IPTW analysis (n = 731). Also, IPTW analysis did not reveal any significant difference between hyperinflammation and hypoinflammation phenotypes. Conclusion: No significant association was observed for use of intravenous immunoglobulin and decreased mortality of severe COVID-19 patients. Phenotype analysis did not show any survival benefit for patients who received immunoglobulin therapy.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/therapy , Immunoglobulins, Intravenous/therapeutic use , Aged , China , Critical Care/methods , Critical Illness/therapy , Female , Humans , Immunization, Passive/methods , Immunization, Passive/mortality , Male , Middle Aged , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Treatment Outcome
2.
Front Med (Lausanne) ; 8: 716086, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1450817

ABSTRACT

Background: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is a rapidly evolving therapy for acute lung and/or heart failure. However, the information on the application of ECMO in severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited, such as the initiation time. Especially in the period and regions of ECMO instrument shortage, not all the listed patients could be treated with ECMO in time. This study aimed to investigate and clarify the timing of ECMO initiation related to the outcomes of severe patients with COVID-19. The results show that ECMO should be initiated within 24 h after the criteria are met. Methods: In this retrospective, multicenter cohort study, we enrolled all ECMO patients with confirmed COVID-19 at the three hospitals between December 29, 2019 and April 5, 2020. Data on the demographics, clinical presentation, laboratory profile, clinical course, treatments, complications, and outcomes were collected. The primary outcomes were successful ECMO weaning rate and 60-day mortality after ECMO. Successful weaning from ECMO means that the condition of patients improved with adequate oxygenation and gas exchange, as shown by the vital signs, blood gases, and chest X-ray, and the patient was weaned from ECMO for at least 48 h. Results: A total of 31 patients were included in the analysis. The 60-day mortality rate after ECMO was 71%, and the ECMO weaning rate was 26%. Patients were divided into a delayed ECMO group [3 (interquartile range (IQR), 2-5) days] and an early ECMO group [0.5 (IQR, 0-1) days] based on the time between meeting the ECMO criteria and ECMO initiation. In this study, 14 and 17 patients were included in the early and delayed treatment groups, respectively. Early initiation of ECMO was associated with decreased 60-day mortality after ECMO (50 vs. 88%, P = 0.044) and an increased ECMO weaning rate (50 vs. 6%, P = 0.011). Conclusions: In ECMO-supported patients with COVID-19, delayed initiation of ECMO is a risk factor associated with a poorer outcome. Trial Registration: Clinical trial submission: March 19, 2020. Registry name: A medical records-based study for the clinical application of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in the treatment of severe respiratory failure patients with novel coronavirus pneumonia (COVID-19). Chinese Clinical Trial Registry: https://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=51267,identifier:~ChiCTR2000030947.

3.
J Crit Care ; 65: 246-258, 2021 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1292793

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether higher positive end- expiratory pressure (PEEP) could provide a survival advantage for patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) compared with lower PEEP. METHODS: Eligible studies were identified through searches of Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Medline, and Wanfang database from inception up to 1 June 2021. Trial sequential analysis (TSA) was used in this meta-analysis. DATA SYNTHESIS: Twenty-seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified for further evaluation. Higher and lower PEEP arms included 1330 patients and 1650 patients, respectively. A mean level of 9.6±3.4 cmH2O was applied in the higher PEEP groups and 1.9±2.6 cmH2O was used in the lower PEEP groups. Higher PEEP, compared with lower PEEP, was not associated with reduction of all-cause mortality (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.91-1.18; P =0.627), and 28-day mortality (RR 1.07 ; 95% CI 0.92-1.24; P =0.365). In terms of risk of ARDS (RR 0.43; 95% CI 0.24-0.78; P =0.005), duration of intensive care unit (MD -1.04; 95%CI-1.36 to -0.73; P < 0.00001), and oxygenation (MD 40.30; 95%CI 0.94 to 79.65; P = 0.045), higher PEEP was superior to lower PEEP. Besides, the pooled analysis showed no significant differences between groups both in the duration of mechanical ventilation (MD 0.00; 95%CI-0.13 to 0.13; P = 0.996) and hospital stay (MD -0.66; 95%CI-1.94 to 0.61; P = 0.309). More importantly, lower PEEP did not increase the risk of pneumonia, atelectasis, barotrauma, hypoxemia, or hypotension among patients compared with higher PEEP. The TSA analysis showed that the results of all-cause mortality and 28-day mortality might be false-negative results. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that a lower PEEP ventilation strategy was non-inferior to a higher PEEP ventilation strategy in ICU patients without ARDS, with no increased risk of all-cause mortality and 28-day mortality. Further high-quality RCTs should be performed to confirm these findings.


Subject(s)
Respiratory Distress Syndrome , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Length of Stay , Positive-Pressure Respiration , Respiration, Artificial , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy
4.
J Med Virol ; 92(11): 2263-2265, 2020 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1245448

ABSTRACT

"Retest Positive" for severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) from "recovered" coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) has been reported and raised several important questions for this novel coronavirus and COVID-19 disease. In this commentary, we discussed several questions: (a) Can SARS-CoV-2 re-infect the individuals who recovered from COVID-19? This question is also associated with other questions: whether or not SARS-CoV-2 infection induces protective reaction or neutralized antibody? Will SARS-CoV-2 vaccines work? (b) Why could some recovered patients with COVID-19 be re-tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA? (c) Are some recovered pwith atients COVID-19 with re-testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA infectious? and (d) How should the COVID-19 patients with retest positive for SARS-CoV-2 be managed?


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing , COVID-19/diagnosis , RNA, Viral/isolation & purification , Reinfection/diagnosis , Antibodies, Viral/blood , Humans , Immunoglobulin G/blood , SARS-CoV-2 , Selection Bias
6.
Int J Infect Dis ; 102: 397-411, 2021 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-812133

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine whether convalescent blood products (CBPs) offer a survival advantage for patients with severe acute respiratory infections of viral etiology. METHODS: Up-to-date trials were identified by the authors through searches of the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and medRxiv databases from inception up to September 14, 2020. Meta-analyses were performed using a random-effects model. RESULTS: According to the observational studies, patients who received CBPs showed a decline in all-cause mortality compared with patients who did not receive CBPs (odds ratio (OR) 0.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.23-0.56; p < 0.00001). However, the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) showed no difference between the intervention group and the control group regarding all-cause mortality (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.57-1.19; p = 0.30). The use of CBPs did not increase the risk of adverse events (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.60-1.29; p = 0.51). Using CBPs earlier compared with using CBPs later was associated with a significant reduction in all-cause mortality (OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.08-0.40; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Based on the outcomes of RCTs, CBPs may not decrease all-cause mortality. Furthermore, compared with later initiation of CBP therapy, earlier initiation of this therapy may decrease the rate of mortality.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , SARS-CoV-2 , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/mortality , Cause of Death , Female , Humans , Immunization, Passive , Male , Middle Aged , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
8.
Intensive Care Med ; 46(10): 1863-1872, 2020 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-725842

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: An ongoing outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) emerged in Wuhan since December 2019 and spread globally. However, information about critically ill patients with COVID-19 is still limited. We aimed to describe the clinical characteristics and outcomes of critically ill patients with COVID-19 and figure out the risk factors of mortality. METHODS: We extracted data retrospectively regarding 733 critically ill adult patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 from 19 hospitals in China through January 1 to February 29, 2020. Demographic data, symptoms, laboratory values, comorbidities, treatments, and clinical outcomes were collected. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. Data were compared between survivors and non-survivors. RESULTS: Of the 733 patients included in the study, the median (IQR) age was 65 (56-73) years and 256 (34.9%) were female. Among these patients, the median (IQR) APACHE II score was 10 (7 to 14) and 28-day mortality was 53.8%. Respiratory failure was the most common organ failure (597 [81.5%]), followed by shock (20%), thrombocytopenia (18.8%), central nervous system (8.6%) and renal dysfunction (8%). Multivariate Cox regression analysis showed that older age, malignancies, high APACHE II score, high D-dimer level, low PaO2/FiO2 level, high creatinine level, high hscTnI level and low albumin level were independent risk factors of 28-day mortality in critically ill patients with COVID-19. CONCLUSION: In this case series of critically ill patients with COVID-19 who were admitted into the ICU, more than half patients died at day 28. The higher percentage of organ failure in these patients indicated a significant demand for critical care resources.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/complications , Coronavirus Infections/mortality , Critical Illness , Intensive Care Units , Pneumonia, Viral/complications , Pneumonia, Viral/mortality , Aged , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , China/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/virology , Disease Outbreaks , Female , Humans , Kidney Diseases/epidemiology , Kidney Diseases/etiology , Male , Middle Aged , Nervous System Diseases/epidemiology , Nervous System Diseases/etiology , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/virology , Proportional Hazards Models , Respiratory Insufficiency/epidemiology , Respiratory Insufficiency/etiology , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2 , Shock/epidemiology , Shock/etiology , Thrombocytopenia/epidemiology , Thrombocytopenia/etiology
9.
J Med Virol ; 92(9): 1401-1403, 2020 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-209431

ABSTRACT

On 31 March 2020, Chinese Health Authorization announced that numbers of asymptomatic cases with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection will be made to the public daily. This was a very important step since different counties have different capacities for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection and control strategy for the Coronavirus Disease 2019 outbreak. We summarized the characteristics of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections and the transmission potential of asymptomatic cases. Then we provided guidelines for the management of asymptomatic cases through quarantine and nucleic acid/serology tests.


Subject(s)
Asymptomatic Infections/epidemiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , China , Humans , Pandemics
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL