Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 7 de 7
Filter
1.
J Infect Public Health ; 15(7): 826-834, 2022 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1895224

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) is caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and is currently a major cause of intensive care unit (ICU) admissions globally. The role of machine learning in the ICU is evolving but currently limited to diagnostic and prognostic values. A decision tree (DT) algorithm is a simple and intuitive machine learning method that provides sequential nonlinear analysis of variables. It is simple and might be a valuable tool for bedside physicians during COVID-19 to predict ICU outcomes and help in critical decision-making like end-of-life decisions and bed allocation in the event of limited ICU bed capacities. Herein, we utilized a machine learning DT algorithm to describe the association of a predefined set of variables and 28-day ICU outcome in adult COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU. We highlight the value of utilizing a machine learning DT algorithm in the ICU at the time of a COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: This was a prospective and multicenter cohort study involving 14 hospitals in Saudi Arabia. We included critically ill COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU between March 1, 2020, and October 31, 2020. The predictors of 28-day ICU mortality were identified using two predictive models: conventional logistic regression and DT analyses. RESULTS: There were 1468 critically ill COVID-19 patients included in the study. The 28-day ICU mortality was 540 (36.8 %), and the 90-day mortality was 600 (40.9 %). The DT algorithm identified five variables that were integrated into the algorithm to predict 28-day ICU outcomes: need for intubation, need for vasopressors, age, gender, and PaO2/FiO2 ratio. CONCLUSION: DT is a simple tool that might be utilized in the ICU to identify critically ill COVID-19 patients who are at high risk of 28-day ICU mortality. However, further studies and external validation are still required.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Adult , Algorithms , Cohort Studies , Critical Illness , Decision Trees , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Machine Learning , Pandemics , Prospective Studies , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
2.
Diabetol Metab Syndr ; 13(1): 120, 2021 Oct 26.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1629643

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: One possible reason for increased mortality due to SARS-CoV-2 in patients with diabetes is from the complication of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA). OBJECTIVES: To re-evaluate the association of SARS-CoV-2 and development of DKA and analyse the demographic and biochemical parameters and the clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients with DKA. DESIGN: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement was followed. METHODS: Electronic databases (Proquest, Medline, Embase, Pubmed, CINAHL, Wiley online library, Scopus and Nature) were searched from 1 December 2019 to 30 June 2021 in the English language using the following keywords alone or in combination: COVID-19 OR SARS-CoV-2 AND diabetic ketoacidosis OR DKA OR ketosis OR ketonemia OR hyperglycaemic emergency OR hyperglycaemic crisis. We included studies in adults and children of all ages in all healthcare settings. Binary logistic regression model was used to explore the effect of various demographic and biochemical parameters variables on patient's final treatment outcome (survival or death). RESULTS: Of the 484 papers that were identified, 68 articles were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis (54 case report, 10 case series, and 4 cohort studies). Studies involving 639 DKA patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 [46 (7.2%) were children and 334 (52.3%) were adults] were analyzed. The median or mean patient age ranged from < 1 years to 66 years across studies. Most of the patients (n = 309, 48.3%) had pre-existing type 2 diabetes mellitus. The majority of the patients were male (n = 373, 58.4%) and belonged to Hispanic (n = 156, 24.4%) and black (n = 98, 15.3%) ethnicity. The median random blood glucose level, HbA1c, pH, bicarbonate, and anion gap in all included patients at presentation were 507 mg/dl [IQR 399-638 mg/dl], 11.4% [IQR 9.9-13.5%], 7.16 [IQR 7.00-7.22], 10 mmol/l [IQR 6.9-13 mmol/l], and 24.5 mEq/l [18-29.2 mEq/l]; respectively. Mortality rate was [63/243, 25.9%], with a majority of death in patients of Hispanic ethnicity (n = 17, 27%; p = 0.001). The odd ratios of death were significantly high in patients with pre-existing diabetes mellitus type 2 [OR 5.24, 95% CI 2.07-15.19; p = 0.001], old age (≥ 60 years) [OR 3.29, 95% CI 1.38-7.91; p = 0.007], and male gender [OR 2.61, 95% CI 1.37-5.17; p = 0.004] compared to those who survived. CONCLUSION: DKA is not uncommon in SARS-CoV-2 patients with diabetes mellitus and results in a mortality rate of 25.9%. Mortality key determinants in DKA patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection are individuals with pre-existing diabetes mellitus type 2, older age [≥ 60 years old], male gender, BMI ≥ 30, blood glucose level > 1000 mg/dl, and anion gap ≥ 30 mEq/l.

3.
Allergy Asthma Clin Immunol ; 17(1): 109, 2021 Oct 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1468077

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Currently there is no systematic review and meta-analysis of the global incidence rates of anaphylactic and nonanaphylactic reactions to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in the general adult population. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the incidence rates of anaphylactic and nonanaphylactic reactions after COVID-19 vaccines and describe the demographic and clinical characteristics, triggers, presenting signs and symptoms, treatment and clinical course of confirmed cases. DESIGN: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses [PRISMA] statement was followed. METHODS: Electronic databases (Proquest, Medline, Embase, Pubmed, CINAHL, Wiley online library, and Nature) were searched from 1 December 2020 to 31 May 2021 in the English language using the following keywords alone or in combination: anaphylaxis, non-anaphylaxis, anaphylactic reaction, nonanaphylactic reaction, anaphylactic/anaphylactoid shock, hypersensitivity, allergy reaction, allergic reaction, immunology reaction, immunologic reaction, angioedema, loss of consciousness, generalized erythema, urticaria, urticarial rash, cyanosis, grunting, stridor, tachypnoea, wheezing, tachycardia, abdominal pain, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting and tryptase. We included studies in adults of all ages in all healthcare settings. Effect sizes of prevalence were pooled with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). To minimize heterogeneity, we performed sub-group analyses. RESULTS: Of the 1,734 papers that were identified, 26 articles were included in the systematic review (8 case report, 5 cohort, 4 case series, 2 randomized controlled trial and 1 randomized cross-sectional studies) and 14 articles (1 cohort, 2 case series, 1 randomized controlled trial and 1 randomized cross-sectional studies) were included in meta-analysis. Studies involving 26,337,421 vaccine recipients [Pfizer-BioNTech (n = 14,505,399) and Moderna (n = 11,831,488)] were analyzed. The overall pooled prevalence estimate of anaphylaxis to both vaccines was 5.0 (95% CI 2.9 to 7.2, I2 = 81%, p = < 0.0001), while the overall pooled prevalence estimate of nonanaphylactic reactions to both vaccines was 53.9 (95% CI 0.0 to 116.1, I2 = 99%, p = < 0.0001). Vaccination with Pfizer-BioNTech resulted in higher anaphylactic reactions compared to Moderna (8.0, 95% CI 0.0 to 11.3, I2 = 85% versus 2.8, 95% CI 0.0 to 5.7, I2 = 59%). However, lower incidence of nonanaphylactic reactions was associated with Pfizer-BioNTech compared to Moderna (43.9, 95% CI 0.0 to 131.9, I2 = 99% versus 63.8, 95% CI 0.0 to 151.8, I2 = 98%). The funnel plots for possible publication bias for the pooled effect sizes to determine the incidence of anaphylaxis and nonanaphylactic reactions associated with mRNA COVID-19 immunization based on mRNA vaccine type appeared asymmetrical on visual inspection, and Egger's tests confirmed asymmetry by producing p values < 0.05. Across the included studies, the most commonly identified risk factors for anaphylactic and nonanaphylactic reactions to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines were female sex and personal history of atopy. The key triggers to anaphylactic and nonanaphylactic reactions identified in these studies included foods, medications, stinging insects or jellyfish, contrast media, cosmetics and detergents, household products, and latex. Previous history of anaphylaxis; and comorbidities such as asthma, allergic rhinitis, atopic and contact eczema/dermatitis and psoriasis and cholinergic urticaria were also found to be important. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine-associated anaphylaxis is very low; and nonanaphylactic reactions occur at higher rate, however, cutaneous reactions are largely self-limited. Both anaphylactic and nonanaphylactic reactions should not discourage vaccination.

4.
Intensive Care Med ; 47(8): 887-895, 2021 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1279406

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients has increased during the course of the pandemic. As uncertainty existed regarding patient's outcomes, early guidelines recommended against establishing new ECMO centers. We aimed to explore the epidemiology and outcomes of ECMO for COVID-19 related cardiopulmonary failure in five countries in the Middle East and India and to evaluate the results of ECMO in 5 new centers. METHODS: This is a retrospective, multicenter international, observational study conducted in 19 ECMO centers in five countries in the Middle East and India from March 1, 2020, to September 30, 2020. We included patients with COVID-19 who received ECMO for refractory hypoxemia and severe respiratory acidosis with or without circulatory failure. Data collection included demographic data, ECMO-related specific data, pre-ECMO patient condition, 24 h post-ECMO initiation data, and outcome. The primary outcome was survival to home discharge. Secondary outcomes included mortality during ECMO, survival to decannulation, and outcomes stratified by center type. RESULTS: Three hundred and seven COVID-19 patients received ECMO support during the study period, of whom 78 (25%) were treated in the new ECMO centers. The median age was 45 years (interquartile range IQR 37-52), and 81% were men. New center patients were younger, were less frequently male, had received higher PEEP, more frequently inotropes and prone positioning before ECMO and were less frequently retrieved from a peripheral center on ECMO. Survival to home discharge was 45%. In patients treated in new and established centers, survival was 55 and 41% (p = 0.03), respectively. Multivariable analysis retained only a SOFA score < 12 at ECMO initiation as associated with survival (odds ratio, OR 1.93 (95% CI 1.05-3.58), p = 0.034), but not treatment in a new center (OR 1.65 (95% CI 0.75-3.67)). CONCLUSIONS: During pandemics, ECMO may provide favorable outcomes in highly selected patients as resources allow. Newly formed ECMO centers with appropriate supervision of regional experts may have satisfactory results.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , Humans , India/epidemiology , Male , Middle Aged , Middle East , Pandemics , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
5.
Crit Care Explor ; 3(6): e0454, 2021 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1262254

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES/BACKGROUND: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation is used as rescue therapy for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome in whom conventional therapy has failed prior to an Extra Corporeal Membrane Oxygenator to rescue Lung Injury in Severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome trial. Since then, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation has been incorporated as part of the standard treatment algorithm in many centers for patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. Since the emergence of coronavirus disease 2019 in early 2020, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation has been used effectively as rescue therapy and as a bridge to recovery in some patients with refractory respiratory failure. DESIGN SUBJECT AND INTERVENTION: We present a 38-year-old male healthcare worker diagnosed with coronavirus disease 2019 and progressed to critical condition with severe surgical emphysema on a high-flow nasal cannula with Fio2 100%, a flow of 40 L/min, and a maximum oxygen saturation of 88%. He was successfully treated by applying awake extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, without a need for invasive mechanical ventilation, to avoid worsening barotrauma and hemodynamic compromise potentially induced by positive pressure ventilation. MAIN RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is one of the first cases to be reported in the literature on the use of awake extracorporeal membrane oxygenation as a "treatment" for barotrauma due to severe acute respiratory distress syndrome in a coronavirus disease 2019 patient, without the need for invasive mechanical ventilation. In selected patients with severe respiratory failure, awake extracorporeal membrane oxygenation can be used as a salvage treatment and obviate the need for invasive mechanical ventilation.

6.
Saudi Med J ; 42(6): 589-611, 2021 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1257242

ABSTRACT

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is considered as a supportive treatment that provides circulatory and ventilatory support and can be thought off as a bridge to organ recovery. Since 2009, it has been applied as a rescue treatment for patients with severe adult respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) mainly due to viral causes. In December 2019, several patients presented with a constellation of symptoms of viral pneumonia in China. A new strain of the corona virus family, called COVID-19, has been discovered to be the cause of this severe mysterious illness that was named severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS­CoV­2). This new virus continued to spread across the globe leading to the World Health Organization announcing it as a pandemic in the early 2020. By the end of March 2021, the number of COVID-19 cases worldwide exceeded 126 million cases. In Saudi Arabia, the first confirmed case of COVID-19 was reported in the 2nd March 2020. By the end of March 2021, the total number of confirmed COVID-19 cases in Saudi Arabia is just above 360,000. In anticipation of the need of ECMO for the treatment of patients with SARS­CoV­2 based on the previous Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus pandemic experience, the Saudi Extra-Corporeal Life Support (ECLS) chapter that is under the umbrella of the Saudi Critical Care Society (SCCS) convened a working group of ECMO experts. The mission of this group was to formulate a guidance for the use of ECMO as a last resort for patients with severe ARDS, especially with COVID-19 based on available evidence. The ECLS-SCCS chapter wanted to generate a document that can be used to simple guide, with a focus on safety, to provide ECMO service for patients with severe ARDS with a special focus on SARS­CoV­2.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation/methods , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Pneumonia, Viral/virology , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Adult , Animals , COVID-19/virology , Humans , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Saudi Arabia
7.
Cureus ; 12(11): e11767, 2020 Nov 29.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1011756

ABSTRACT

Background The 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has impacted the globe dramatically. It has affected daily life noticeably and the teaching process is one of the significantly affected aspects as the learning approach has been shifted to distance learning (DL). These new changes may affect student performance and emotional well-being. This study aimed to assess the psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and distance learning on healthcare students. Method An online self-administered cross-sectional survey was distributed to healthcare students for the period between April 2020 to June 2020. The study included students from different universities in Saudi Arabia. Knowledge and perception of COVID-19 and the experience of distance learning during the pandemic period were assessed using a 5-point Likert scale. Psychological effect was evaluated using Four-Item Patient Health Questionnaire for Anxiety and Depression (PHQ-4). Results A total of 721 students completed the survey with the majority being females. Around 25% of students had experienced anxiety, while 35% had depression. Severe anxiety and depression were noted in over 6% of the participants. Younger age and female gender were more affected psychologically. Students with higher scores in PHQ-4 were strongly disagreeing that hand gloves and surgical masks may help in preventing COVID-19 transmission. Students with normal psychological assessment were more likely to favor DL, while students with moderate to severe anxiety and depression disagreed. Conclusion Healthcare students have alarmingly high levels of anxiety and depression during the COVID-19 pandemic. General knowledge of the pandemic is not associated with the psychological impact. DL is a convenient approach for students with normal PHQ-4 scores. Programs to help students overcome the psychological impact of COVID-19 are highly recommended.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL