Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 8 de 8
Filter
1.
Cardiol J ; 2022 Jun 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1912015

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: This meta-analysis outlines the role of elevated lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels in assessing the severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: The current study was designed as a systematic review and meta-analysis. Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched to identify the usefulness of LDH as a marker of COVID-19 severity. All extracted data were analyzed using RevMan V.5.4 or STATA V.14 software. RESULTS: A total of 264 records were selected for this meta-analysis. Pooled analysis showed that LDH levels were statistically significantly lower in the group of survivors compared to patients who died in hospital (standardized mean differences [SMD] = -3.10; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -3.40 to -2.79; I² = 99%; p < 0.001). Lower LDH levels were observed in non-severe groups compared to severe course of COVID-19 (SMD = -2.38; 95% CI: -2.61 to -2.14; I² = 99%; p < 0.001). The level of LDH was statistically significantly lower in the severe group compared to the critical group (SMD = -1.48; 95% CI: -2.04 to -0.92; I² = 98%; p < 0.001). Patients who did not require treatment in the intensive care unit (ICU) showed significantly lower levels of LDH compared to patients who required treatment in the ICU (SMD = -3.78; 95% CI: -4.48 to -3.08; I² = 100%; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis showed that elevated LDH was associated with a poor outcome in COVID-19.

2.
Am J Emerg Med ; 53: 122-126, 2022 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1638161

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Endotracheal intubation (ETI) is still the gold standard of airway management, but in cases of sudden cardiac arrest in patients with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection, ETI is associated with risks for both the patient and the medical personnel. We hypothesized that the Vie Scope® is more useful for endotracheal intubation of suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cardiac arrest patients than the conventional laryngoscope with Macintosh blade when operators are wearing personal protective equipment (PPE). METHODS: Study was designed as a prospective, multicenter, randomized clinical trial performed by Emergency Medical Services in Poland. Patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis who needed cardiopulmonary resuscitation in prehospital setting were included. Patients under 18 years old or with criteria predictive of impossible intubation under direct laryngoscopy, were excluded. Patients were randomly allocated 1:1 to Vie Scope® versus direct laryngoscopy with a Macintosh blade. Study groups were compared on success of intubation attempts, time to intubation, glottis visualization and number of optimization maneuvers. RESULTS: We enrolled 90 out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients, aged 43-92 years. Compared to the VieScope® laryngoscope, use of the Macintosh laryngoscope required longer times for tracheal intubation with an estimated mean difference of -48 s (95%CI confidence interval [CI], -60.23, -35.77; p < 0.001). Moreover VieScope® improved first attempt success rate, 93.3% vs. 51.1% respectively (odds ratio [OR] = 13.39; 95%CI: 3.62, 49.58; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The use of the Vie Scope® laryngoscope in OHCA patients improved the first attempt success rate, and reduced intubation time compared to Macintosh laryngoscope in paramedics wearing PPE for against aerosol generating procedures. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials registration number NCT04365608.


Subject(s)
Allied Health Personnel/statistics & numerical data , Intubation, Intratracheal/instrumentation , Laryngoscopes/standards , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Airway Management/instrumentation , Airway Management/methods , Airway Management/statistics & numerical data , Allied Health Personnel/standards , Female , Humans , Intubation, Intratracheal/methods , Intubation, Intratracheal/statistics & numerical data , Laryngoscopes/statistics & numerical data , Male , Middle Aged , Personal Protective Equipment/adverse effects , Personal Protective Equipment/standards , Personal Protective Equipment/statistics & numerical data , Prospective Studies , Resuscitation/instrumentation , Resuscitation/methods , Resuscitation/statistics & numerical data
3.
Cardiol J ; 28(6): 816-824, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1603899

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The main purposes of this meta-analysis are to update the information about the impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on outcomes of in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) and to investigate the impact of being infected by by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) on IHCA outcomes. METHODS: The current meta-analysis is an update and follows the recommendations of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). RESULTS: In analyses, pre- and intra-COVID-19 periods were observed for: shockable rhythms in 17.6% vs. 16.2% (odds ratio [OR]: 1.11; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.71-1.72; p = 0.65), return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) in 47.4% vs. 44.0% (OR: 1.36; 95% CI: 0.90-2.07; p = 0.15), 30-day mortality in 59.8% vs. 60.9% (OR: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.75-1.22; p = 0.69) and overall mortality 75.8% vs. 74.7% (OR: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.49-1.28; p = 0.35), respectively. In analyses, SARS-CoV-2 positive and negative patients were observed for: shockable rhythms in 9.6% vs. 19.8% (OR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.35-0.73; p < 0.001), ROSC in 33.9% vs. 52.1% (OR: 0.47; 95% CI: 0.30-0.73; p < 0.001), 30-day mortality in 77.2% vs. 59.7% (OR: 2.08; 95% CI: 1.28-3.38; p = 0.003) and overall mortality in 94.9% vs. 76.7% (OR: 3.20; 95% CI: 0.98-10.49; p = 0.05), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Despite ROSC, 30-day and overall mortality rate were not statistically different in pre- vs. intra-COVID-19 periods, a lower incidence of ROSC and higher 20-day mortality rate were observed in SARS-CoV-2 (+) compared to SARS-CoV-2 (-) patients.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation , Heart Arrest , Hospitals , Humans , SARS-CoV-2
7.
Pol Arch Intern Med ; 131(9): 802-807, 2021 09 30.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1285621

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Preliminary retrospective reports showed that zinc supplementation may decrease mortality in patients with COVID-19, postulating the potential therapeutic efficacy of zinc in the management of the disease. OBJECTIVES: We sought to summarize the studies published to date regarding the antiviral activity of zinc in patients with COVID-19. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A meta-analysis was performed to compare the outcomes of hospitalized patients receiving zinc supplementation and those treated with standard care. The primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge. Secondary outcomes were in-hospital mortality and length of stay in hospital or intensive care unit (ICU). RESULTS: Data relating to 1474 patients included in 4 studies were analyzed. Survival to hospital discharge was 56.8% in the zinc group compared with 75.9% in the nonzinc group (P = 0.88). In-hospital mortality was 22.3% in the zinc group compared with 13.6% in the standard care group (P = 0.16). The mean (SD) length of hospital stay was 7.7 (3.7) days in the zinc group and 7.2 (3.9) days in the standard treatment group (P <⁠0.001). The mean (SD) length of ICU stay was 4.9 (1.7) days in the zinc group and 5.8 (1.9) days in the standard care group (P = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: Zinc supplementation did not have any beneficial impact on the course of COVID-19 evaluated as survival to hospital discharge and in-hospital mortality. The zinc-supplemented group had longer hospital stay despite shorter ICU stay. At present, there are no evidence-based data to support routine zinc supplementation in patients with COVID-19.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Dietary Supplements , Humans , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Zinc
8.
Cardiol J ; 28(4): 503-508, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1215655

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The purpose herein, was to perform a systematic review of interventional outcome studies in patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest before and during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic period. METHODS: A meta-analysis was performed of publications meeting the following PICOS criteria: (1) participants, patients > 18 years of age with cardiac arrest due to any causes; (2) intervention, cardiac arrest in COVID-19 period; (3) comparison, cardiac arrest in pre-COVID-19 period; (4) outcomes, detailed information for survival; (5) study design, randomized controlled trials, quasi-randomized or observational studies comparing cardiac arrest in COVID-19 and pre-COVID-19 period for their effects in patients with cardiac arrest. RESULTS: Survival to hospital discharge for the pre-pandemic and pandemic period was reported in 3 studies (n =1432 patients) and was similar in the pre-pandemic vs. the pandemic period, 35.6% vs. 32.1%, respectively (odds ratio [OR] 1.72; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.81-3.65; p = 0.16; I2 = 72%). Return of spontaneous circulation was reported by all 4 studies and were also similar in the pre and during COVID-19 periods, 51.9% vs. 48.7% (OR 1.27; 95% CI 0.78-2.07; p = 0.33; I2 = 71%), respectively. Pooled analysis of cardiac arrest recurrence was also similar, 24.9% and 17.9% (OR 1.60; 95% CI 0.99-2.57; p = 0.06; I2 = 32%) in the pre and during COVID-19 cohorts. Survival with Cerebral Performance Category 1 or 2 was higher in pre vs. during pandemic groups (27.3 vs. 9.1%; OR 3.75; 95% CI 1.26-11.20; p = 0.02). Finally, overall mortality was similar in the pre vs. pandemic groups, 65.9% and 67.2%, respectively (OR 0.67; 95% CI 0.33-1.34; p = 0.25; I2 = 76%). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to the pre-pandemic period, in hospital cardiac arrest in COVID-19 patients was numerically higher but had statistically similar outcomes.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation , Heart Arrest , Hospitals , Heart Arrest/diagnosis , Heart Arrest/epidemiology , Humans , Pandemics , Patient Discharge , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Retrospective Studies
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL