Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 40
Filter
1.
Journal of Intensive Medicine ; 2022.
Article in English | ScienceDirect | ID: covidwho-1956233

ABSTRACT

Although the Berlin definition of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), 2012 has been widely used in clinical practice, issues have occasionally been raised regarding various criteria since it was proposed. High-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) is widely used for effective respiratory support in acute respiratory failure. As patients who do not require ventilation but meet the Berlin criteria have similar characteristics to those with ARDS, the definition of ARDS may be broadened to include patients receiving HFNO. As the PaO2/FiO2 under-recognizes the diagnosis of ARDS, a SpO2/FiO2 value of ≤315 may be considered instead of a PaO2/FiO2 value of ≤300 for diagnosing the condition in resource-constrained settings. In this context, patients with severe COVID-19 always meet other criteria for ARDS except for 7-day acute onset. Therefore, the timeframe for the onset of ARDS may be extended to up to 14 days. An expanded definition of ARDS may allow early identification of patients with less severe diseases and facilitate testing and application of new therapies in patients with a high risk of poor outcomes. Here, we discuss the major controversies regarding the extension of the ARDS definition with a view to improving clinical implementation and patient outcomes.

2.
Frontiers in medicine ; 9, 2022.
Article in English | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-1918850

ABSTRACT

Background The convalescent plasma of patients who recover from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) contains high titers of neutralizing antibodies, which has potential effects on the viral shedding of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and improving the prognosis of patients with COVID-19. The goal of this study was to clarify the effects of convalescent plasma therapy on the 60-day mortality and negative conversion rate of SARS-CoV-2 during the hospitalization of patients with severe and life-threatening COVID-19 infection. Methods This was a retrospective, case-matched cohort study that involved patients with severe COVID-19 infections. The patients who received convalescent plasma therapy were matched by age, sex, diabetes, hypertension, heart failure, the onset of symptoms to hospital admission, respiratory support pattern, lymphocyte count, troponin, Sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA), glucocorticoid, and antiviral agents to no more than three patients with COVID-19 who did not receive convalescent plasma therapy. A Cox regression model and competing risk analysis were used to evaluate the effects of convalescent plasma therapy on these patients. Results Twenty-six patients were in the convalescent plasma therapy group, and 78 patients were in the control group. Demographic characteristics were similar in both groups, except for the SOFA score. Convalescent plasma therapy did not improve 60-day mortality [hazard ratio (HR) 1.44, 95% CI 0.82–2.51, p = 0.20], but the SARS-CoV-2 negative conversion rate for 60 days after admission was higher in the convalescent plasma group (26.9 vs. 65.4%, p = 0.002) than in the control. Then, a competing risk analysis was performed, which considered events of interest (the negative conversion rate of SARS-CoV-2) and competing events (death) in the same model. Convalescent plasma therapy improved events of interest (p = 0.0002). Conclusion Convalescent plasma therapy could improve the SARS-CoV-2 negative conversion rate but could not improve 60-day mortality in patients with severe and life-threatening COVID-19 infection. Clinical Trial Number The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04616976).

4.
Antimicrob Agents Chemother ; 66(3): e0204521, 2022 03 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1759274

ABSTRACT

Recombinant human severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) monoclonal antibody JS016 showed neutralizing and therapeutic effects in preclinical studies. The clinical efficacy and safety of the therapy needed to be evaluated. In this phase 2/3, multicenter, randomized, open-label, controlled trial, hospitalized patients with moderate or severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive standard care or standard care plus a single intravenous infusion of JS016. The primary outcome was a six-level ordinal scale of clinical status on day 28 since randomization. Secondary outcomes include adverse events, 28-day mortality, ventilator-free days within 28 days, length of hospital stay, and negative conversion rate of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid on day 14. A total of 199 patients were randomized, and 197 (99 in the JS016 group and 98 in the control group) were analyzed. Most patients, 95 (96%) in the JS016 group and 97 (99%) in the control group were in the best category on day 28 since randomization. The odds ratio of being in a better clinical status was 0.31 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.03 to 3.19; P = 0.33). Few adverse events occurred in both groups (3% in the JS016 group and 1% in the control group, respectively; P = 0.34). SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody JS016 did not show clinical efficacy among hospitalized Chinese patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 disease. Further studies are needed to assess the efficacy of the neutralizing antibody to prevent disease deterioration and its benefits among groups of patients specified by disease course and severity. (This study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under identifier NCT04931238.).


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized , Antibodies, Neutralizing/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , China , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome
5.
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
6.
Front Med (Lausanne) ; 8: 637446, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1523713

ABSTRACT

Background: The associations of frailty with the risk of mortality and resource utilization in the elderly patients admitted to intensive care unit (ICU) remain unclear. To address these issues, we performed a meta-analysis to determine whether frailty is associated with adverse outcomes and increased resource utilization in elderly patients admitted to the ICU. Methods: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, ScienceDirect, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials through August 2021 to identify the relevant studies that investigated frailty in elderly (≥ 65 years old) patients admitted to an ICU and compared outcomes and resource utilization between frail and non-frail patients. The primary outcome was mortality. We also investigated the prevalence of frailty and the impact of frailty on the health resource utilization, such as hospital length of stay (LOS) and resource utilization of ICU. Results: A total of 13 observational studies enrolling 64,279 participants (28,951 frail and 35,328 non-frail) were finally included. Frailty was associated with an increased risk of short-term mortality (10 studies, relative risk [RR]: 1.70; 95% CI: 1.45-1.98), in-hospital mortality (five studies, RR: 1.73; 95% CI: 1.55-1.93), and long-term mortality (six studies, RR: 1.86; 95% CI: 1.44-2.42). Subgroup analysis showed that retrospective studies identified a stronger correlation between frailty and hospital LOS (three studies, MD 1.14 d; 95% CI: 0.92-1.36). Conclusions: Frailty is common in the elderly patients admitted to ICU, and is associated with increased mortality and prolonged hospital LOS. Trial registration: This study was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42020207242).

7.
Cell Mol Immunol ; 18(12): 2588-2608, 2021 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1500456

ABSTRACT

Since severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2)-specific T cells have been found to play essential roles in host immune protection and pathology in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), this study focused on the functional validation of T cell epitopes and the development of vaccines that induce specific T cell responses. A total of 120 CD8+ T cell epitopes from the E, M, N, S, and RdRp proteins were functionally validated. Among these, 110, 15, 6, 14, and 12 epitopes were highly homologous with SARS-CoV, OC43, NL63, HKU1, and 229E, respectively; in addition, four epitopes from the S protein displayed one amino acid that was distinct from the current SARS-CoV-2 variants. Then, 31 epitopes restricted by the HLA-A2 molecule were used to generate peptide cocktail vaccines in combination with Poly(I:C), R848 or poly (lactic-co-glycolic acid) nanoparticles, and these vaccines elicited robust and specific CD8+ T cell responses in HLA-A2/DR1 transgenic mice as well as wild-type mice. In contrast to previous research, this study established a modified DC-peptide-PBL cell coculture system using healthy donor PBMCs to validate the in silico predicted epitopes, provided an epitope library restricted by nine of the most prevalent HLA-A allotypes covering broad Asian populations, and identified the HLA-A restrictions of these validated epitopes using competitive peptide binding experiments with HMy2.CIR cell lines expressing the indicated HLA-A allotype, which initially confirmed the in vivo feasibility of 9- or 10-mer peptide cocktail vaccines against SARS-CoV-2. These data will facilitate the design and development of vaccines that induce antiviral CD8+ T cell responses in COVID-19 patients.


Subject(s)
CD8-Positive T-Lymphocytes/immunology , COVID-19 Vaccines/immunology , Epitopes, T-Lymphocyte/immunology , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Animals , Cell Line , Drug Evaluation, Preclinical , Female , HLA-A2 Antigen/immunology , Humans , Immunogenicity, Vaccine , Mice , Mice, Inbred C57BL , Mice, Transgenic , Peptide Library
8.
Front Med (Lausanne) ; 8: 659793, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1497084

ABSTRACT

Background: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) might benefit critically ill COVID-19 patients. But the considerations besides indications guiding ECMO initiation under extreme pressure during the COVID-19 epidemic was not clear. We aimed to analyze the clinical characteristics and in-hospital mortality of severe critically ill COVID-19 patients supported with ECMO and without ECMO, exploring potential parameters for guiding the initiation during the COVID-19 epidemic. Methods: Observational cohort study of all the critically ill patients indicated for ECMO support from January 1 to May 1, 2020, in all 62 authorized hospitals in Wuhan, China. Results: Among the 168 patients enrolled, 74 patients actually received ECMO support and 94 not were analyzed. The in-hospital mortality of the ECMO supported patients was significantly lower than non-ECMO ones (71.6 vs. 85.1%, P = 0.033), but the role of ECMO was affected by patients' age (Logistic regression OR 0.62, P = 0.24). As for the ECMO patients, the median age was 58 (47-66) years old and 62.2% (46/74) were male. The 28-day, 60-day, and 90-day mortality of these ECMO supported patients were 32.4, 68.9, and 74.3% respectively. Patients survived to discharge were younger (49 vs. 62 years, P = 0.042), demonstrated higher lymphocyte count (886 vs. 638 cells/uL, P = 0.022), and better CO2 removal (PaCO2 immediately after ECMO initiation 39.7 vs. 46.9 mmHg, P = 0.041). Age was an independent risk factor for in-hospital mortality of the ECMO supported patients, and a cutoff age of 51 years enabled prediction of in-hospital mortality with a sensitivity of 84.3% and specificity of 55%. The surviving ECMO supported patients had longer ICU and hospital stays (26 vs. 18 days, P = 0.018; 49 vs. 29 days, P = 0.001 respectively), and ECMO procedure was widely carried out after the supplement of medical resources after February 15 (67.6%, 50/74). Conclusions: ECMO might be a benefit for severe critically ill COVID-19 patients at the early stage of epidemic, although the in-hospital mortality was still high. To initiate ECMO therapy under tremendous pressure, patients' age, lymphocyte count, and adequacy of medical resources should be fully considered.

9.
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.

10.
Journal of Intensive Medicine ; 2021.
Article in English | ScienceDirect | ID: covidwho-1446889

ABSTRACT

Background There have been many studies about coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID -19), but the clinical significance of quantitative serum severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2(SARS-CoV-2)-specific IgM and IgG levels in COVID-19 patients have not been exhaustively studied. We aimed to study the time profiles of these IgM/IgG levels in COVID-19 patients and their correlations with clinical features. Methods A multicenter clinical study was conducted from February to March 2020. It involved 179 COVID-19 patients (108 males and 71 females) from five hospitals in Huangshi in Hubei Province, China. To detect SARS-CoV-2-specific IgM/IgG, quantitative antibody assays (two-step indirect immunoassays with direct chemiluminescence technology) based on the nucleocapsid protein (NP) and spike protein 1 (S1) were used. For normally distributed data, means were compared using the t test, χ2 test, or exact probability method. For categorical data, medians were compared using Mann-Whitney U test. Results The median age was 57(44-69) years (58(38-69) for males and 57(49-68) for females). The median duration of positive nucleic acid test was 22.32 (17.34-27.43) days. The mortality rate was relatively low (3/179, 1.68%). Serum SARS-CoV-2-specific IgG was detected around week 1 after illness onset, gradually increased until peaking in weeks 4 and 5, and then declined. Serum IgM peaked in weeks 2 and 3, then gradually declined and returned to its normal range by week 7 in all patients. Notably, children had milder respiratory symptoms with lower SARS-CoV-2-specific IgM/IgG levels. The duration of positive nucleic acid test in the chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) group was 30.36(18.99-34.76) days, which was significantly longer than that in the non-COPD group (21.52(16.75-26.51) days;P=0.011). The peak serum SARS-CoV-2-specific IgG was significantly positively correlated with the duration of positive nucleic acid test. The incidence rate of severe and critical cases in the IgMhi group (using the median IgM level of 29.95 AU/ml as the cutoff for grouping) was about 38% (19/50), which was twice as much as that in the IgMlo group (18.37%;9/49). The patients with positive chest imaging and lymphocytopenia (<1 × 109/L) had a higher SARS-CoV-2-specific IgM level. Conclusions Quantitative SARS-CoV-2-specific IgM and IgG levels are helpful for the diagnosis, severity classification, and management of COVID-19 patients, and they should be monitored in each stage of this disease.

11.
Anal Chem ; 93(38): 12889-12898, 2021 09 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1379296

ABSTRACT

REGEN-COV is a cocktail of two human IgG1 monoclonal antibodies (REGN10933 + REGN10987) that targets severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spike protein and has shown great promise to reduce the SARS-CoV-2 viral load in COVID-19 patients enrolled in clinical studies. A liquid chromatography-multiple reaction monitoring-mass spectrometry (LC-MRM-MS)-based method, combined with trypsin and rAspN dual enzymatic digestion, was developed for the determination of total REGN10933 and total REGN10987 concentrations in several hundreds of pharmacokinetic (PK) serum samples from COVID-19 patients participating in phase I, II, and III clinical studies. The performance characteristics of this bioanalytical assay were evaluated with respect to linearity, accuracy, precision, selectivity, specificity, and analyte stability before and after enzymatic digestion. The developed LC-MRM-MS assay has a dynamic range from 10 to 2000 µg/mL antibody drug in the human serum matrix, which was able to cover the serum drug concentration from day 0 to day 28 after drug administration in two-dose groups for the clinical PK study of REGEN-COV. The concentrations of REGEN-COV in the two-dose groups measured by the LC-MRM-MS assay were comparable to the concentrations measured by a fully validated electrochemiluminescence (ECL) immunoassay.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Antibodies, Monoclonal , Chromatography, Liquid , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Tandem Mass Spectrometry
12.
Journal of Intensive Medicine ; 2021.
Article in English | ScienceDirect | ID: covidwho-1370610

ABSTRACT

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may rapidly worsen respiratory failure, thereby leading to death. COVID-19-induced respiratory failure exhibits some atypical characteristics, silent hypoxemia, and high lung compliance. Some histopathological changes associated with COVID-19-induced respiratory failure differ from those of classic acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). However, compared with classical ARDS, COVID-19-induced respiratory failure has a similar timing of onset, clinical syndromes, radiological profile, and mortality rate in the intensive care unit (ICU). Respiratory failure induced by COVID-19 is a type of ARDS and is currently underdiagnosed. This condition stretches the definition of classic ARDS;therefore, an updated definition is warranted.

13.
Zhonghua Wei Zhong Bing Ji Jiu Yi Xue ; 33(7): 774-778, 2021 Jul.
Article in Chinese | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1367940

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of Xuebijing injection on the improvement of pneumonia severity index (PSI) and prognosis in patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: A multicenter prospective cohort study was designed. Adult patients with COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) of 28 designated COVID-19 hospitals in 15 provinces and cities of China from January to March 2020 were enrolled. All patients were treated according to the standard treatment plan of COVID-19 issued by the National Health Commission of the People's Republic of China. They were divided into Xuebijing group and standard treatment group according to whether they received Xuebijing injection or not. In the standard treatment group, routine medical care measures such as antiviral, respiratory support, circulatory support and symptomatic treatment were taken. In the Xuebijing group, on the basis of standard treatment, Xuebijing was used within 12 hours of admission to the ICU, 100 mL each time, twice daily. The minimum duration of Xuebijing administration was 1 day. The improvement rate of PSI risk rating on the 8th day and clinical outcome on the 28th day were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 276 COVID-19 patients were screened continuously, and the data of 144 severe patients who met PSI risk rating III-V were analyzed. Seventy-two cases were involved each in standard treatment group and Xuebijing group. The average age of the standard treatment group and Xuebijing group were (65.7±7.9) years old and (63.5±10.9) years old, and male accounted for 75.0% (54/72) and 70.8% (51/72), respectively. There were no significant differences in general conditions, comorbidities, PSI risk rating and score, sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score, oxygenation index (PaO2/FiO2), respiratory support mode and other baseline indicators between the two groups. Compared with the standard treatment group, the improvement rate of PSI risk rating in Xuebijing group on the 8th day after admission was significantly improved [56.9% (41/72) vs. 20.8% (15/72), between-group difference and 95% confidence interval (95%CI) was 36.1% (21.3% to 50.9%), P < 0.01], PSI score, SOFA score and PaO2/FiO2 were significantly improved [PSI score: 83.7±34.8 vs. 108.2±25.6, between-group difference (95%CI) was -24.5 (-34.9 to -14.1); SOFA score: 2.0 (1.0, 4.0) vs. 7.0 (4.0, 10.0), between-group difference (95%CI) was -3.5 (-5.0 to -2.0); PaO2/FiO2 (mmHg, 1 mmHg = 0.133 kPa): 289.4±111.6 vs. 188.5±98.1, between-group difference (95%CI) was 100.9 (65.3 to 136.5); all P < 0.01]. The 28-day discharge rate of Xuebijing group was 44.5% higher than that of standard treatment group [66.7% (48/72) vs. 22.2% (16/72), P < 0.01], and the 28-day survival rate was 9.8% [91.7% (66/72) vs. 81.9% (59/72), P < 0.01]. There was no significant difference in the combination of antiviral drugs, antibiotics, anticoagulants and vasopressor drugs between the two groups. There was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse events between the Xuebijing group and standard treatment group [41.7% (30/72) vs. 43.1% (31/72), P > 0.05], and no serious adverse events and adverse reactions of Xuebijing were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Standard treatment combined with Xuebijing injection can significantly improve the PSI risk score and clinical prognosis of patients with severe COVID-19 without increasing drug safety risk.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Drugs, Chinese Herbal , Adult , Aged , Drugs, Chinese Herbal/therapeutic use , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
14.
Ann Palliat Med ; 10(8): 8536-8546, 2021 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1353024

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The characteristics of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients with hypotension are still limited. We aim to describe the clinical features and outcomes of the patients. METHODS: This was a multicenter retrospective study of critically ill patients with COVID-19 from ICUs in 19 hospitals in China. All patients were followed up to day 28 or death, which came first. Clinical and outcome data were collected and analyzed. Patients were classified as early-onset or late-onset hypotension, and clinical characteristics and outcomes were compared. RESULTS: A total of 649 patients were included in the final analysis, and 240 (37.0%) were hypotension patients. The median age of hypotension patients was 67 years (IQR, 60-73 years), and 159 (66.2%) were male. 172 (71.7%) of the hypotension patients had at least one comorbidity. The 28-day mortality of the patients with hypotension was 85.4%, which was significantly higher than that of patients without hypotension. Compared with late-onset hypotension patients, the 28-day mortality of patients with early-onset hypotension was significantly higher (90.1% vs. 78.6%, P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Approximately one third critically ill COVID-19 patients progressed to hypotension. The mortality was significantly higher in hypotension patients than that in patients without hypotension. Compared with patients with late-onset hypotension, the mortality of patients with early-onset hypotension was significantly higher.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Hypotension , Aged , Critical Illness , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
15.
Am J Emerg Med ; 50: 218-223, 2021 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1347466

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The use of accurate prediction tools and early intervention are important for addressing severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, the prediction models for severe COVID-19 available to date are subject to various biases. This study aimed to construct a nomogram to provide accurate, personalized predictions of the risk of severe COVID-19. METHODS: This study was based on a large, multicenter retrospective derivation cohort and a validation cohort. The derivation cohort consisted of 496 patients from Jiangsu Province, China, between January 10, 2020, and March 15, 2020, and the validation cohort contained 105 patients from Huangshi, Hunan Province, China, between January 21, 2020, and February 29, 2020. A nomogram was developed with the selected predictors of severe COVID-19, which were identified by univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses. We evaluated the discrimination of the nomogram with the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and the calibration of the nomogram with calibration plots and Hosmer-Lemeshow tests. RESULTS: Three predictors, namely, age, lymphocyte count, and pulmonary opacity score, were selected to develop the nomogram. The nomogram exhibited good discrimination (AUC 0.93, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.90-0.96 in the derivation cohort; AUC 0.85, 95% CI 0.76-0.93 in the validation cohort) and satisfactory agreement. CONCLUSIONS: The nomogram was a reliable tool for assessing the probability of severe COVID-19 and may facilitate clinicians stratifying patients and providing early and optimal therapies.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , Nomograms , Adult , COVID-19/blood , China , Cohort Studies , Female , Humans , Logistic Models , Lymphocyte Count , Male , Middle Aged , Predictive Value of Tests , ROC Curve , Retrospective Studies
16.
Front Med (Lausanne) ; 8: 637747, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1346406

ABSTRACT

Background: Different positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) strategies are available for subjects with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-induced acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) requiring invasive mechanical ventilation. We aimed to evaluate three conventional PEEP strategies on their effects on respiratory mechanics, gas exchanges, and hemodynamics. Methods: This is a prospective, physiologic, multicenter study conducted in China. We recruited 20 intubated subjects with ARDS and confirmed COVID-19. We first set PEEP by the ARDSnet low PEEP-fraction of inspired oxygen (FIO2) table. After a recruitment maneuver, PEEP was set at 15, 10, and 5 cm H2O for 10 min, respectively. Among these three PEEP levels, best-compliance PEEP was the one providing the highest respiratory system compliance; best-oxygenation PEEP was the one providing the highest PaO2 (partial pressure of arterial oxygen)/FIO2. Results: At each PEEP level, we assessed respiratory mechanics, arterial blood gas, and hemodynamics. Among three PEEP levels, plateau pressure, driving pressure, mechanical power, and blood pressure improved with lower PEEP. The ARDSnet low PEEP-FIO2 table and the best-oxygenation strategies provided higher PEEP than the best-compliance strategy (11 ± 6 cm H2O vs. 11 ± 3 cm H2O vs. 6 ± 2 cm H2O, p = 0.001), leading to higher plateau pressure, driving pressure, and mechanical power. The three PEEP strategies were not significantly different in gas exchange. The subgroup analysis showed that three PEEP strategies generated different effects in subjects with moderate or severe ARDS (n = 12) but not in subjects with mild ARDS (n = 8). Conclusions: In our cohort with COVID-19-induced ARDS, the ARDSnet low PEEP/FIO2 table and the best-oxygenation strategies led to higher PEEP and potentially higher risk of ventilator-induced lung injury than the best-compliance strategy. Clinical Trial Registration: www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT04359251.

17.
J Transl Int Med ; 9(2): 68-70, 2021 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1332091
18.
Intensive Care Med ; 47(9): 1017-1020, 2021 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1279404
19.
Lancet Digit Health ; 3(3): e166-e174, 2021 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1149618

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Non-invasive respiratory strategies (NIRS) including high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and non-invasive ventilation (NIV) have become widely used in patients with COVID-19 who develop acute respiratory failure. However, use of these therapies, if ineffective, might delay initiation of invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) in some patients. We aimed to determine early predictors of NIRS failure and develop a simple nomogram and online calculator that can identify patients at risk of NIRS failure. METHODS: We did a retrospective, multicentre observational study in 23 hospitals designated for patients with COVID-19 in China. Adult patients (≥18 years) with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection and acute respiratory failure receiving NIRS were enrolled. A training cohort of 652 patients (21 hospitals) was used to identify early predictors of NIRS failure, defined as subsequent need for IMV or death within 28 days after intensive care unit admission. A nomogram was developed by multivariable logistic regression and concordance statistics (C-statistics) computed. C-statistics were validated internally by cross-validation in the training cohort, and externally in a validation cohort of 107 patients (two hospitals). FINDINGS: Patients were enrolled between Jan 1 and Feb 29, 2020. NIV failed in 211 (74%) of 286 patients and HFNC in 204 (56%) of 366 patients in the training cohort. NIV failed in 48 (81%) of 59 patients and HFNC in 26 (54%) of 48 patients in the external validation cohort. Age, number of comorbidities, respiratory rate-oxygenation index (ratio of pulse oximetry oxygen saturation/fraction of inspired oxygen to respiratory rate), Glasgow coma scale score, and use of vasopressors on the first day of NIRS in the training cohort were independent risk factors for NIRS failure. Based on the training dataset, the nomogram had a C-statistic of 0·80 (95% CI 0·74-0·85) for predicting NIV failure, and a C-statistic of 0·85 (0·82-0·89) for predicting HFNC failure. C-statistic values were stable in both internal validation (NIV group mean 0·79 [SD 0·10], HFNC group mean 0·85 [0·07]) and external validation (NIV group value 0·88 [95% CI 0·72-0·96], HFNC group value 0·86 [0·72-0·93]). INTERPRETATION: We have developed a nomogram and online calculator that can be used to identify patients with COVID-19 who are at risk of NIRS failure. These patients might benefit from early triage and more intensive monitoring. FUNDING: Ministry of Science and Technology of the People's Republic of China, Key Research and Development Plan of Jiangsu Province, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Nomograms , Noninvasive Ventilation , Treatment Failure , Adult , Aged , China , Comorbidity , Female , Forecasting , Humans , Male , Medical Records , Middle Aged , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Young Adult
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL