Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 23
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: 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.

3.
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.

4.
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
5.
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
6.
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
7.
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
9.
Int Immunopharmacol ; 90: 107143, 2021 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1084141

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Thymosin α1 therapy was commonly used in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), while its impact on outcomes and which patients could benefit from thymosin α1 therapy were uncertain. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Patients with COVID-19 from 19 designated hospitals between January 1 to February 29, 2020 were included, and the main exposure of interest was administration of thymosin α1. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to account for baseline confounders, cluster analysis and Cox proportional hazard model was used to account for subgroup analysis. RESULTS: A total of 771 patients were included, and 327/771 (42.4%) patients received thymosin α1 therapy. The 28-day mortality in thymosin group was significantly lower than that in control group (41.3% vs. 60.6%, p < 0.001). After PSM 522 patients were included in analysis and the 28-day mortality in thymosin α1 group and control group were 51.0% and 52.9% respectively, with no significant difference. In subgroup analyses, the association between thymosin α1 therapy and 28-day mortality appeared to be stronger among male patients (HR 0.673, 95% CI 0.454-0.998; p = 0.049). There were no benefits of thymosin α1 in 28-day mortality in other subgroups. There were two phenotypes after cluster analysis, but no benefits of thymosin α1 were shown in phenotype 1 (HR 0.823 95% CI 0.581-1.166; p = 0.273) and phenotype 2 (HR 1.148 95% CI 0.710-1.895; p = 0.442). CONCLUSION: There was no association between use of thymosin α1 and decreased mortality in critically ill COVID-19 patients. Subgroups analysis and phenotype analysis also showed no differences on mortality after thymosin α1 therapy.


Subject(s)
Adjuvants, Immunologic/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , COVID-19/mortality , SARS-CoV-2 , Thymalfasin/therapeutic use , Aged , Critical Illness , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Retrospective Studies , Survival Analysis
10.
J Intensive Care Med ; 36(3): 319-326, 2021 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-955406

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The incidence and outcome of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-induced kidney injury have been variably described. We aimed to describe the clinical characteristics, correlates and outcomes of critically ill patients with severe COVID-19 complicated by acute kidney injury (AKI). METHODS: We performed a multicenter retrospective cohort study of 671 critically ill adults with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 from 19 hospitals in China between January 1 to February 29, 2020. Data were captured on demographics, comorbidities, symptoms, acute physiology, laboratory parameters, interventions, and outcomes. The primary exposure was ICU admission for confirmed COVID-19 related critically illness. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included factors associated with AKI, organ dysfunction, treatment intensity, and health services use. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of 671 severe COVID-19 patients (median [IQR] 65 [56-73] years; male sex 65% (n = 434); hypertension 43% (n = 287) and APACHE II score 10 [7-14]), 39% developed AKI. Patients with AKI were older, had greater markers of inflammation and coagulation activation, and had greater acuity and organ dysfunction as presentation. Despite similar treatment with antivirals, patients with AKI had lower viral conversion negative rates than those without AKI. The 28-day mortality was much higher in AKI patients than patients without AKI (72% vs. 42%), and there was an increase in 28-day mortality according to the severity of AKI. Non-survivors were less likely to receive antiviral therapy [132 (70%) vs. 65 (88%)] compared with survivors and have lower viral negative conversion rate [17 (9%) vs. 47 (64%)]. CONCLUSIONS: Acute kidney injury was quite common in severe COVID-19 pneumonia, which associated with higher mortality.


Subject(s)
Acute Kidney Injury/epidemiology , COVID-19/physiopathology , Mortality , APACHE , Acute Kidney Injury/physiopathology , Acute Kidney Injury/therapy , Aged , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/therapy , Case-Control Studies , China , Cohort Studies , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation , Female , Humans , Incidence , Inflammation , Intensive Care Units , Male , Middle Aged , Organ Dysfunction Scores , Proportional Hazards Models , Renal Replacement Therapy , Respiration, Artificial , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Severity of Illness Index , Vasoconstrictor Agents/therapeutic use
11.
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
12.
SSRN; 2020.
Preprint | SSRN | ID: ppcovidwho-1687

ABSTRACT

Background: Non-invasive respiratory therapies (NIRTs) (high flow nasal cannula and non-invasive ventilation) are widely used in COVID-19 patients who develop

15.
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
17.
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
18.
Chest ; 158(1): 195-205, 2020 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-100891

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Since the outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in China in December 2019, considerable attention has been focused on its elucidation. However, it is also important for clinicians and epidemiologists to differentiate COVID-19 from other respiratory infectious diseases such as influenza viruses. RESEARCH QUESTION: The aim of this study was to explore the different clinical presentations between COVID-19 and influenza A (H1N1) pneumonia in patients with ARDS. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This analysis was a retrospective case-control study. Two independent cohorts of patients with ARDS infected with either COVID-19 (n = 73) or H1N1 (n = 75) were compared. Their clinical manifestations, imaging characteristics, treatments, and prognosis were analyzed and compared. RESULTS: The median age of patients with COVID-19 was higher than that of patients with H1N1, and there was a higher proportion of male subjects among the H1N1 cohort (P < .05). Patients with COVID-19 exhibited higher proportions of nonproductive coughs, fatigue, and GI symptoms than those of patients with H1N1 (P < .05). Patients with H1N1 had higher Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores than patients with COVID-19 (P < .05). The Pao2/Fio2 of 198.5 mm Hg in the COVID-19 cohort was significantly higher than the Pao2/Fio2 of 107.0 mm Hg in the H1N1 cohort (P < .001). Ground-glass opacities was more common in patients with COVID-19 than in patients with H1N1 (P < .001). There was a greater variety of antiviral therapies administered to COVID-19 patients than to H1N1 patients. The in-hospital mortality of patients with COVID-19 was 28.8%, whereas that of patients with H1N1 was 34.7% (P = .483). SOFA score-adjusted mortality of H1N1 patients was significantly higher than that of COVID-19 patients, with a rate ratio of 2.009 (95% CI, 1.563-2.583; P < .001). INTERPRETATION: There were many differences in clinical presentations between patients with ARDS infected with either COVID-19 or H1N1. Compared with H1N1 patients, patients with COVID-19-induced ARDS had lower severity of illness scores at presentation and lower SOFA score-adjusted mortality.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus/isolation & purification , Coronavirus Infections , Hospital Mortality , Influenza A Virus, H1N1 Subtype/isolation & purification , Influenza, Human , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral , Symptom Assessment , Age Factors , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19 , Case-Control Studies , China/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Coronavirus Infections/mortality , Coronavirus Infections/physiopathology , Diagnosis, Differential , Female , Humans , Influenza, Human/diagnosis , Influenza, Human/mortality , Influenza, Human/physiopathology , Male , Middle Aged , Organ Dysfunction Scores , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Viral/mortality , Pneumonia, Viral/physiopathology , Prognosis , SARS-CoV-2 , Severity of Illness Index , Sex Factors , Symptom Assessment/methods , Symptom Assessment/statistics & numerical data
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL