Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 11 de 11
Filter
1.
Zhonghua Wei Zhong Bing Ji Jiu Yi Xue ; 34(6): 561-570, 2022 Jun.
Article in Chinese | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1974966

ABSTRACT

The global coronavirus disease 2019 epidemic is still in a pandemic state. Aging population with underlying diseases is prone to become severe, and have a higher mortality. The treatment capacity of the critical care department directly determines the treatment success rate of critical illness. At present, there is still a certain gap between domestic and foreign countries in intensive care unit (ICU), which is not only in the allocation of medical staff, but also in the beds and settings. The current medical model cannot fully meet the needs of development. The experience and lessons of many major public health emergencies suggested that "dual track of peace and war" approach in discipline construction of critical care is the best medical model. Following the concept of "combination of peace and war", strengthening the discipline construction of critical care department in municipal and district designated hospitals, allocating reasonable standard ICU, step-down ICU and combat readiness ICU, establishing rapid response team, and strengthening regular training and scientific management may be the key measures to deal with the epidemic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pandemics , Aged , Critical Care , Hospitals , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Pandemics/prevention & control
2.
Zhonghua Wei Zhong Bing Ji Jiu Yi Xue ; 34(5): 485-491, 2022 May.
Article in Chinese | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1903521

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To compare and analyze the clinical features of patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (sCOVID-19) and severe community acquired pneumonia (sCAP) who meet the diagnostic criteria for severe pneumonia of the Infectious Diseases Society of America/American Thoracic Society (IDSA/ATS). METHODS: A retrospective comparative analysis of the clinical records of 116 patients with sCOVID-19 admitted to the department of critical care medicine of Wuhan Third Hospital from January 1, 2020 to March 31, 2020 and 135 patients with sCAP admitted to the department of critical care medicine of Shanghai First People's Hospital from January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2017 was conducted. The basic information, diagnosis and comorbidities, laboratory data, etiology and imaging results, treatment, prognosis and outcome of the patients were collected. The differences in clinical data between sCOVID-19 and sCAP patients were compared, and the risk factors of death were analyzed. RESULTS: The 28-day mortality of sCOVID-19 and sCAP patients were 50.9% (59/116) and 37.0% (50/135), respectively. The proportion of arterial partial pressure of oxygen/fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO2/FiO2) ≤ 250 mmHg (1 mmHg ≈ 0.133 kPa) in sCOVID-19 patients was significantly higher than that of sCAP [62.1% (72/116) vs. 34.8% (47/135), P < 0.01]. The possible reason was that the proportion of multiple lung lobe infiltration in sCOVID-19 was significantly higher than that caused by sCAP [94.0% (109/116) vs. 40.0% (54/135), P < 0.01], but the proportion of sCOVID-19 patients requiring mechanical ventilation was significantly lower than that of sCAP [45.7% (53/116) vs. 60.0% (81/135), P < 0.05]. Further analysis of clinical indicators related to patient death found that for sCOVID-19 patients PaO2/FiO2, white blood cell count (WBC), neutrophils (NEU), neutrophil percentage (NEU%), neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio (NLR), total bilirubin (TBil), blood urea nitrogen (BUN), albumin (ALB), Ca2+, prothrombin time (PT), D-dimer, C-reactive protein (CRP) and other indicators were significantly different between the death group and the survival group, in addition, the proportion of receiving mechanical ventilation, gamma globulin, steroid hormones and fluid resuscitation in death group were higher than survival group. Logistic regression analysis showed that the need for mechanical ventilation, NLR > 10, TBil > 10 µmol/L, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) > 250 U/L were risk factors for death at 28 days. For sCAP patients, there were significant differences in age, BUN, ALB, blood glucose (GLU), Ca2+ and D-dimer between the death group and the survival group, but there was no significant difference in treatment. Logistic regression analysis showed that BUN > 7.14 mmol/L and ALB < 30 g/L were risk factors for 28-day death of sCAP patients. CONCLUSIONS: The sCOVID-19 patients in this cohort have worse oxygen condition and symptoms than sCAP patients, which may be due to the high proportion of lesions involving the lungs. The indicators of the difference between the death group and the survival group were similar in sCOVID-19 and sCAP patients. It is suggested that the two diseases have similar effects on renal function, nutritional status and coagulation function. But there were still differences in risk factors affecting survival. It may be that sCOVID-19 has a greater impact on lung oxygenation function, inflammatory cascade response, and liver function, while sCAP has a greater impact on renal function and nutritional status.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Community-Acquired Infections , Pneumonia , China , Community-Acquired Infections/diagnosis , Humans , Oxygen , Prognosis , Retrospective Studies
3.
Immun Inflamm Dis ; 10(4): e597, 2022 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1739166

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Systemic reactivation of Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) may occur in novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). However, the clinical consequences of EBV reactivation remain uncertain. METHODS: In this retrospective study, we screened 1314 patients with confirmed COVID-19 who died or were discharged between January 1, 2020 and March 12, 2020, in Wuhan Infectious Disease Hospital, Wuhan, China. Patients who had complete data for EBV serology and cytomegalovirus (CMV) serology were eligible. Serum levels of viral capsid antigen (VCA)-immunoglobulin G (IgG), Epstein-Barr nuclear antigen-IgG, VCA-IgM, early antigen (EA)-IgG, CMV-IgG, and CMV-IgM were compared between survivors and nonsurvivors. Dynamic changes of laboratory tests and outcomes were compared in patients with and without ganciclovir treatment. We used 1:1 matching based on age, gender, and illness severity to balance baseline characteristics. RESULTS: EBV reactivation was present in 55 of 217 patients. EBV reactivation was associated with age (57.91 [13.19] vs. 50.28 [12.66] years, p < .001), female gender (31 [56%] vs. 60 [37%], p = .02). Patients with EBV reactivation have statistically nonsignificant higher mortality rate (12 [22%] vs. 18 [11%], p = .08). EA-IgG levels were significantly higher in nonsurvivors than in survivors (median difference: -0.00005, 95% confidence interval, CI [-3.10, 0.00], p = .05). As compared to patients with COVID-19 who did not receive ganciclovir therapy, ganciclovir-treated patients had improved survival rate (0.98, 95% CI [0.95, 1.00] vs. 0.88, 95% CI [0.81, 0.95], p = .01). Hemoglobin (p < .001) and prealbumin (p = .02) levels were significantly higher in ganciclovir-treated patients. CONCLUSION: A high proportion of COVID-19 patients had EBV reactivation that may be associated with an increased risk of death. Whether treatment with ganciclovir may decrease the mortality of COVID-19 patients complicated with EBV reactivation warrants to be addressed in a placebo-controlled randomized trial in the future.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Epstein-Barr Virus Infections , COVID-19/drug therapy , Epstein-Barr Virus Infections/complications , Epstein-Barr Virus Infections/drug therapy , Female , Ganciclovir/therapeutic use , Herpesvirus 4, Human/physiology , Humans , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
4.
Front Immunol ; 12: 673693, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1365541

ABSTRACT

Background: Thymosin alpha 1 (Tα1) is widely used to treat patients with COVID-19 in China; however, its efficacy remains unclear. This study aimed to explore the efficacy of Tα1 as a COVID-19 therapy. Methods: We performed a multicenter cohort study in five tertiary hospitals in the Hubei province of China between December 2019 and March 2020. The patient non-recovery rate was used as the primary outcome. Results: All crude outcomes, including non-recovery rate (65/306 vs. 290/1,976, p = 0.003), in-hospital mortality rate (62/306 vs. 271/1,976, p = 0.003), intubation rate (31/306 vs. 106/1,976, p = 0.001), acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) incidence (104/306 vs. 499/1,976, p = 0.001), acute kidney injury (AKI) incidence (26/306 vs. 66/1,976, p < 0.001), and length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay (14.9 ± 12.7 vs. 8.7 ± 8.2 days, p < 0.001), were significantly higher in the Tα1 treatment group. After adjusting for confounding factors, Tα1 use was found to be significantly associated with a higher non-recovery rate than non-Tα1 use (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.1-2.1, p = 0.028). An increased risk of non-recovery rate associated with Tα1 use was observed in the patient subgroups with maximum sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) scores ≥2 (OR 2.0, 95%CI 1.4-2.9, p = 0.024), a record of ICU admission (OR 5.4, 95%CI 2.1-14.0, p < 0.001), and lower PaO2/FiO2 values (OR 1.9, 95%CI 1.1-3.4, p = 0.046). Furthermore, later initiation of Tα1 use was associated with a higher non-recovery rate. Conclusion: Tα1 use in COVID-19 patients was associated with an increased non-recovery rate, especially in those with greater disease severity.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/drug therapy , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/epidemiology , Thymalfasin/adverse effects , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/mortality , Female , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Intensive Care Units/statistics & numerical data , Length of Stay/statistics & numerical data , Logistic Models , Male , Middle Aged , Organ Dysfunction Scores , Prognosis , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/etiology , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/prevention & control , Retrospective Studies , Risk Assessment/statistics & numerical data , Thymalfasin/administration & dosage , Treatment Outcome
5.
Clin Microbiol Infect ; 27(10): 1488-1493, 2021 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1345288

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) is commonly used to treat severe COVID-19, although the clinical outcome of such treatment remains unclear. This study evaluated the effectiveness of IVIG treatment in severe COVID-19 patients. METHODS: This retrospective multicentre study evaluated 28-day mortality in severe COVID-19 patients with or without IVIG treatment. Each patient treated with IVIG was matched with one untreated patient. Logistic regression and inverse probability weighting (IPW) were used to control confounding factors. RESULTS: The study included 850 patients (421 IVIG-treated patients and 429 non-IVIG-treated patients). After matching, 406 patients per group remained. No significant difference in 28-day mortality was observed after IPW analysis (average treatment effect (ATE) = 0.008, 95% CI -0.081 to 0.097, p 0.863). There were no significant differences between the IVIG group and non-IVIG group for acute respiratory distress syndrome, diffuse intravascular coagulation, myocardial injury, acute hepatic injury, shock, acute kidney injury, non-invasive mechanical ventilation, invasive mechanical ventilation, continuous renal replacement therapy and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation except for prone position ventilation (ATE = -0.022, 95% CI -0.041 to -0.002, p 0.028). DISCUSSION: IVIG treatment was not associated with significant changes in 28-day mortality in severe COVID-19 patients. The effectiveness of IVIG in treating patients with severe COVID-19 needs to be further investigated through future studies.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Immunoglobulins, Intravenous/therapeutic use , Aged , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/mortality , Female , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Immunization, Passive/mortality , Male , Middle Aged , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Severity of Illness Index , Treatment Outcome
7.
Respir Med ; 173: 106159, 2020 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-799518

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The outbreak of COVID-19 caused by SARS-CoV-2 has been a pandemic. The objective of our study was to explore the association between sex and clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. METHODS: Detailed clinical data including clinical characteristics, laboratory tests, imaging features and treatments of 1190 cases of adult patients with confirmed COVID-19 were retrospectively analyzed. Associations between sex and clinical outcomes were identified by multivariable Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: There were 635 (53.4%) male and 555 (46.6%) female patients in this study. Higher rates of acute kidney injury (5.5% vs. 2.9%, p = 0.026), acute cardiac injury (9.1% vs. 4.3%, p = 0.001), and disseminated intravascular coagulation (2.5% vs. 0.7%, P = 0.024) were observed in males. Compared with female patients, male patients with COVID-19 had a higher inhospital mortality rate (15.7% vs. 10.3%, p = 0.005). However, Cox regression analysis showed that sex did not influence inhospital mortality of COVID-19 patients. CONCLUSIONS: Male sex was associated with a worse prognosis of COVID-19, but it seems not to be an independent prognostic factor.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections/complications , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/complications , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Adult , Aged , COVID-19 , China , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Female , Hospital Mortality , Hospitalization , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Outcome Assessment, Health Care , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2 , Sex Factors
9.
Ann Intensive Care ; 10(1): 99, 2020 Jul 31.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-690773

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Since December 2019, an outbreak of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-Cov-2) initially emerged in Wuhan, China, and has spread worldwide now. Clinical features of patients with COVID-19 have been described. However, risk factors leading to in-hospital deterioration and poor prognosis in COVID-19 patients with severe disease have not been well identified. METHODS: In this retrospective, single-center cohort study, 1190 adult inpatients (≥ 18 years old) with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 and determined outcomes (discharged or died) were included from Wuhan Infectious Disease Hospital from December 29, 2019 to February 28, 2020. The final follow-up date was March 2, 2020. Clinical data including characteristics, laboratory and imaging information as well as treatments were extracted from electronic medical records and compared. A multivariable logistic regression model was used to explore the potential predictors associated with in-hospital deterioration and death. RESULTS: 1190 patients with confirmed COVID-19 were included. Their median age was 57 years (interquartile range 47-67 years). Two hundred and sixty-one patients (22%) developed a severe illness after admission. Multivariable logistic regression demonstrated that higher SOFA score (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.22-1.43, per score increase, p < 0.001 for deterioration and OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.11-1.53, per score increase, p = 0.001 for death), lymphocytopenia (OR 1.81, 95% CI 1.13-2.89 p = 0.013 for deterioration; OR 4.44, 95% CI 1.26-15.87, p = 0.021 for death) on admission were independent risk factors for in-hospital deterioration from not severe to severe disease and for death in severe patients. On admission D-dimer greater than 1 µg/L (OR 3.28, 95% CI 1.19-9.04, p = 0.021), leukocytopenia (OR 5.10, 95% CI 1.25-20.78), thrombocytopenia (OR 8.37, 95% CI 2.04-34.44) and history of diabetes (OR 11.16, 95% CI 1.87-66.57, p = 0.008) were also associated with higher risks of in-hospital death in severe COVID-19 patients. Shorter time interval from illness onset to non-invasive mechanical ventilation in the survivors with severe disease was observed compared with non-survivors (10.5 days, IQR 9.25-11.0 vs. 16.0 days, IQR 11.0-19.0 days, p = 0.030). Treatment with glucocorticoids increased the risk of progression from not severe to severe disease (OR 3.79, 95% CI 2.39-6.01, p < 0.001). Administration of antiviral drugs especially oseltamivir or ganciclovir is associated with a decreased risk of death in severe patients (OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.05-0.64, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: High SOFA score and lymphocytopenia on admission could predict that not severe patients would develop severe disease in-hospital. On admission elevated D-dimer, leukocytopenia, thrombocytopenia and diabetes were independent risk factors of in-hospital death in severe patients with COVID-19. Administration of oseltamivir or ganciclovir might be beneficial for reducing mortality in severe patients.

10.
Ann Intensive Care ; 10(1): 73, 2020 Jun 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-549161

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-2019) pandemic has swept all over the world, posing a great pressure on critical care resources due to large number of patients needing critical care. Statements from front-line experts in the field of intensive care are urgently needed. METHODS: Sixteen front-line experts in China fighting against the COVID-19 epidemic in Wuhan were organized to develop an expert statement after 5 rounds of expert seminars and discussions to provide trustworthy recommendation on the management of critically ill COVID-19 patients. Each expert was assigned tasks within their field of expertise to provide draft statements and rationale. Parts of the expert statement are based on epidemiological and clinical evidence, without available scientific evidences. RESULTS: A comprehensive document with 46 statements are presented, including protection of medical personnel, etiological treatment, diagnosis and treatment of tissue and organ functional impairment, psychological interventions, immunity therapy, nutritional support, and transportation of critically ill COVID-19 patients. Among them, 5 recommendations were strong (Grade 1), 21 were weak (Grade 2), and 20 were experts' opinions. A strong agreement from voting participants was obtained for all recommendations. CONCLUSION: There are still no targeted therapies for COVID-19 patients. Dynamic monitoring and supportive treatment for the restoration of tissue vascularization and organ function are particularly important.

11.
Ann Intensive Care ; 10(1): 45, 2020 Apr 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-72471

ABSTRACT

Since the 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak originated from Wuhan, Hubei Province, China, at the end of 2019, it has become a clinical threat to the general population worldwide. Among people infected with the novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), the intensive management of the critically ill patients in intensive care unit (ICU) needs substantial medical resource. In the present article, we have summarized the promising drugs, adjunctive agents, respiratory supportive strategies, as well as circulation management, multiple organ function monitoring and appropriate nutritional strategies for the treatment of COVID-19 in the ICU based on the previous experience of treating other viral infections and influenza. These treatments are referable before the vaccine and specific drugs are available for COVID-19.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL