Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 22
Filter
1.
BMC Anesthesiol ; 22(1): 59, 2022 03 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1724413

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Data on the lung respiratory mechanics and gas exchange in the time course of COVID-19-associated respiratory failure is limited. This study aimed to explore respiratory mechanics and gas exchange, the lung recruitability and risk of overdistension during the time course of mechanical ventilation. METHODS: This was a prospective observational study in critically ill mechanically ventilated patients (n = 116) with COVID-19 admitted into Intensive Care Units of Sechenov University. The primary endpoints were: «optimum¼ positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) level balanced between the lowest driving pressure and the highest SpO2 and number of patients with recruitable lung on Days 1 and 7 of mechanical ventilation. We measured driving pressure at different levels of PEEP (14, 12, 10 and 8 cmH2O) with preset tidal volume, and with the increase of tidal volume by 100 ml and 200 ml at preset PEEP level, and calculated static respiratory system compliance (CRS), PaO2/FiO2, alveolar dead space and ventilatory ratio on Days 1, 3, 5, 7, 10, 14 and 21. RESULTS: The «optimum¼ PEEP levels on Day 1 were 11.0 (10.0-12.8) cmH2O and 10.0 (9.0-12.0) cmH2O on Day 7. Positive response to recruitment was observed on Day 1 in 27.6% and on Day 7 in 9.2% of patients. PEEP increase from 10 to 14 cmH2O and VT increase by 100 and 200 ml led to a significant decrease in CRS from Day 1 to Day 14 (p < 0.05). Ventilatory ratio was 2.2 (1.7-2,7) in non-survivors and in 1.9 (1.6-2.6) survivors on Day 1 and decreased on Day 7 in survivors only (p < 0.01). PaO2/FiO2 was 105.5 (76.2-141.7) mmHg in non-survivors on Day 1 and 136.6 (106.7-160.8) in survivors (p = 0.002). In survivors, PaO2/FiO2 rose on Day 3 (p = 0.008) and then between Days 7 and 10 (p = 0.046). CONCLUSION: Lung recruitability was low in COVID-19 and decreased during the course of the disease, but lung overdistension occurred at «intermediate¼ PEEP and VT levels. In survivors gas exchange improvements after Day 7 mismatched CRS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04445961 . Registered 24 June 2020-Retrospectively registered.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/therapy , Lung/physiopathology , Respiration, Artificial/statistics & numerical data , Respiratory Insufficiency/epidemiology , Aged , COVID-19/physiopathology , Critical Care/methods , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Noninvasive Ventilation/statistics & numerical data , Positive-Pressure Respiration , Prospective Studies , Respiratory Insufficiency/physiopathology , Respiratory Mechanics , Russia/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2 , Survival Analysis , Tidal Volume , Treatment Failure
2.
JAMA Netw Open ; 5(2): e220548, 2022 02 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1711993

ABSTRACT

Importance: A World Health Organization (WHO) meta-analysis found that tocilizumab was associated with reduced mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. However, uncertainty remains concerning the magnitude of tocilizumab's benefits and whether its association with mortality benefit is similar across respiratory subgroups. Objective: To use bayesian methods to assess the magnitude of mortality benefit associated with tocilizumab and the differences between respiratory support subgroups in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: A bayesian hierarchical reanalysis of the WHO meta-analysis of tocilizumab studies published in 2020 and 2021 was performed. Main results were estimated using weakly informative priors to exert little influence on the observed data. The robustness of these results was evaluated using vague and informative priors. The studies featured in the meta-analysis were randomized clinical tocilizumab trials of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Only patients receiving corticosteroids were included. Interventions: Usual care plus tocilizumab in comparison with usual care or placebo. Main Outcomes and Measures: All-cause mortality at 28 days after randomization. Results: Among the 5339 patients included in this analysis, most were men, with mean ages between 56 and 66 years. There were 2117 patients receiving simple oxygen only, 2505 receiving noninvasive ventilation (NIV), and 717 receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) in 15 studies from multiple countries and continents. Assuming weakly informative priors, the overall odds ratios (ORs) for survival were 0.70 (95% credible interval [CrI], 0.50-0.91) for patients receiving simple oxygen only, 0.81 (95% CrI, 0.63-1.03) for patients receiving NIV, and 0.89 (95% CrI, 0.61-1.22) for patients receiving IMV, respectively. The posterior probabilities of any benefit (OR <1) were notably different between patients receiving simple oxygen only (98.9%), NIV (95.5%), and IMV (75.4%). The posterior probabilities of a clinically meaningful association (absolute mortality risk difference >1%) were greater than 95% in patients receiving simple oxygen only and greater than 90% in patients receiving NIV. In contrast, the posterior probability of this clinically meaningful association was only approximately 67% in patients receiving IMV. The probabilities of tocilizumab superiority in the simple oxygen only subgroup compared with the NIV and IMV subgroups were 85% and 90%, respectively. Predictive intervals highlighted that only 72.1% of future tocilizumab IMV studies would show benefit. The conclusions did not change with different prior distributions. Conclusions and Relevance: In this bayesian reanalysis of a previous meta-analysis of 15 studies of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 treated with tocilizumab and corticosteroids, use of simple oxygen only and NIV was associated with a probability of a clinically meaningful mortality benefit from tocilizumab. Future research should clarify whether patients receiving IMV also benefit from tocilizumab.


Subject(s)
Adrenal Cortex Hormones/pharmacology , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/pharmacology , COVID-19 , Noninvasive Ventilation , Bayes Theorem , COVID-19/drug therapy , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/therapy , Humans , Middle Aged , Mortality , Noninvasive Ventilation/methods , Noninvasive Ventilation/statistics & numerical data , Risk Assessment , World Health Organization
3.
Respir Physiol Neurobiol ; 298: 103842, 2022 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1655093

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) and High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) are the main forms of treatment for acute respiratory failure. This study aimed to evaluate the effect, safety, and applicability of the NIV and HFNC in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) caused by COVID-19. METHODS: In this retrospective study, we monitored the effect of NIV and HFNC on the SpO2 and respiratory rate before, during, and after treatment, length of stay, rates of endotracheal intubation, and mortality in patients with AHRF caused by COVID-19. Additionally, data regarding RT-PCR from physiotherapists who were directly involved in assisting COVID-19 patients and non-COVID-19. RESULTS: 62.2 % of patients were treated with HFNC. ROX index increased during and after NIV and HFNC treatment (P < 0.05). SpO2 increased during NIV treatment (P < 0.05), but was not maintained after treatment (P = 0.17). In addition, there was no difference in the respiratory rate during or after the NIV (P = 0.95) or HFNC (P = 0.60) treatment. The mortality rate was 35.7 % for NIV vs 21.4 % for HFNC (P = 0.45), while the total endotracheal intubation rate was 57.1 % for NIV vs 69.6 % for HFNC (P = 0.49). Two adverse events occurred during treatment with NIV and eight occurred during treatment with HFNC. There was no difference in the physiotherapists who tested positive for SARS-COV-2 directly involved in assisting COVID-19 patients and non-COVID-19 ones (P = 0.81). CONCLUSION: The application of NIV and HFNC in the critical care unit is feasible and associated with favorable outcomes. In addition, there was no increase in the infection of physiotherapists with SARS-CoV-2.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Cannula , Intubation, Intratracheal , Noninvasive Ventilation , Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care , Oxygen/administration & dosage , Positive-Pressure Respiration , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , Respiratory Rate/drug effects , Acute Disease , Administration, Inhalation , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Brazil , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/mortality , Cannula/adverse effects , Cannula/standards , Cannula/statistics & numerical data , Feasibility Studies , Female , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Intubation, Intratracheal/statistics & numerical data , Length of Stay/statistics & numerical data , Male , Middle Aged , Noninvasive Ventilation/adverse effects , Noninvasive Ventilation/methods , Noninvasive Ventilation/standards , Noninvasive Ventilation/statistics & numerical data , Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care/statistics & numerical data , Physical Therapists , Positive-Pressure Respiration/adverse effects , Positive-Pressure Respiration/standards , Positive-Pressure Respiration/statistics & numerical data , Respiratory Insufficiency/etiology , Respiratory Insufficiency/mortality , Retrospective Studies
4.
PLoS One ; 17(1): e0262315, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1622359

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The role of non-invasive ventilation (NIV) in severe COVID-19 remains a matter of debate. Therefore, the utilization and outcome of NIV in COVID-19 in an unbiased cohort was determined. AIM: The aim was to provide a detailed account of hospitalized COVID-19 patients requiring non-invasive ventilation during their hospital stay. Furthermore, differences of patients treated with NIV between the first and second wave are explored. METHODS: Confirmed COVID-19 cases of claims data of the Local Health Care Funds with non-invasive and/or invasive mechanical ventilation (MV) in the spring and autumn pandemic period in 2020 were comparable analysed. RESULTS: Nationwide cohort of 17.023 cases (median/IQR age 71/61-80 years, 64% male) 7235 (42.5%) patients primarily received IMV without NIV, 4469 (26.3%) patients received NIV without subsequent intubation, and 3472 (20.4%) patients had NIV failure (NIV-F), defined by subsequent endotracheal intubation. The proportion of patients who received invasive MV decreased from 75% to 37% during the second period. Accordingly, the proportion of patients with NIV exclusively increased from 9% to 30%, and those failing NIV increased from 9% to 23%. Median length of hospital stay decreased from 26 to 21 days, and duration of MV decreased from 11.9 to 7.3 days. The NIV failure rate decreased from 49% to 43%. Overall mortality increased from 51% versus 54%. Mortality was 44% with NIV-only, 54% with IMV and 66% with NIV-F with mortality rates steadily increasing from 62% in early NIV-F (day 1) to 72% in late NIV-F (>4 days). CONCLUSIONS: Utilization of NIV rapidly increased during the autumn period, which was associated with a reduced duration of MV, but not with overall mortality. High NIV-F rates are associated with increased mortality, particularly in late NIV-F.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Noninvasive Ventilation , Respiration, Artificial , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/mortality , Female , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Intubation, Intratracheal/statistics & numerical data , Length of Stay , Male , Middle Aged , Noninvasive Ventilation/statistics & numerical data , Respiration, Artificial/statistics & numerical data , Treatment Outcome , Young Adult
5.
Mayo Clin Proc ; 97(1): 31-45, 2022 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1587025

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To study the role of noninvasive ventilation (NIV) in Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2) related acute respiratory failure (C-ARF). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with C-ARF managed on NIV were categorized as NIV success or failure (death or intubation). Factors associated with failure were explored using regression analysis and expressed as odds ratio (OR) with 95% CI. RESULTS: Between April 1, 2020, and September 15, 2020, a total of 286 patients with a mean ± SD age of 53.1±11.6 years and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score of 11.1±5.5 were initiated on NIV. Of the 182 patients (63.6%) successfully managed on NIV alone, 118 had moderate or severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. When compared with NIV success, NIV failure was associated with lower admission PaO2 to fraction of inspired oxygen ratio (P<.001) and higher respiratory rate (P<.001). On penalized logistic regression analysis, NIV failure was associated with higher Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.24), severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (OR, 3.99; 95% CI, 1.24 to 12.9), D-dimer level of 1000 ng/mL DDU (to convert to mg/L, divide by 1000) or greater (OR, 2.60; 95% CI, 1.16 to 5.87), need for inotropes or dialysis (OR, 12.7; 95% CI, 4.3 to 37.7), and nosocomial infections (OR, 13.6; 95% CI, 4.06 to 45.9). Overall mortality was 30.1% (86/286). In patients requiring intubation, time to intubation was longer in nonsurvivors than survivors (median, 5; interquartile range, 3-8 vs 3; interquartile range, 2-3 days; P<.001). CONCLUSION: Noninvasive ventilation can be used successfully in C-ARF. Illness severity and need for non-respiratory organ support predict NIV failure.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Critical Illness/therapy , Noninvasive Ventilation/statistics & numerical data , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Adult , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/immunology , Female , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Male , Middle Aged , Respiration, Artificial/methods , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/etiology , Treatment Outcome
6.
Neuromuscul Disord ; 31(12): 1241-1250, 2021 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1363360

ABSTRACT

About 20% of patients with myasthenia gravis (MG) may develop myasthenic crisis (MC) requiring ventilation, either invasive (MV) or non-invasive (NIV) and intensive unit care (ICU). NIV failure in patients with MC can occur up to 60% of cases admitted to ICU. Moreover it is not known the outcome of MC receiving NIV. Purpose of this study was to identify predictors of outcome in MC who underwent non-invasive ventilator support outside ICU setting. We enrolled 90 patients, 53 females and 37 males admitted to University Hospital of Modena (Italy) between January 2000 and September 2020. Median age at MC was 65 years. Thirty-four patients (37.8%) required MV. Thymectomy was performed in 45 cases, associated with thymoma in 55%, with hyperplastic thymus in 33%. First-line treatment was plasmaexchange (38.8%) or intravenous immunoglobulins (45.6%). Males exhibited higher risk of MV than females .Patients in MV were treated with plasmaexchange as first-line therapy . Our in-hospital mortality rate was low. Nine patients underwent tracheostomy which was significantly related to male gender. Comorbidities had significant effect on length of ICU .Our study confirms as predictors of prognosis in our patients male gender, older age at onset, infections as trigger, pneumonia.


Subject(s)
Myasthenia Gravis/diagnosis , Myasthenia Gravis/therapy , Noninvasive Ventilation , Outcome Assessment, Health Care , Aged , Female , Humans , Italy/epidemiology , Longitudinal Studies , Male , Middle Aged , Myasthenia Gravis/epidemiology , Noninvasive Ventilation/statistics & numerical data , Prognosis , Retrospective Studies
7.
BMC Emerg Med ; 21(1): 97, 2021 08 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1376573

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 outbreak, healthcare providers might have avoided droplet/aerosol-generating procedures, such as non-invasive ventilation (NIV) and high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) due to the concern of themselves being infected. We hypothesized that this change of practice could have also occurred to other non-COVID-infected patients in the Emergency Department (ED). METHODS: A retrospective analytic study was conducted in the ED of Siriraj Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand, including adult patients presenting with signs and symptoms of respiratory distress between 1 March and 30 April 2020 (the COVID period). A comparison group using the same inclusion criteria was retrieved from 1 March to 30 April 2019 (the pre-COVID period). The primary outcome was rate of NIV and HFNC use. The secondary outcomes were rate of intubation, failure of NIV and HFNC, complications, and mortality. RESULTS: A total of 360 and 333 patients were included during the pre-COVID and COVID periods, respectively. After adjusting for baseline differences, patients in the COVID period were less likely to receive either NIV or HFNC than the pre-COVID period (adjusted OR 0.52 [95%CI 0.29-0.92]). Overall, intubation rate was similar between the two study periods. However, patients in respiratory distress with pulmonary edema had a relatively higher intubation rate in the COVID period. There were higher failure rates of NIV and HFNC, more infectious complications, and a higher rate of mortality in the pre-COVID period. CONCLUSION: During the COVID-19 pandemic, the overall usage of NIV and HFNC in emergency non-COVID patients decreased. Although not affecting the overall intubation rate, this change of practice could have affected some groups of patients. Therefore, treatment decisions based on a balance between the benefits to the patients and the safety of healthcare providers should be made.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Emergency Service, Hospital , Noninvasive Ventilation , Respiratory Insufficiency , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Noninvasive Ventilation/statistics & numerical data , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy , Pandemics , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , Retrospective Studies , Thailand
8.
Respiration ; 100(9): 909-917, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1270908

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: During the first wave of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in Switzerland, confinement was imposed to limit transmission and protect vulnerable persons. These measures may have had a negative impact on perceived quality of care and symptoms in patients with chronic disorders. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether patients under long-term home noninvasive ventilation (LTHNIV) for chronic respiratory failure (CRF) were negatively affected by the 56-day confinement (March-April 2020). METHODS: A questionnaire-based survey exploring mood disturbances (HAD), symptom scores related to NIV (S3-NIV), and perception of health-care providers during confinement was sent to all patients under LTHNIV followed up by our center. Symptom scores and data obtained by ventilator software were compared between confinement and the 56 days prior to confinement. RESULTS: Of a total of 100 eligible patients, 66 were included (median age: 66 years [IQR: 53-74]): 35 (53%) with restrictive lung disorders, 20 (30%) with OHS or SRBD, and 11 (17%) with COPD or overlap syndrome. Prevalence of anxiety (n = 7; 11%) and depressive (n = 2; 3%) disorders was remarkably low. Symptom scores were slightly higher during confinement although this difference was not clinically relevant. Technical data regarding ventilation, including compliance, did not change. Patients complained of isolation and lack of social contact. They felt supported by their relatives and caregivers but complained of the lack of regular contact and information by health-care professionals. CONCLUSIONS: Patients under LTHNIV for CRF showed a remarkable resilience during the SARS-CoV-2 confinement period. Comments provided may be helpful for managing similar future health-care crises.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Communicable Disease Control , Home Care Services/standards , Noninvasive Ventilation , Respiratory Insufficiency , Aged , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/psychology , Chronic Disease , Communicable Disease Control/methods , Communicable Disease Control/statistics & numerical data , Female , Health Services Needs and Demand , Humans , Long-Term Care/methods , Male , Mood Disorders/epidemiology , Mood Disorders/physiopathology , Noninvasive Ventilation/methods , Noninvasive Ventilation/statistics & numerical data , Qualitative Research , Quality of Health Care/statistics & numerical data , Respiratory Insufficiency/epidemiology , Respiratory Insufficiency/etiology , Respiratory Insufficiency/psychology , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , SARS-CoV-2 , Social Support , Switzerland/epidemiology , Symptom Assessment/methods , Symptom Assessment/statistics & numerical data
9.
Minerva Med ; 112(3): 329-337, 2021 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1239284

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has high mortality rate mainly stemming from acute respiratory distress leading to respiratory failure (ARF). Aim of the study was to evaluate the management of severe ARF due to COVID-19 pneumonia using noninvasive ventilatory support (NIVS), studying safety and effectiveness of NIVS. METHODS: This is a retrospective, multicenter study. Primary outcomes were NIVS failure with intubation rate and hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were hospital stay and factors related to NIVS failure and mortality. These outcomes were compared with patients intubated and admitted to ICU. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-two patients were hospitalized because of severe respiratory failure (PaO2/FiO2 ratio <250). One hundred thirty-eight patients were admitted to Respiratory Intermediate Care Unit (RICU) for a NIVS trial. One hundred patients were treated successfully with NIVS (74.5%); 38 failed NIVS trial (27.5%). In-hospital mortality was 23.18% in RICU group and 30.55% in ICU group. Patients with NIVS failure were older, had a lower number of lymphocytes, a higher IL-6, lower PaO2, PaC O2, PaO2/FiO2 ratio, higher respiratory rate (RR) and heart rate at admission and lower PaO2, and PaO2/FiO2 ratio and higher RR after 1-6 hours. Multivariate analysis identified higher age, C-reactive protein as well as RR after 1-6 hours and PaO2/FiO2 ratio after 1-6 hours as an independent predictor mortality. CONCLUSIONS: NIVS is a safe and effective strategy in the treatment of severe ARF due to COVID-19 related pneumonia, that reduces mortality and length of hospital stay in the carefully selected patients.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , Noninvasive Ventilation , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , Acute Disease , Age Factors , Aged , COVID-19/drug therapy , Female , Heart Rate , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Intensive Care Units/statistics & numerical data , Length of Stay , Male , Middle Aged , Multivariate Analysis , Noninvasive Ventilation/adverse effects , Noninvasive Ventilation/methods , Noninvasive Ventilation/statistics & numerical data , Respiratory Insufficiency/mortality , Respiratory Rate , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Failure , Treatment Outcome
11.
BMC Pulm Med ; 21(1): 96, 2021 Mar 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1143203

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Gender-related factors might affect vulnerability to Covid-19. The aim of this study was to describe the role of gender on clinical features and 28-day mortality in Covid-19 patients. METHODS: Observational study of Covid-19 patients hospitalized in Bergamo, Italy, during the first three weeks of the outbreak. Medical records, clinical, radiological and laboratory findings upon admission and treatment have been collected. Primary outcome was 28-day mortality since hospitalization. RESULTS: 431 consecutive adult patients were admitted. Female patients were 119 (27.6%) with a mean age of 67.0 ± 14.5 years (vs 67.8 ± 12.5 for males, p = 0.54). Previous history of myocardial infarction, vasculopathy and former smoking habits were more common for males. At the time of admission PaO2/FiO2 was similar between men and women (228 [IQR, 134-273] vs 238 mmHg [150-281], p = 0.28). Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) assistance was needed in the first 24 h more frequently in male patients (25.7% vs 13.0%; p = 0.006). Overall 28-day mortality was 26.1% in women and 38.1% in men (p = 0.018). Gender did not result an independent predictor of death once the parameters related to disease severity at presentation were included in the multivariable analysis (p = 0.898). Accordingly, the Kaplan-Meier survival analysis in female and male patients requiring CPAP or non-invasive ventilation in the first 24 h did not find a significant difference (p = 0.687). CONCLUSION: Hospitalized women are less likely to die from Covid-19; however, once severe disease occurs, the risk of dying is similar to men. Further studies are needed to better investigate the role of gender in clinical course and outcome of Covid-19.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/physiopathology , COVID-19/therapy , Comorbidity , Continuous Positive Airway Pressure/statistics & numerical data , Diabetes Mellitus/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Hypertension/epidemiology , Hypoxia/epidemiology , Hypoxia/physiopathology , Hypoxia/therapy , Italy/epidemiology , Kaplan-Meier Estimate , Male , Middle Aged , Myocardial Infarction/epidemiology , Noninvasive Ventilation/statistics & numerical data , SARS-CoV-2 , Severity of Illness Index , Sex Factors , Smoking/epidemiology
12.
BMJ Open Respir Res ; 8(1)2021 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1140340

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Descriptions of clinical characteristics of patients hospitalised withCOVID-19, their clinical course and short-term inpatient and outpatient outcomes in deprived urban populations in the UK are still relatively sparse. We describe the epidemiology, clinical course, experience of non-invasive ventilation and intensive care, mortality and short-term sequelae of patients admitted to two large District General Hospitals across a large East London National Health Service Trust during the first wave of the pandemic. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was carried out on a cohort of 1946 patients with a clinical or laboratory diagnosis of COVID-19, including descriptive statistics and survival analysis. A more detailed analysis was undertaken of a subset of patients admitted across three respiratory units in the trust. RESULTS: Increasing age, male sex and Asian ethnicity were associated with worse outcomes. Increasing severity of chest X-ray abnormalities trended with mortality. Radiological changes persisted in over 50% of cases at early follow-up (6 weeks). Ongoing symptoms including hair loss, memory impairment, breathlessness, cough and fatigue were reported in 70% of survivors, with 39% of patients unable to return to work due to ongoing symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding the acute clinical features, course of illness and outcomes of COVID-19 will be crucial in understanding the effect of differences in risk, as well as the effectiveness of new interventions and vaccination between the successive waves of the pandemic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/epidemiology , Age Factors , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Alopecia/physiopathology , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/physiopathology , COVID-19/therapy , Cohort Studies , Cough/physiopathology , Dyspnea/physiopathology , Fatigue/physiopathology , Female , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Intensive Care Units/statistics & numerical data , London/epidemiology , Male , Memory Disorders/physiopathology , Middle Aged , Multivariate Analysis , Noninvasive Ventilation/statistics & numerical data , Proportional Hazards Models , Retrospective Studies , Return to Work , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2 , Severity of Illness Index , Sex Factors
13.
Trials ; 22(1): 202, 2021 Mar 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1127720

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of therapeutic anticoagulation, with low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) or unfractionated heparin (UFH, high dose nomogram), compared to standard care in hospitalized patients admitted for COVID-19 with an elevated D-dimer on the composite outcome of intensive care unit (ICU) admission, non-invasive positive pressure ventilation, invasive mechanical ventilation or death up to 28 days. TRIAL DESIGN: Open-label, parallel, 1:1, phase 3, 2-arm randomized controlled trial PARTICIPANTS: The study population includes hospitalized adults admitted for COVID-19 prior to the development of critical illness. Excluded individuals are those where the bleeding risk or risk of transfusion would generally be considered unacceptable, those already therapeutically anticoagulated and those who have already have any component of the primary composite outcome. Participants are recruited from hospital sites in Brazil, Canada, Ireland, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and the United States of America. The inclusion criteria are: 1) Laboratory confirmed COVID-19 (diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 via reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction as per the World Health Organization protocol or by nucleic acid based isothermal amplification) prior to hospital admission OR within first 5 days (i.e. 120 hours) after hospital admission; 2) Admitted to hospital for COVID-19; 3) One D-dimer value above the upper limit of normal (ULN) (within 5 days (i.e. 120 hours) of hospital admission) AND EITHER: a. D-Dimer ≥2 times ULN OR b. D-Dimer above ULN and Oxygen saturation ≤ 93% on room air; 4) > 18 years of age; 5) Informed consent from the patient (or legally authorized substitute decision maker). The exclusion criteria are: 1) pregnancy; 2) hemoglobin <80 g/L in the last 72 hours; 3) platelet count <50 x 109/L in the last 72 hours; 4) known fibrinogen <1.5 g/L (if testing deemed clinically indicated by the treating physician prior to the initiation of anticoagulation); 5) known INR >1.8 (if testing deemed clinically indicated by the treating physician prior to the initiation of anticoagulation); 6) patient already prescribed intermediate dosing of LMWH that cannot be changed (determination of what constitutes an intermediate dose is to be at the discretion of the treating clinician taking the local institutional thromboprophylaxis protocol for high risk patients into consideration); 7) patient already prescribed therapeutic anticoagulation at the time of screening [low or high dose nomogram UFH, LMWH, warfarin, direct oral anticoagulant (any dose of dabigatran, apixaban, rivaroxaban, edoxaban)]; 8) patient prescribed dual antiplatelet therapy, when one of the agents cannot be stopped safely; 9) known bleeding within the last 30 days requiring emergency room presentation or hospitalization; 10) known history of a bleeding disorder of an inherited or active acquired bleeding disorder; 11) known history of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia; 12) known allergy to UFH or LMWH; 13) admitted to the intensive care unit at the time of screening; 14) treated with non-invasive positive pressure ventilation or invasive mechanical ventilation at the time of screening; 15) Imminent death according to the judgement of the most responsible physician; 16) enrollment in another clinical trial of antithrombotic therapy involving hospitalized patients. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: Intervention: Therapeutic dose of LMWH (dalteparin, enoxaparin, tinzaparin) or high dose nomogram of UFH. The choice of LMWH versus UFH will be at the clinician's discretion and dependent on local institutional supply. Comparator: Standard care [thromboprophylactic doses of LMWH (dalteparin, enoxaparin, tinzaparin, fondaparinux)] or UFH. Administration of LMWH, UFH or fondaparinux at thromboprophylactic doses for acutely ill hospitalized medical patients, in the absence of contraindication, is generally considered standard care. MAIN OUTCOMES: The primary composite outcome of ICU admission, non-invasive positive pressure ventilation, invasive mechanical ventilation or death at 28 days. Secondary outcomes include (evaluated up to day 28): 1. All-cause death 2. Composite of ICU admission or all-cause death 3. Composite of mechanical ventilation or all-cause death 4. Major bleeding as defined by the ISTH Scientific and Standardization Committee (ISTH-SSC) recommendation; 5. Red blood cell transfusion (>1 unit); 6. Transfusion of platelets, frozen plasma, prothrombin complex concentrate, cryoprecipitate and/or fibrinogen concentrate; 7. Renal replacement therapy; 8. Hospital-free days alive; 9. ICU-free days alive; 10. Ventilator-free days alive; 11. Organ support-free days alive; 12. Venous thromboembolism (defined as symptomatic or incidental, suspected or confirmed via diagnostic imaging and/or electrocardiogram where appropriate); 13. Arterial thromboembolism (defined as suspected or confirmed via diagnostic imaging and/or electrocardiogram where appropriate); 14. Heparin induced thrombocytopenia; 15. Trajectories of COVID-19 disease-related coagulation and inflammatory biomarkers. RANDOMISATION: Randomisation will be stratified by site and age (>65 versus ≤65 years) using a 1:1 computer-generated random allocation sequence with variable block sizes. Randomization will occur within the first 5 days (i.e. 120 hours) of participant hospital admission. However, it is recommended that randomization occurs as early as possible after hospital admission. Central randomization using an interactive web response system will ensure allocation concealment. BLINDING (MASKING): No blinding involved. This is an open-label trial. NUMBERS TO BE RANDOMISED (SAMPLE SIZE): 462 patients (231 per group) are needed to detect a 15% risk difference, from 50% in the control group to 35% in the experimental group, with power of 90% at a two-sided alpha of 0.05. TRIAL STATUS: Protocol Version Number 1.4. Recruitment began on May 11th, 2020. Recruitment is expected to be completed March 2022. Recruitment is ongoing. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04362085 Date of Trial Registration: April 24, 2020 FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest of expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol.


Subject(s)
Anticoagulants/therapeutic use , Blood Coagulation Disorders/drug therapy , COVID-19/drug therapy , Blood Coagulation Disorders/blood , Blood Coagulation Disorders/complications , COVID-19/blood , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/physiopathology , Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic , Fibrin Fibrinogen Degradation Products/metabolism , Heparin/therapeutic use , Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight/therapeutic use , Hospitalization , Humans , Intensive Care Units/statistics & numerical data , Noninvasive Ventilation/statistics & numerical data , Pragmatic Clinical Trials as Topic , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Respiration, Artificial/statistics & numerical data , SARS-CoV-2
14.
J Intensive Care Med ; 36(3): 334-342, 2021 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1063129

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The prognostic value of point-of-care lung ultrasound has not been evaluated in a large cohort of patients with COVID-19 admitted to general medicine ward in the United States. The aim of this study was to describe lung ultrasound findings and their prognostic value in patients with COVID-19 admitted to internal medicine ward. METHOD: This prospective observational study consecutively enrolled 105 hospitalized participants with COVID-19 at 2 tertiary care centers. Ultrasound was performed in 12 lung zones within 24 hours of admission. Findings were assessed relative to 4 outcomes: intensive care unit (ICU) need, need for intensive respiratory support, length of stay, and death. RESULTS: We detected abnormalities in 92% (97/105) of participants. The common findings were confluent B-lines (92%), non-homogenous pleural lines (78%), and consolidations (54%). Large confluent B-lines, consolidations, bilateral involvement, and any abnormality in ≥ 6 areas were associated with a longer hospitalization and need for intensive respiratory support. Large confluent B-lines and bilateral involvement were also associated with ICU stay. A total lung ultrasound score <5 had a negative predictive value of 100% for the need of intensive respiratory support. A higher total lung ultrasound score was associated with ICU need (median total 18 in the ICU group vs. 11 non-ICU, p = 0.004), a hospitalization ≥ 9d (15 vs 10, p = 0.016) and need for intensive respiratory support (18 vs. 8.5, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Most patients hospitalized with COVID-19 had lung ultrasound abnormalities on admission and a higher lung ultrasound score was associated with worse clinical outcomes except death. A low total lung ultrasound score (<5) had a negative predictive value of 100% for the need of intensive respiratory support. Point-of-care ultrasound can aid in the risk stratification for patients with COVID-19 admitted to general wards.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/diagnostic imaging , Hospital Mortality , Intensive Care Units/statistics & numerical data , Length of Stay/statistics & numerical data , Lung/diagnostic imaging , Respiration, Artificial/statistics & numerical data , Aged , Female , Hospitalization , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Noninvasive Ventilation/statistics & numerical data , Point-of-Care Systems , Prognosis , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Ultrasonography
15.
Minerva Med ; 112(3): 329-337, 2021 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1034290

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has high mortality rate mainly stemming from acute respiratory distress leading to respiratory failure (ARF). Aim of the study was to evaluate the management of severe ARF due to COVID-19 pneumonia using noninvasive ventilatory support (NIVS), studying safety and effectiveness of NIVS. METHODS: This is a retrospective, multicenter study. Primary outcomes were NIVS failure with intubation rate and hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were hospital stay and factors related to NIVS failure and mortality. These outcomes were compared with patients intubated and admitted to ICU. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-two patients were hospitalized because of severe respiratory failure (PaO2/FiO2 ratio <250). One hundred thirty-eight patients were admitted to Respiratory Intermediate Care Unit (RICU) for a NIVS trial. One hundred patients were treated successfully with NIVS (74.5%); 38 failed NIVS trial (27.5%). In-hospital mortality was 23.18% in RICU group and 30.55% in ICU group. Patients with NIVS failure were older, had a lower number of lymphocytes, a higher IL-6, lower PaO2, PaC O2, PaO2/FiO2 ratio, higher respiratory rate (RR) and heart rate at admission and lower PaO2, and PaO2/FiO2 ratio and higher RR after 1-6 hours. Multivariate analysis identified higher age, C-reactive protein as well as RR after 1-6 hours and PaO2/FiO2 ratio after 1-6 hours as an independent predictor mortality. CONCLUSIONS: NIVS is a safe and effective strategy in the treatment of severe ARF due to COVID-19 related pneumonia, that reduces mortality and length of hospital stay in the carefully selected patients.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , Noninvasive Ventilation , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , Acute Disease , Age Factors , Aged , COVID-19/drug therapy , Female , Heart Rate , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Intensive Care Units/statistics & numerical data , Length of Stay , Male , Middle Aged , Multivariate Analysis , Noninvasive Ventilation/adverse effects , Noninvasive Ventilation/methods , Noninvasive Ventilation/statistics & numerical data , Respiratory Insufficiency/mortality , Respiratory Rate , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Failure , Treatment Outcome
17.
BMC Med ; 18(1): 359, 2020 11 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-992480

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Limited evidence exists on the role of glucose-lowering drugs in patients with COVID-19. Our main objective was to examine the association between in-hospital death and each routine at-home glucose-lowering drug both individually and in combination with metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus admitted for COVID-19. We also evaluated their association with the composite outcome of the need for ICU admission, invasive and non-invasive mechanical ventilation, or in-hospital death as well as on the development of in-hospital complications and a long-time hospital stay. METHODS: We selected all patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in the Spanish Society of Internal Medicine's registry of COVID-19 patients (SEMI-COVID-19 Registry). It is an ongoing, observational, multicenter, nationwide cohort of patients admitted for COVID-19 in Spain from March 1, 2020. Each glucose-lowering drug user was matched with a user of other glucose-lowering drugs in a 1:1 manner by propensity scores. In order to assess the adequacy of propensity score matching, we used the standardized mean difference found in patient characteristics after matching. There was considered to be a significant imbalance in the group if a standardized mean difference > 10% was found. To evaluate the association between treatment and study outcomes, both conditional logit and mixed effect logistic regressions were used when the sample size was ≥ 100. RESULTS: A total of 2666 patients were found in the SEMI-COVID-19 Registry, 1297 on glucose-lowering drugs in monotherapy and 465 in combination with metformin. After propensity matching, 249 patients on metformin, 105 on dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, 129 on insulin, 127 on metformin/dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, 34 on metformin/sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor, and 67 on metformin/insulin were selected. No at-home glucose-lowering drugs showed a significant association with in-hospital death; the composite outcome of the need of intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, or in-hospital death; in-hospital complications; or long-time hospital stays. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus admitted for COVID-19, at-home glucose-lowering drugs showed no significant association with mortality and adverse outcomes. Given the close relationship between diabetes and COVID-19 and the limited evidence on the role of glucose-lowering drugs, prospective studies are needed.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/mortality , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/drug therapy , Dipeptidyl-Peptidase IV Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Hypoglycemic Agents/standards , Insulin/therapeutic use , Metformin/therapeutic use , Pneumonia, Viral/mortality , Respiration, Artificial/statistics & numerical data , Sodium-Glucose Transporter 2 Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Cohort Studies , Coronavirus Infections/complications , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/complications , Drug Therapy, Combination , Female , Hospital Mortality , Hospitalization , Humans , Hypoglycemic Agents/therapeutic use , Intensive Care Units , Length of Stay/statistics & numerical data , Logistic Models , Male , Noninvasive Ventilation/statistics & numerical data , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/complications , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Spain
18.
J Hosp Med ; 15(12): 734-738, 2020 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-969424

ABSTRACT

As evidence emerged supporting noninvasive strategies for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related respiratory distress, we implemented a noninvasive COVID-19 respiratory protocol (NCRP) that encouraged high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and self-proning across our healthcare system. To assess safety, we conducted a retrospective chart review evaluating mortality and other patient safety outcomes after implementation of the NCRP protocol (April 3, 2020, to April 15, 2020) for adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19, compared with preimplementation outcomes (March 15, 2020, to April 2, 2020). During the study, there were 469 COVID-19 admissions. Fewer patients underwent intubation after implementation (10.7% [23 of 215]), compared with before implementation (25.2% [64 of 254]) (P < .01). Overall, 26.2% of patients died (24% before implementation vs 28.8% after implementation; P = .14). In patients without a do not resuscitate/do not intubate order prior to admission, mortality was 21.8% before implementation vs 21.9% after implementation. Overall, we found no significant increase in mortality following implementation of a noninvasive respiratory protocol that decreased intubations in patients with COVID-19.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Cannula , Noninvasive Ventilation/statistics & numerical data , Patient Safety , Aged , COVID-19/mortality , Female , Humans , Intubation, Intratracheal/statistics & numerical data , Male , Retrospective Studies
19.
Intern Emerg Med ; 16(5): 1183-1190, 2021 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-938609

ABSTRACT

The role of noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) in COVID-19 patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) is uncertain, as no direct evidence exists to support NIPPV use in such patients. We retrospectively assessed the effectiveness and safety of NIPPV in a cohort of COVID-19 patients consecutively admitted to the COVID-19 general wards of a medium-size Italian hospital, from March 6 to May 7, 2020. Healthcare workers (HCWs) caring for COVID-19 patients were monitored, undergoing nasopharyngeal swab for SARS-CoV-2 in case of onset of COVID-19 symptoms, and periodic SARS-CoV-2 screening serology. Overall, 50 patients (mean age 74.6 years) received NIPPV, of which 22 (44%) were successfully weaned, avoiding endotracheal intubation (ETI) and AHRF-related death. Due to limited life expectancy, 25 (50%) of 50 NIPPV-treated patients received a "do not intubate" (DNI) order. Among these, only 6 (24%) were weaned from NIPPV. Of the remaining 25 NIPPV-treated patients without treatment limitations, 16 (64%) were successfully weaned, 9 (36%) underwent delayed ETI and, of these, 3 (33.3%) died. NIPPV success was predicted by the use of corticosteroids (OR 15.4, CI 1.79-132.57, p 0.013) and the increase in the PaO2/FiO2 ratio measured 24-48 h after NIPPV initiation (OR 1.02, CI 1-1.03, p 0.015), while it was inversely correlated with the presence of a DNI order (OR 0.03, CI 0.001-0.57, p 0.020). During the study period, 2 of 124 (1.6%) HCWs caring for COVID-19 patients were diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Apart from patients with limited life expectancy, NIPPV was effective in a substantially high percentage of patients with COVID-19-associated AHRF. The risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection among HCWs was low.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , Noninvasive Ventilation/standards , Positive-Pressure Respiration/standards , Respiratory Insufficiency/etiology , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/therapy , Chi-Square Distribution , Female , Humans , Infection Control/instrumentation , Infection Control/methods , Infection Control/statistics & numerical data , Male , Middle Aged , Multivariate Analysis , Noninvasive Ventilation/methods , Noninvasive Ventilation/statistics & numerical data , Organ Dysfunction Scores , Positive-Pressure Respiration/methods , Positive-Pressure Respiration/statistics & numerical data , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , Respiratory Mechanics/drug effects , Respiratory Mechanics/physiology , Retrospective Studies
20.
JAMA Intern Med ; 181(1): 32-40, 2021 01 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-880240

ABSTRACT

Importance: Severe pneumonia with hyperinflammation and elevated interleukin-6 is a common presentation of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Objective: To determine whether tocilizumab (TCZ) improves outcomes of patients hospitalized with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 pneumonia. Design, Setting, and Particpants: This cohort-embedded, investigator-initiated, multicenter, open-label, bayesian randomized clinical trial investigating patients with COVID-19 and moderate or severe pneumonia requiring at least 3 L/min of oxygen but without ventilation or admission to the intensive care unit was conducted between March 31, 2020, to April 18, 2020, with follow-up through 28 days. Patients were recruited from 9 university hospitals in France. Analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis with no correction for multiplicity for secondary outcomes. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to receive TCZ, 8 mg/kg, intravenously plus usual care on day 1 and on day 3 if clinically indicated (TCZ group) or to receive usual care alone (UC group). Usual care included antibiotic agents, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, vasopressor support, and anticoagulants. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were scores higher than 5 on the World Health Organization 10-point Clinical Progression Scale (WHO-CPS) on day 4 and survival without need of ventilation (including noninvasive ventilation) at day 14. Secondary outcomes were clinical status assessed with the WHO-CPS scores at day 7 and day 14, overall survival, time to discharge, time to oxygen supply independency, biological factors such as C-reactive protein level, and adverse events. Results: Of 131 patients, 64 patients were randomly assigned to the TCZ group and 67 to UC group; 1 patient in the TCZ group withdrew consent and was not included in the analysis. Of the 130 patients, 42 were women (32%), and median (interquartile range) age was 64 (57.1-74.3) years. In the TCZ group, 12 patients had a WHO-CPS score greater than 5 at day 4 vs 19 in the UC group (median posterior absolute risk difference [ARD] -9.0%; 90% credible interval [CrI], -21.0 to 3.1), with a posterior probability of negative ARD of 89.0% not achieving the 95% predefined efficacy threshold. At day 14, 12% (95% CI -28% to 4%) fewer patients needed noninvasive ventilation (NIV) or mechanical ventilation (MV) or died in the TCZ group than in the UC group (24% vs 36%, median posterior hazard ratio [HR] 0.58; 90% CrI, 0.33-1.00), with a posterior probability of HR less than 1 of 95.0%, achieving the predefined efficacy threshold. The HR for MV or death was 0.58 (90% CrI, 0.30 to 1.09). At day 28, 7 patients had died in the TCZ group and 8 in the UC group (adjusted HR, 0.92; 95% CI 0.33-2.53). Serious adverse events occurred in 20 (32%) patients in the TCZ group and 29 (43%) in the UC group (P = .21). Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial of patients with COVID-19 and pneumonia requiring oxygen support but not admitted to the intensive care unit, TCZ did not reduce WHO-CPS scores lower than 5 at day 4 but might have reduced the risk of NIV, MV, or death by day 14. No difference on day 28 mortality was found. Further studies are necessary for confirming these preliminary results. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04331808.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Hospital Mortality , Intubation, Intratracheal/statistics & numerical data , Noninvasive Ventilation/statistics & numerical data , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , Adrenal Cortex Hormones/therapeutic use , Aged , Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Anticoagulants/therapeutic use , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/physiopathology , Disease Progression , Female , Hospitalization , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Mortality , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy , Receptors, Interleukin-6/antagonists & inhibitors , Respiration, Artificial/statistics & numerical data , Respiratory Insufficiency/physiopathology , SARS-CoV-2 , Severity of Illness Index , Vasoconstrictor Agents/therapeutic use
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL