RESUMEN
Coagulopathy, characterized by a high D-dimer level, is a common pathological occurrence in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and is associated with poor prognosis. Severe cases with COVID-19 is associated with a significantly higher risk of deep vein thrombosis and acute pulmonary embolism. Pulmonary intravascular coagulopathy is the characteristic coagulopathy in COVID-19. Unlike sepsis-induced coagulopathy and disseminated intravascular coagulation, which are manifestations of systemic coagulopathy, pulmonary intravascular coagulopathy is a manifestation of a local coagulation disorder in the lung. The progression from pulmonary intravascular coagulopathy to sepsis-induced coagulopathy or disseminated intravascular coagulation in the context of COVID-19 may indicate that the patient's coagulation dysfunction has progressed from local to systemic. Exploring the associated coagulation disease will aid in the understanding of the pathophysiological mechanisms underlying severe COVID-19.
RESUMEN
Introduction: Whether aspirin or other antiplatelet drugs can reduce mortality among patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) remains controversial. Methods: We identified randomized controlled trials, prospective cohort studies, and retrospective studies on associations between aspirin or other antiplatelet drug use and all-cause mortality among patients with COVID-19 in the PubMed database between March 2019 and September 2021. Newcastle–Ottawa Scale and Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool were used to assess the risk of bias. The I2 statistic was used to assess inconsistency among trial results. The summary risk ratio (RR) and odds ratio (OR) were obtained through the meta-analysis. Results: The 34 included studies comprised three randomized controlled trials, 27 retrospective studies, and 4 prospective cohort studies. The retrospective and prospective cohort studies showed low-to-moderate risks of bias per the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale score, while the randomized controlled trials showed low-to-high risks of bias per the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. The randomized controlled trials showed no significant effect of aspirin use on all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19 {risk ratio (RR), 0.96 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90–1.03]}. In retrospective studies, aspirin reduced all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19 by 20% [odds ratio (OR), 0.80 (95% CI 0.70–0.93)], while other antiplatelet drugs had no significant effects. In prospective cohort studies, aspirin decreased all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19 by 15% [OR, 0.85 (95% CI 0.80–0.90)]. Conclusion: The administration of aspirin may reduce all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19.
RESUMEN
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.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) epidemic is spreading all over the world. With the number of cases increasing rapidly, the epidemiological data on the nutritional practice is scarce. In this study, we aim to describe the clinical characteristics and nutritional practice in a cohort of critically ill COVID-19 patients. METHODS AND STUDY DESIGN: This is a multicenter, ambidirectional cohort study conducted at 11 hospitals in Hubei Province, China. All eligible critical COVID-19 patients in the study hospital intensive care units at 00:00, March 6th, 2020, were included. Data collection was performed via written case report forms. RESULTS: A total of 44 patients were identified and enrolled, of whom eight died during the 28-day outcome follow- up period. The median interval between hospital admission and the study day was 24 (interquartile range, 13- 26) days and 52.2% (23 of 44) of patients were on invasive mechanical ventilation. The median nutrition risk in critically ill (mNUTRIC) score was 3 (interquartile range, 2-5) on the study day. During the enrolment day, 68.2% (30 of 44) of patients received enteral nutrition (EN), while 6.8% (3 of 44) received parenteral nutrition (PN) alone. Nausea and aspiration were uncommon, with a prevalence of 11.4% (5 of 44) and 6.8% (3 of 44), respectively. As for energy delivery, 69.7% (23 of 33) of patients receiving EN and/or PN were achieving their prescribed targets. CONCLUSIONS: The study showed that EN was frequently applied in critical COVID-19 patients. Energy delivery may be suboptimal in this study requiring more attention.