Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Añadir filtros

Base de datos
Tipo del documento
Intervalo de año
1.
Front Med (Lausanne) ; 8: 635560, 2021.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1348500

RESUMEN

Objective: The aims of this systematic review and meta-analysis were to summarize the current existing evidence on the outcome of critically ill patients with COVID-19 as well as to evaluate the effectiveness of clinical interventions. Data Sources: We searched MEDLINE, the Cochrane library, Web of Science, the China Biology Medicine disc, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang Data from their inception to May 15, 2021. The search strings consisted of various search terms related to the concepts of mortality of critically ill patients and clinical interventions. Study Selection: After eliminating duplicates, two reviewers independently screened all titles and abstracts first, and then the full texts of potentially relevant articles were reviewed to identify cohort studies and case series that focus on the mortality of critically ill patients and clinical interventions. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the mortality of critically ill patients with COVID-19. The secondary outcomes included all sorts of supportive care. Results: There were 27 cohort studies and six case series involving 42,219 participants that met our inclusion criteria. All-cause mortality in the intensive care unit (ICU) was 35% and mortality in hospital was 32% in critically ill patients with COVID-19 for the year 2020, with very high between-study heterogeneity (I 2 = 97%; p < 0.01). In a subgroup analysis, the mortality during ICU hospitalization in China was 39%, in Asia-except for China-it was 48%, in Europe it was 34%, in America it was 15%, and in the Middle East it was 39%. Non-surviving patients who had an older age [-8.10, 95% CI (-9.31 to -6.90)], a higher APACHE II score [-4.90, 95% CI (-6.54 to -3.27)], a higher SOFA score [-2.27, 95% CI (-2.95 to -1.59)], and a lower PaO2/FiO2 ratio [34.77, 95% CI (14.68 to 54.85)] than those who survived. Among clinical interventions, invasive mechanical ventilation [risk ratio (RR) 0.49, 95% CI (0.39-0.61)], kidney replacement therapy [RR 0.34, 95% CI (0.26-0.43)], and vasopressor [RR 0.54, 95% CI (0.34-0.88)] were used more in surviving patients. Conclusions: Mortality was high in critically ill patients with COVID-19 based on low-quality evidence and regional difference that existed. The early identification of critical characteristics and the use of support care help to indicate the outcome of critically ill patients.

2.
Precis Clin Med ; 3(4): 260-271, 2020 Dec.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1093581

RESUMEN

Background: Position intervention has been shown to improve oxygenation, but its role in non-invasively ventilated patients with severe COVID-19 has not been assessed. The objective of this study was to investigate the efficacy of early position intervention on non-invasively ventilated patients with severe COVID-19. Methods: This was a single-center, prospective observational study in consecutive patients with severe COVID-19 managed in a provisional ICU at Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University from 31 January to 15 February 2020. Patients with chest CT showing exudation or consolidation in bilateral peripheral and posterior parts of the lungs were included. Early position intervention (prone or lateral) was commenced for > 4 hours daily for 10 days in these patients, while others received standard care. Results: The baseline parameters were comparable between the position intervention group (n = 17) and the standard care group (n = 35). Position intervention was well-tolerated and increased cumulative adjusted mean difference of SpO2/FiO2 (409, 95% CI 86 to 733) and ROX index (26, 95% CI 9 to 43) with decreased Borg scale (-9, 95% CI -15 to -3) during the first 7 days. It also facilitated absorption of lung lesions and reduced the proportion of patients with high National Early Warning Score 2 (≥ 7) on days 7 and 14, with a trend toward faster clinical improvement. Virus shedding and length of hospital stay were comparable between the two groups. Conclusions: This study provides the first evidence for improved oxygenation and lung lesion absorption using early position intervention in non-invasively ventilated patients with severe COVID-19, and warrants further randomized trials.

SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA