Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 9 de 9
Filtrar
1.
World J Crit Care Med ; 11(5): 311-316, 2022 Sep 09.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2044144

RESUMEN

In this editorial, we comment on the current development and deployment of data science in intensive care units (ICUs). Data in ICUs can be classified into qualitative and quantitative data with different technologies needed to translate and interpret them. Data science, in the form of artificial intelligence (AI), should find the right interaction between physicians, data and algorithm. For individual patients and physicians, sepsis and mechanical ventilation have been two important aspects where AI has been extensively studied. However, major risks of bias, lack of generalizability and poor clinical values remain. AI deployment in the ICUs should be emphasized more to facilitate AI development. For ICU management, AI has a huge potential in transforming resource allocation. The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has given opportunities to establish such systems which should be investigated further. Ethical concerns must be addressed when designing such AI.

2.
BMC Pulm Med ; 22(1): 304, 2022 Aug 08.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1976497

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) has been widely used in critically ill patients after extubation. However, NIV failure is associated with poor outcomes. This study aimed to determine early predictors of NIV failure and to construct an accurate machine-learning model to identify patients at risks of NIV failure after extubation in intensive care units (ICUs). METHODS: Patients who underwent NIV after extubation in the eICU Collaborative Research Database (eICU-CRD) were included. NIV failure was defined as need for invasive ventilatory support (reintubation or tracheotomy) or death after NIV initiation. A total of 93 clinical and laboratory variables were assessed, and the recursive feature elimination algorithm was used to select key features. Hyperparameter optimization was conducted with an automated machine-learning toolkit called Neural Network Intelligence. A machine-learning model called Categorical Boosting (CatBoost) was developed and compared with nine other models. The model was then prospectively validated among patients enrolled in the Cardiac Surgical ICU of Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University. RESULTS: Of 929 patients included in the eICU-CRD cohort, 248 (26.7%) had NIV failure. The time from extubation to NIV, age, Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score, heart rate, respiratory rate, mean blood pressure (MBP), saturation of pulse oxygen (SpO2), temperature, glucose, pH, pressure of oxygen in blood (PaO2), urine output, input volume, ventilation duration, and mean airway pressure were selected. After hyperparameter optimization, our model showed the greatest accuracy in predicting NIV failure (AUROC: 0.872 [95% CI 0.82-0.92]) among all predictive methods in an internal validation. In the prospective validation cohort, our model was also superior (AUROC: 0.846 [95% CI 0.80-0.89]). The sensitivity and specificity in the prediction group is 89% and 75%, while in the validation group they are 90% and 70%. MV duration and respiratory rate were the most important features. Additionally, we developed a web-based tool to help clinicians use our model. CONCLUSIONS: This study developed and prospectively validated the CatBoost model, which can be used to identify patients who are at risk of NIV failure. Thus, those patients might benefit from early triage and more intensive monitoring. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03704324. Registered 1 September 2018, https://register. CLINICALTRIALS: gov .


Asunto(s)
Aprendizaje Automático , Ventilación no Invasiva , Insuficiencia Respiratoria , Extubación Traqueal , Humanos , Unidades de Cuidados Intensivos , Ventilación no Invasiva/métodos , Oxígeno , Reproducibilidad de los Resultados , Respiración Artificial , Insuficiencia Respiratoria/etiología , Insuficiencia Respiratoria/terapia
3.
Respir Res ; 23(1): 105, 2022 Apr 29.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1875011

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Quantitative computed tomography (QCT) analysis may serve as a tool for assessing the severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and for monitoring its progress. The present study aimed to assess the association between steroid therapy and quantitative CT parameters in a longitudinal cohort with COVID-19. METHODS: Between February 7 and February 17, 2020, 72 patients with severe COVID-19 were retrospectively enrolled. All 300 chest CT scans from these patients were collected and classified into five stages according to the interval between hospital admission and follow-up CT scans: Stage 1 (at admission); Stage 2 (3-7 days); Stage 3 (8-14 days); Stage 4 (15-21 days); and Stage 5 (22-31 days). QCT was performed using a threshold-based quantitative analysis to segment the lung according to different Hounsfield unit (HU) intervals. The primary outcomes were changes in percentage of compromised lung volume (%CL, - 500 to 100 HU) at different stages. Multivariate Generalized Estimating Equations were performed after adjusting for potential confounders. RESULTS: Of 72 patients, 31 patients (43.1%) received steroid therapy. Steroid therapy was associated with a decrease in %CL (- 3.27% [95% CI, - 5.86 to - 0.68, P = 0.01]) after adjusting for duration and baseline %CL. Associations between steroid therapy and changes in %CL varied between different stages or baseline %CL (all interactions, P < 0.01). Steroid therapy was associated with decrease in %CL after stage 3 (all P < 0.05), but not at stage 2. Similarly, steroid therapy was associated with a more significant decrease in %CL in the high CL group (P < 0.05), but not in the low CL group. CONCLUSIONS: Steroid administration was independently associated with a decrease in %CL, with interaction by duration or disease severity in a longitudinal cohort. The quantitative CT parameters, particularly compromised lung volume, may provide a useful tool to monitor COVID-19 progression during the treatment process. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04953247. Registered July 7, 2021, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04953247.


Asunto(s)
Tratamiento Farmacológico de COVID-19 , Humanos , Pulmón/diagnóstico por imagen , Mediciones del Volumen Pulmonar/métodos , Estudios Retrospectivos , Esteroides/uso terapéutico
4.
Ann Transl Med ; 9(15): 1261, 2021 Aug.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1369970

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To discuss the pathogenesis of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection and the pharmacological effects of glucocorticoids (GCs) toward this infection. To review randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using GCs to treat patients with severe COVID-19, and investigate whether GC timing, dosage, or duration affect clinical outcomes. Finally. to discuss the use of biological markers, respiratory parameters, and radiological evidence to select patients for improved GC therapeutic precision. BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has become an unprecedented global challenge. As GCs have been used as key immunomodulators to treat inflammation-related diseases, they may play key roles in limiting disease progression by modulating immune responses, cytokine production, and endothelial function in patients with severe COVID-19, who often experience excessive cytokine production and endothelial and renin-angiotensin system (RAS) dysfunction. Current clinical trials have partially proven this efficacy, but GC timing, dosage, and duration vary greatly, with no unifying consensus, thereby creating confusion. METHODS: Publications through March 2021 were retrieved from the Web of Science and PubMed. Results from cited references in published articles were also included. CONCLUSIONS: GCs play key roles in treating severe COVID-19 infections. Pharmacologically, GCs could modulate immune cells, reduce cytokine and chemokine, and improve endothelial functions in patients with severe COVID-19. Benefits of GCs have been observed in multiple clinical trials, but the timing, dosage and duration vary across studies. Tapering as an option is not widely accepted. However, early initiation of treatment, a tailored dosage with appropriate tapering may be of particular importance, but evidence is inconclusive and more investigations are needed. Biological markers, respiratory parameters, and radiological evidence could also help select patients for specific tailored treatments.

5.
Front Med (Lausanne) ; 7: 624255, 2020.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1088909

RESUMEN

Background: Early Warning Scores (EWS), including the National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2) and Modified NEWS (NEWS-C), have been recommended for triage decision in patients with COVID-19. However, the effectiveness of these EWS in COVID-19 has not been fully validated. The study aimed to investigate the predictive value of EWS to detect clinical deterioration in patients with COVID-19. Methods: Between February 7, 2020 and February 17, 2020, patients confirmed with COVID-19 were screened for this study. The outcomes were early deterioration of respiratory function (EDRF) and need for intensive respiratory support (IRS) during the treatment process. The EDRF was defined as changes in the respiratory component of the sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score at day 3 (ΔSOFAresp = SOFA resp at day 3-SOFAresp on admission), in which the positive value reflects clinical deterioration. The IRS was defined as the use of high flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy, noninvasive or invasive mechanical ventilation. The performances of EWS including NEWS, NEWS 2, NEWS-C, Modified Early Warning Scores (MEWS), Hamilton Early Warning Scores (HEWS), and quick sepsis-related organ failure assessment (qSOFA) for predicting EDRF and IRS were compared using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). Results: A total of 116 patients were included in this study. Of them, 27 patients (23.3%) developed EDRF and 24 patients (20.7%) required IRS. Among these EWS, NEWS-C was the most accurate scoring system for predicting EDRF [AUROC 0.79 (95% CI, 0.69-0.89)] and IRS [AUROC 0.89 (95% CI, 0.82-0.96)], while NEWS 2 had the lowest accuracy in predicting EDRF [AUROC 0.59 (95% CI, 0.46-0.720)] and IRS [AUROC 0.69 (95% CI, 0.57-0.81)]. A NEWS-C ≥ 9 had a sensitivity of 59.3% and a specificity of 85.4% for predicting EDRF. For predicting IRS, a NEWS-C ≥ 9 had a sensitivity of 75% and a specificity of 88%. Conclusions: The NEWS-C was the most accurate scoring system among common EWS to identify patients with COVID-19 at risk for EDRF and need for IRS. The NEWS-C could be recommended as an early triage tool for patients with COVID-19.

SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA