The clinical features of severe COVID-19 with respiratory failure: A Chinese single-center retrospective study.

The global pandemic of COVID-19, caused by the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, has resulted in widespread alterations to public health measures worldwide. This observational study aimed to assess the clinical features and results of respiratory failure in patients with severe COVID-19. A single-center observational study was performed at a Chinese hospital between November 1, 2022, and February 31, 2023. All 182 enrolled patients were diagnosed with respiratory failure, 84 patients were infected with COVID-19, and the other 98 patients were not infected. A review of available medical records at admission and discharge, including neuroimaging, laboratory values at admission, mortality, length of hospitalization, and hospital costs, was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. All 182 eligible patients completed the follow-up. There was no significant difference in baseline characteristics between respiratory failure combined with COVID-19 (P > .05). Respiratory failure combined with COVID-19 infection may lead to higher 30-day mortality (16.36% vs 7.14%, P = .005), longer hospital stays (22.5 ±â€…5.9 vs 12.8 ±â€…4.2, P < .001), larger hospitalization costs (P < .001), and increased hospitalization complications, such as pulmonary embolism (10.30% vs 4.76%, P = .039), deep vein thrombosis (33.33% vs 18.57%, P = .001), incidence of 7-day delirium (69.70% vs 46.19%, P < .001), and respiratory failure (38.18% vs 24.77%, P = .005). If respiratory failure occurs while the patient is infected with COVID-19, treatment and prognosis worsen. Our understanding of COVID-19 and the care we provide to patients with respiratory failure is crucial to better prepare for a potential pandemic.

Linezolid in the treatment of severe intraabdominal infection: A STROBE-compliant retrospective study.

Safety concerns over bone marrow suppression and thrombocytopenia may inhibit the use of linezolid to treat intraabdominal infection (IAI). To evaluate the effectiveness, safety, and prognosis of linezolid in the treatment of severe IAI (SIAI). Patients were divided into a linezolid group and nonlinezolid group according to whether linezolid was prescribed. Subgroup analysis (thrombocytopenia treated with linezolid group (I), and thrombocytopenia treated with nonlinezolid group (II) also was performed. We evaluated the effectiveness of linezolid by analyzing the changes in white blood cells (WBC) and procalcitonin, evaluated safety by analyzing the changes in platelet counts, and evaluated patient outcomes by analyzing the length of hospital stay, the length of ICU stay, and the rates of clinical improvement. Sixty-six adult SIAI patients were treated with anti-gram-positive (G+) bacteria drugs for more than 7 days from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2020. The length of hospital stay, the length of ICU stay, and the rates of clinical improvement were not significantly different between the linezolid group and nonlinezolid group. On the 15th day after anti-G + bacteria treatment, the WBC of the linezolid group was significantly lower than in the nonlinezolid group (9.00 ± 4.30 vs 13.1 ± 6.19, P < .05). The time for a statistical difference in the decrease of procalcitonin in the linezolid group was earlier than in the nonlinezolid group (day 6 vs day 7, P < .05). There was no statistically significant difference in the changes of platelet counts in the subgroup I (P > .05), but compared with the baseline data (day 0), the time for the statistical difference in the increase of platelets in thrombocytopenia treated with linezolid group was earlier (day 5 vs day 6, P < .05). There was no statistical difference in the changes of platelets in subgroup II (P > .05). In the treatment of severe intraabdominal infection in a single-center, retrospective study, linezolid was not inferior to other antibiotics in patient clinical outcomes or seral WBC and procalcitonin values. Linezolid also induced no evident bone marrow suppression or thrombocytopenia. Linezolid is a good choice for treatment of SIAI.

Safety, efficacy and biomarkers analysis of mesenchymal stromal cells therapy in ARDS: a systematic review and meta-analysis based on phase I and II RCTs.

BACKGROUND: Mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) therapy for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is an emerging treatment, but most of the current trials of MSCs stay in the animal experimental stage, and the safety and efficacy of MSCs in clinical application are not clear. We aimed to analyze the safety, efficacy and biomarkers of mesenchymal stromal cells in the treatment of ARDS. METHODS: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of science, CNKI, VIP and Wan Fang data, studies published between database inception and Mar 17, 2022. All randomized controlled trials (RCT) of stem cell interventions for ARDS were included, without language or date restrictions. We did separate meta-analyses for mortality, subjects with adverse events (AEs) and subjects with serious adverse events (SAEs). Since the trials data are dichotomous outcomes, the odds ratio (OR) is adopted for meta-analysis. The quality of the evidence was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias tool. FINDINGS: In total, 5 trials involving 171 patients with ARDS were included in this meta-analysis. A total of 99 individuals were randomly assigned to receive MSCs treatment, and 72 were randomly assigned to receive placebo treatment. Treatment with MSCs appeared to increase the occurrence of adverse events, but this result was not statistically significant (OR, 1.58; 95%CI, 0.64-3.91; P = 0.32). The occurrence of serious adverse events was lower in the MSCs group than in the placebo group (OR, 0.57; 95%CI, 0.14-2.32; P = 0.43); there seems to be no significant difference between the two groups in terms of 28 days mortality (OR, 0.93; 95%CI, 0.45-1.89); oxygenation index and biomarkers showed a tendency to improve in treatment, but there was a lack of more statistically significant clinical evidence to support them. INTERPRETATION: Based on the current clinical trials, MSCs intervention has some safety for ARDS patients, but its effectiveness and predictive value of airspace biomarkers need to be determined by more large-scale, standard randomized controlled trials.

The safety and efficacy of airway pressure release ventilation in acute respiratory distress syndrome patients: A PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a critical illness with high mortality and a worse prognosis. Mechanical ventilation (MV) is currently considered to be one of the most effective methods of treating ARDS. In this meta-analysis, we discussed the efficacy of airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) in treating ARDS. METHODS: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA), Ovid Medline, Embase, and PubMed were systematically searched with the keywords of "ARDS" and "APRV". The studies containing the treatment of APRV in ARDS were included. According to the MV protocol used in the studies, the comparison was undertaken between the APRV group vs low tidal volume (LTV) group and synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation (SIMV) group. The relative risk (RR) and the standard mean difference with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used for the comparison between groups. RESULTS: Fourteen studies with 2096 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The average increasing rate of PaO2/FiO2 was 75.4% in the APRV group vs 44.1% in the non-APRV group. No significant differences were found in mortality and duration of ICU stay between APRV vs LTV (P = .073 and P = .404) and APRV vs SIMV (P = .370 and P = .894). CONCLUSION: The APRV protocol would have a higher increase in the PaO2/FiO2 ratio, which was a safe protocol with a compatible effect comparing to LTV and SIMV.