Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
Mais filtros










Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
J Med Virol ; 93(5): 2883-2889, 2021 May.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33448423

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: The rate of bacterial coinfection with SARS-CoV-2 is poorly defined. The decision to administer antibiotics early in the course of SARS-CoV-2 infection depends on the likelihood of bacterial coinfection. METHODS: We performed a retrospective chart review of all patients admitted through the emergency department with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection over a 6-week period in a large healthcare system in the United States. Blood and respiratory culture results were abstracted and adjudicated by multiple authors. The primary outcome was the rate of bacteremia. We secondarily looked to define clinical or laboratory features associated with bacteremia. RESULTS: There were 542 patients admitted with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, with an average age of 62.8 years. Of these, 395 had blood cultures performed upon admission, with six true positive results (1.1% of the total population). An additional 14 patients had positive respiratory cultures treated as true pathogens in the first 72 h. Low blood pressure and elevated white blood cell count, neutrophil count, blood urea nitrogen, and lactate were statistically significantly associated with bacteremia. Clinical outcomes were not statistically significantly different between patients with and without bacteremia. CONCLUSIONS: We found a low rate of bacteremia in patients admitted with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. In hemodynamically stable patients, routine antibiotics may not be warranted in this population.


Assuntos
Infecções Bacterianas/epidemiologia , COVID-19/epidemiologia , Coinfecção/epidemiologia , Serviço Hospitalar de Emergência/estatística & dados numéricos , Antibacterianos/uso terapêutico , Bacteriemia/diagnóstico , Bacteriemia/epidemiologia , Bacteriemia/terapia , Infecções Bacterianas/diagnóstico , Infecções Bacterianas/terapia , COVID-19/diagnóstico , COVID-19/terapia , Coinfecção/diagnóstico , Coinfecção/terapia , Feminino , Hospitalização , Hospitais , Humanos , Indiana/epidemiologia , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Estudos Retrospectivos , Fatores de Risco , SARS-CoV-2/isolamento & purificação , Resultado do Tratamento
2.
Crit Care Med ; 49(1): e116-e117, 2021 01 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33337756
3.
Crit Care Med ; 48(9): e805-e808, 2020 09.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32618699

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: One of the defining features of the novel coronavirus disease 2019 infection has been high rates of venous thromboses. The present study aimed to describe the prevalence of venous thromboembolism in critically ill patients receiving different regimens of prophylactic anticoagulation. DESIGN: Single-center retrospective review using data from patients with confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 requiring intubation. SETTING: Tertiary-care center in Indianapolis, IN, United States. PATIENTS: Patients hospitalized at international units Health Methodist Hospital with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 requiring intubation between March 23, 2020, and April 8, 2020, who underwent ultrasound evaluation for venous thrombosis. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 45 patients were included. Nineteen of 45 patients (42.2%) were found to have deep venous thrombosis. Patients found to have deep venous thrombosis had no difference in time to intubation (p = 0.97) but underwent ultrasound earlier in their hospital course (p = 0.02). Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores were similar between the groups on day of intubation and day of ultrasound (p = 0.44 and p = 0.07, respectively). D-dimers were markedly higher in patients with deep venous thrombosis, both for maximum value and value on day of ultrasound (p < 0.01 for both). Choice of prophylactic regimen was not related to presence of deep venous thrombosis (p = 0.35). Ultrasound evaluation is recommended if D-dimer is greater than 2,000 ng/mL (sensitivity 95%, specificity 46%) and empiric anticoagulation considered if D-dimer is greater than 5,500 ng/mL (sensitivity 53%, specificity 88%). CONCLUSIONS: Deep venous thrombosis is very common in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019. There was no difference in incidence of deep venous thrombosis among different pharmacologic prophylaxis regimens, although our analysis is limited by small sample size. D-dimer values are elevated in the majority of these patients, but there may be thresholds at which screening ultrasound or even empiric systemic anticoagulation is indicated.


Assuntos
Anticoagulantes/uso terapêutico , Betacoronavirus , Infecções por Coronavirus/complicações , Produtos de Degradação da Fibrina e do Fibrinogênio/análise , Pneumonia Viral/complicações , Tromboembolia Venosa/epidemiologia , Adulto , Idoso , Biomarcadores/sangue , COVID-19 , Infecções por Coronavirus/tratamento farmacológico , Estado Terminal , Feminino , Hospitalização , Humanos , Incidência , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Pandemias , Pneumonia Viral/tratamento farmacológico , Estudos Retrospectivos , SARS-CoV-2 , Sensibilidade e Especificidade , Tromboembolia Venosa/etiologia , Tromboembolia Venosa/prevenção & controle , Tratamento Farmacológico da COVID-19
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...