Risk factors for mortality of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) patients in two centers of Hubei province, China: A retrospective analysis.

PURPOSE: Since the outbreak in late December 2019 in Wuhan, China, coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) has become a global pandemic. We analyzed and compared the clinical, laboratory, and radiological characteristics between survivors and non-survivors and identify risk factors for mortality. METHODS: Clinical and laboratory variables, radiological features, treatment approach, and complications were retrospectively collected in two centers of Hubei province, China. Cox regression analysis was conducted to identify the risk factors for mortality. RESULTS: A total of 432 patients were enrolled, and the median patient age was 54 years. The overall mortality rate was 5.09% (22/432). As compared with the survivor group (n = 410), those in the non-survivor group (n = 22) were older, and they had a higher frequency of comorbidities and were more prone to suffer from dyspnea. Several abnormal laboratory variables indicated that acute cardiac injury, hepatic damage, and acute renal insufficiency were detected in the non-survivor group. Non-surviving patients also had a high computed tomography (CT) score and higher rate of consolidation. The most common complication causing death was acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) (18/22, 81.8%). Multivariate Cox regression analysis revealed that hemoglobin (Hb) <90 g/L (hazard ratio, 10.776; 95% confidence interval, 3.075-37.766; p<0.0001), creatine kinase (CK-MB) >8 U/L (9.155; 2.424-34.584; p = 0.001), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) >245 U/L (5.963; 2.029-17.529; p = 0.001), procalcitonin (PCT) >0.5 ng/ml (7.080; 1.671-29.992; p = 0.008), and CT score >10 (39.503; 12.430-125.539; p<0.0001) were independent risk factors for the mortality of COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: Low Hb, high LDH, PCT, and CT score on admission were the predictors for mortality and could assist clinicians in early identification of poor prognosis among COVID-19 patients.

Tapered Cuff versus Conventional Cuff for Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia in Ventilated Patients: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Background: Microaspiration of secretions around the tracheal cuff is a multifactorial process. Tracheal cuff shape might take a major part in its occurrence. The rationale for producing a taper-shaped cuff is established on the assumption that compared to a conventional cuff with a single fixed diameter, a continuum of minimum-to-maximum diameter sections might better fit the tracheal walls. Objectives: The primary objective of this meta-analysis was to compare ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) between tapered-cuff intubation and conventional-cuff intubation. The secondary objective was to compare intensive care unit (ICU) mortality between tapered-cuff intubation and conventional-cuff intubation. Methods: We searched the Cochrane Library, Embase, MEDLINE database through the PubMed search engine, and CINAHL from inception to April 2018. Randomized trials comparing VAP and ICU mortality between tapered-cuff intubation and conventional-cuff intubation in intubated adults were included. Two review authors assessed study quality and abstracted databasing on prespecified criteria independently. Results: We pooled summary estimates from 5 trials evaluating tapered-cuff involving 774 participants. Compared to VAP, no statistically significant difference was observed between the tapered-cuff and conventional-cuff groups (OR 0.82, CI 0.61-1.12, z = 1.24, and p=0.21). No statistically significant difference was observed between the tapered-cuff and conventional-cuff groups with ICU mortality (OR 0.77, CI 0.55-1.08, z = 1.49, and p=0.14). Conclusions: In this meta-analysis, the tapered-cuff tracheal tube may not be superior to the standard-cuff tracheal tube in reducing VAP and ICU mortality.

Comparing the effects and compliance between volume-assured and pressure support non-invasive ventilation in patients with chronic respiratory failure.

INTRODUCTION: Standard bi-level non-invasive ventilation with fixed-level pressure support (PS) delivery may not maintain ventilation during the changes in pulmonary mechanics that occur throughout day and night, so average volume-assured pressure support (AVAPS) modes that target a preset volume by adjustment of PS may be effective. OBJECTIVE: Our meta-analysis wants to compare AVAPS and pressure support non-invasive ventilation (PS-NIV) regarding arterial blood gases (ABGs), sleep efficiency and compliance. METHOD: Relevant publications indexed in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, Wanfang Data, China National Knowledge Infrastructure and VIPI were identified. Appropriate articles identified from the reference lists of the above searches were also reviewed. We included randomized controlled trials involved the use of AVAPS and PS-NIV ventilation for chronic respiratory failure. Each included study weighted mean differences, and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for continuous outcomes. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 value ≤ 50% were considered as no statistical heterogeneity and used fixed effects model. Otherwise, a random effects model was used. RESULTS: Eight trials were eligible. No significant difference was observed between AVAPS and PS-NIV groups to compare PaCO2 (OR -0.97, CI-2.54-0.61, P = 0.23) and PaO2 (OR -1.81, CI-4.29-0.67, P = 0.15) in ABGs. There was no significant difference between the two groups with sleep efficiency (OR -3.31, CI-7.58-0.95, P = 0.13) and visual analog scale (OR 0.32, CI-6.97-7.61, P = 0.93). CONCLUSIONS: The evidence shows there is no significant difference in clinical outcomes when comparing AVAPS and PS-NIV used for chronic respiratory failure patients.