Respiratory Support in Severely or Critically Ill ICU Patients With COVID-19 in Wuhan, China

COVID-19 and coronary artery disease; A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and aim

Patients with underlying cardiovascular disorders such as coronary artery disease (CAD) are more prone to severe forms and multiple complications of COVID-19. The present systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the impact of CAD on patients with COVID-19.

Methods

Main electronic databases, including Medline (via PubMed), EMBASE, and Web of Science, were carefully searched and reviewed for original research articles published between 2019 and 2021. One hundred nine studies that address CAD in patients with COVID-19 were selected and analyzed.

Results

Following search and screening processes, 109 relevant publications were selected for analysis. The meta-analysis of prevalence studies indicated that the frequency of CAD among patients with COVID-19 was reported in 10 countries with an overall frequency of 12.4% [(95% CI) 11.1-13.8] among 20079 COVID-19 patients. According to case reports/case series studies, 50.9% of COVID-19 patients suffered from CAD. Fever was the most common symptom in these patients (47%); 36.5% also had hypertension.

Conclusion

The results obtained during the present study show that the simultaneous presence of COVID-19 and CAD, especially in men and elderly patients, can increase the risks and complications of both diseases. Therefore, careful examination of the condition of this group of patients for timely diagnosis and treatment is strongly recommended.

Comparison of high-flow nasal oxygen therapy and noninvasive ventilation in COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Acute respiratory failure (ARF) is a major adverse event commonly encountered in severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Although noninvasive mechanical ventilation (NIV) has long been used in the management of ARF, it has several adverse events which may cause patient discomfort and lead to treatment complication. Recently, high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) has the potential to be an alternative for NIV in adults with ARF, including COVID-19 patients. The objective was to investigate the efficacy of HFNC compared to NIV in COVID-19 patients.

Methods

This meta-analysis was reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) criteria. Literature search was carried out in electronic databases for relevant articles published prior to June 2021. The protocol used in this study has been registered in International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42020225186).

Results

Although the success rate of NIV is higher compared to HFNC (odds ratio [OR], 0.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.16–0.97; P=0.04), this study showed that the mortality in the NIV group is also significantly higher compared to HFNC group (OR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.39–0.63; P<0.001). Moreover, this study also demonstrated that there was no significant difference in intubation rates between the two groups (OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 0.86–2.11; P=0.19).

Conclusions

Patients treated with HFNC showed better outcomes compared to NIV for ARF due to COVID-19. Therefore, HFNC should be considered prior to NIV in COVID-19-associated ARF. However, further studies with larger sample sizes are still needed to better elucidate the benefit of HFNC in COVID-19 patients.

Mechanical circulatory support in coronavirus disease-2019-positive patients with severe respiratory failure

OBJECTIVES

Treatment of severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) induced by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 has been heavily debated. Our goal was to describe our findings in patients with severe ARDS due to severe coronavirus disease 2019 (sCOVID-19) treated with venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (vv-ECMO).

METHODS

We retrospectively examined all patients treated with vv-ECMO for severe ARDS due to acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2.

RESULTS

In total, 13 patients were treated with vv-ECMO in our medical centre. The mean patient age was 48.1 years. Most patients were obese (69%) and male (85%). All patients were mechanically ventilated before ECMO. The mean time from intubation to proning was 16.6 h; the time from start of prone therapy to vv-ECMO implantation was 155.1 h. The mean total ECMO run time was 358 h. Significant reduction of positive end-expiratory pressure (P = 0.02), peak pressure (P = 0.001) and minute volume (P = 0.03) could be achieved after implantation of vv-ECMO. All patients showed an inflammatory response. Overall mortality was 30.7%: 1 patient died of mesenteric ischaemia; 3 patients died of multiple organ failure. A worse prognosis was seen in patients with highly elevated concentrations of interleukin-6.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of vv-ECMO in patients with sCOVID-19-induced ARDS is safe and associated with improved respiratory ventilation settings. The rate of immune system involvement plays a pivotal role in the development and outcome of sCOVID-19.

Mortality and Clinical Interventions in Critically ill Patient With Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

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.

Mortality in patients admitted to intensive care with COVID-19: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to cause critical illness and deaths internationally. Up to 31 May 2020, mortality in patients admitted to intensive care units (ICU) with COVID-19 was 41.6%. Since then, changes in therapeutics and management may have improved outcomes. Also, data from countries affected later in the pandemic are now available. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed and Cochrane databases up to 30 September 2020 for studies reporting ICU mortality among adult patients with COVID-19 and present an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. The primary outcome measure was death in intensive care as a proportion of completed ICU admissions, either through discharge from intensive care or death. We identified 52 observational studies including 43,128 patients, and first reports from the Middle East, South Asia and Australasia, as well as four national or regional registries. Reported mortality was lower in registries compared with other reports. In two regions, mortality differed significantly from all others, being higher in the Middle East and lower in a single registry study from Australasia. Although ICU mortality (95%CI) was lower than reported in June (35.5% (31.3-39.9%) vs. 41.6% (34.0-49.7%)), the absence of patient-level data prevents a definitive evaluation. A lack of standardisation of reporting prevents comparison of cohorts in terms of underlying risk, severity of illness or outcomes. We found that the decrease in ICU mortality from COVID-19 has reduced or plateaued since May 2020 and note the possibility of some geographical variation. More standardisation in reporting would improve the ability to compare outcomes from different reports.

COVID-19 and Immunological Dysregulation: Can Autoantibodies be Useful?

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is often associated with interstitial pneumonia. However, there is insufficient knowledge on the presence of autoimmune serological markers in patients with COVID-19. We analyzed the presence and role of autoantibodies in patients with COVID-19-associated pneumonia. We prospectively studied 33 consecutive patients with COVID-19, 31 (94%) of whom had interstitial pneumonia, and 25 age-matched and sex-matched patients with fever and/or pneumonia with etiologies other than COVID-19 as the pathological control group. All patients were tested for the presence of antinuclear antibodies (ANAs), anti-antiphospholipid antibodies, and anti-cytoplasmic neutrophil antibodies (ANCAs). Clinical, biochemical, and radiological parameters were also collected. Fifteen of 33 patients (45%) tested positive for at least one autoantibody, including 11 who tested positive for ANAs (33%), 8 who tested positive for anti-cardiolipin antibodies (immunoglobulin (Ig)G and/or IgM; 24%), and 3 who tested positive for anti-β2-glycoprotein antibodies (IgG and/or IgM; 9%). ANCA reactivity was not detected in any patient. Patients that tested positive for auto-antibodies had a significantly more severe prognosis than other patients did: 6 of 15 patients (40%) with auto-antibodies died due to COVID-19 complications during hospitalization, whereas only 1 of 18 patients (5.5%) who did not have auto-antibodies died (P = 0.03). Patients with poor prognosis (death due to COVID-19 complications) had a significantly higher respiratory rate at admission (23 breaths per minute vs. 17 breaths per minute; P = 0.03) and a higher frequency of auto-antibodies (86% vs. 27%; P = 0.008). In conclusion, auto-antibodies are frequently detected in patients with COVID-19 possibly reflecting a pathogenetic role of immune dysregulation. However, given the small number of patients, the association of auto-antibodies with an unfavorable prognosis requires further multicenter studies.

Analysis of Monitoring, Early Warning and Emergency Response System for New Major Infectious Diseases in China and Overseas

In recent years, the impact of new major infectious diseases on people's normal life is becoming more and more frequent, which has brought great impact on people's life safety and social economy, especially the corona virus disease 2019, which has been sweeping the globe. Public health and disease prevention and control systems in different countries have different performances in response to the pandemic, but they all have exposed many shortcomings. Countries around the world urgently need to improve the monitoring, early warning and emergency response systems for new major infectious diseases. As the outpost and main part of medical rescue, the hospital urgently needs to establish a set of scientifically advanced emergency response mechanism that is suitable for the business process of the medical system and unified standards in order to improve the response efficiency and quality of emergency treatment.

Safety and outcomes of percutaneous tracheostomy in coronavirus disease 2019 pneumonitis patients requiring prolonged mechanical ventilation

OBJECTIVES

Tracheostomy for coronavirus disease 2019 pneumonitis patients requiring prolonged invasive mechanical ventilation remains a matter of debate. This study analysed the timing and outcomes of percutaneous tracheostomy, and reports our experience of a dedicated ENT-anaesthetics department led tracheostomy team.

METHOD

A prospective single-centre observational study was conducted of patients undergoing tracheostomy, who had been diagnosed with coronavirus disease 2019 pneumonitis, between 21st March and 20th May 2020.

RESULTS

Eighty-one patients underwent tracheostomy after a median (interquartile range) of 16 (13-20) days of invasive mechanical ventilation. Median follow-up duration was 32 (23-40) days. Of patients, 86.7 per cent were successfully liberated from invasive mechanical ventilation in a median (interquartile range) of 12 (7-16) days. Moreover, 68.7 per cent were subsequently discharged from hospital. On univariate analysis, there was no difference in outcomes between early (before day 14) and late (day 14 or later) tracheostomy. The mortality rate was 8.6 per cent and no deaths were tracheostomy related.

CONCLUSION

Outcomes appear favourable when patients are carefully selected. Percutaneous tracheostomy performed via a multidisciplinary approach, with appropriate training, was safe and optimised healthcare resource utilisation.