Systematic review and meta-analysis of tracheostomy outcomes in COVID-19 patients.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Ferro A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8130586 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:INTRODUCTION: Tracheostomy is one of the more commonly performed procedures in critically ill patients yet the optimal method of performing tracheostomies in this population remains to be established. The aim of this study was to systematically review and quantitatively synthesize all randomized clinical trials (RCTs), comparing elective percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy (PDT) and surgical tracheostomy (ST) in adult critically ill patients with regards to major short and long term outcomes. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and the Cochrane Controlled Clinical Trials Register databases were searched to identify relevant studies. Additionally, bibliographies and selected conference proceedings were reviewed, and experts in the field and manufacturers of two PDT kits were contacted. Randomized clinical trials comparing any method of elective PDT to ST that included critically ill adults and reported at least one clinically relevant outcome were included. Data extracted included trial characteristics, measures of study validity, and clinically relevant outcomes. RESULTS: Seventeen RCTs involving 1,212 patients were included. Most PDTs used a multiple dilator technique and were performed in the intensive care unit (ICU). The pooled odds ratio (OR) for wound infection was 0.28 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.16 to 0.49, p < 0.0005), indicating a significant reduction with PDT compared to ST. Overall, PDT was equivalent to ST for bleeding, major peri-procedural and long-term complications; however, subgroup analysis suggested PDT resulted in a lower incidence of bleeding (OR = 0.29 (95% CI 0.12 to 0.75, p = 0.01)) and death (OR = 0.71 (95% CI 0.50 to 1.0, p = 0.05)) when the STs were performed in the operating theatre. CONCLUSION: PDT reduces the overall incidence of wound infection and may further reduce clinical relevant bleeding and mortality when compared with ST performed in the operating theatre. PDT, performed in the ICU, should be considered the procedure of choice for performing elective tracheostomies in critically ill adult patients.
| S-EPMC1550905 | biostudies-other
Project description:ObjectiveThe aim of this case series was to demonstrate that surgical tracheostomy can be undertaken safely in critically ill mechanically ventilated patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and that it is an effective weaning tool.Study designRetrospective case series.SettingSingle academic teaching hospital in London.MethodsAll adult patients admitted to the adult intensive care unit (AICU), diagnosed with severe COVID-19 infection and requiring surgical tracheostomy between the March 10, 2020, and May 1, 2020, were included. Data collection focused upon patient demographics, AICU admission data, tracheostomy-specific data, and clinical outcomes.ResultsTwenty patients with COVID-19 underwent surgical tracheostomy. The main indication for tracheostomy was to assist in respiratory weaning. Patients had undergone mechanical ventilation for a median of 16.5 days prior to surgical tracheostomy. Tracheostomy remained in situ for a median of 12.5 days. Sixty percent of patients were decannulated at the end of the data collection period. There were no serious immediate or short-term complications. Surgical tracheostomy facilitated significant reduction in intravenous sedation at 48 hours after tracheostomy formation. There was no confirmed COVID-19 infection or reported sickness in the operating surgical or anesthetic teams.ConclusionSurgical tracheostomy has been demonstrated to be an effective weaning tool in patients with severe COVID-19 infection.
| S-EPMC7797581 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo synthesize reported long-term outcomes in patients undergoing tracheostomy after severe acute brain injury (SABI).MethodsWe systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library for studies in English, German, and Spanish between 1990 and 2019, reporting outcomes in patients with SABI who underwent tracheostomy. We adhered to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines and the meta-analyses of observational studies in epidemiology guidelines. We excluded studies reporting on less than 10 patients, mixed populations with other neurological diseases, or studies assessing highly select subgroups defined by age or procedures. Data were extracted independently by two investigators. Results were pooled using random effects modeling. The primary outcome was long-term functional outcome (mRS or GOS) at 6-12 months. Secondary outcomes included hospital and long-term mortality, decannulation rates, and discharge home rates.ResultsOf 1405 studies identified, 61 underwent full manuscript review and 19 studies comprising 35,362 patients from 10 countries were included in the meta-analysis. The primary outcome was available from five studies with 451 patients. At 6-12 months, about one-third of patients (30%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 17-48) achieved independence, and about one-third survived in a dependent state (36%, 95% CI 28-46%). The pooled short-term mortality for 19,048 patients was 12%, (95% CI 9-17%) with no significant difference between stroke (10%) and TBI patients (13%), and the pooled long-term mortality was 21% (95% CI 11-36). Decannulation occurred in 79% (95% CI 51-93%) of survivors. Heterogeneity was high for most outcome assessments (I2 > 75%).ConclusionsOur findings suggest that about one in three patients with SABI who undergo tracheostomy may eventually achieve independence. Future research is needed to understand the reasons for the heterogeneity between studies and to identify those patients with promising outcomes as well as factors influencing outcome.
| S-EPMC8363498 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Introduction and objectivesThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has been a challenge globally. In severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) epidemic 60% of patients had hepatic injury, due to phylogenetic similarities of the viruses it is assumed that COVID-19 is associated with acute liver injury. In this meta-analysis, we aim to study the occurrence and association of liver injury, comorbid liver disease and elevated liver enzymes in COVID-19 confirmed hospitalizations with outcomes.Materials and methodsData from observational studies describing comorbid chronic liver disease, acute liver injury, elevated aspartate aminotransferase (AST), alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels and outcomes of COVID-19 hospitalized patients from December 1, 2019, to June 30, 2020 was extracted following PRISMA guidelines. Adverse outcomes were defined as admission to intensive care unit (ICU), oxygen saturation <90%, invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), severe disease and in-hospital mortality. Odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were obtained.Results24 studies with 12,882 confirmed COVID-19 patients were included. Overall prevalence of CM-CLD was 2.6%, COVID-19-ALI was 26.5%, elevated AST was 41.1% and elevated ALT was 29.1%. CM-CLD had no significant association with poor outcomes (pooled OR: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.71-1.29; p=0.78). COVID-19-ALI (1.68;1.04-2.70; p=0.03), elevated AST (2.98; 2.35-3.77; p<0.00001) and elevated ALT (1.85;1.49-2.29; p<0.00001) were significantly associated with higher odds of poor outcomes.ConclusionOur meta-analysis suggests that acute liver injury and elevated liver enzymes were significantly associated with COVID-19 severity. Future studies should evaluate changing levels of biomarkers amongst liver disease patients to predict poor outcomes of COVID-19 and causes of liver injury during COVID-19 infection.
| S-EPMC7566821 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Abstract Background Our understanding of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and its implications for patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) is rapidly evolving. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the epidemiology, clinical characteristics, and outcomes in IBD patients with COVID-19. Methods We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central, Clinicaltrials.gov, Web of Science, MedRxiv, and Google Scholar from inception through October 2020. We included studies with IBD patients and confirmed COVID-19. Data were collected on the prevalence, patient characteristics, pre-infection treatments for IBD, comorbidities, hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU), admission, and death. Results Twenty-three studies with 51,643 IBD patients and 1449 with COVID-19 met our inclusion criteria. In 14 studies (n = 50,706) that included IBD patients with and without COVID-19, the prevalence of infection was 1.01% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.92-1.10). Of IBD patients with COVID-19, 52.7% had Crohn’s disease, 42.2% had ulcerative colitis, and 5.1% had indeterminate colitis. Nine studies (n = 687) reported outcomes according to IBD therapy received. Compared with patients on corticosteroids, those on antitumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapy had a lower risk of hospitalization (risk ratio [RR], 0.24; 95% CI, 0.16-0.35; P < .01; I2 = 0%) and ICU admission (RR, 0.10; 95% CI, 0.03-0.37; P < .01) but not death (RR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.02-1.71; P = .13; I2 = 39%). Compared with patients on mesalamine, those on antitumor necrosis factor therapy had a lower risk of hospitalizations (RR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.25-0.54), ICU admissions (RR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.07-0.58), and death (0.21; 95% CI, 0.04-1.00). Comparing patients on immunomodulators vs mesalamine or anti-TNF therapy, there was no difference in these outcomes. Conclusions The prevalence of COVID-19 in IBD patients was low. Use of corticosteroids or mesalamine was significantly associated with worse outcomes, whereas use of anti-TNFs was associated with more favorable outcomes. Further investigation clarifying the mechanisms of these disparate observations could help identify risk and adverse outcome-mitigating strategies for patients with IBD.
| S-EPMC8574492 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe impact of gastrointestinal endoscopy on COVID-19 infection remains poorly investigated. We herein performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the outcomes of COVID-19 in patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy.MethodOvid Medline, Ovid EMBASE, Ovid the Cochrane Library, and other electronic databases were searched until 30 November 2020 to identify publications with confirmed COVID-19 infection in patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy. The primary outcomes were SARS-CoV-2 transmission, personal protective equipment use, rates of case fatality, complications, and procedural success.ResultsA total of 18 articles involving 329 patients were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The overall basic reproduction rate is 0.37, while the subgroup results from Asia, Europe, and North America are 0.13, 0.44, and 0.33, respectively. The differences in personal protective equipment use between the positive transmission and non-transmission group are mainly in isolation gowns, N95 or equivalent masks, and goggles or face-shields. The rate of case fatality, complication, and procedural success are 0.17 (95% confidence interval = 0.02-0.38), 0.00 (95% confidence interval = 0.00-0.02), and 0.89 (95% confidence interval = 0.50-1.00), respectively. The fatality rate in Europe was the highest (0.23, 95% confidence interval = 0.04-0.50), which is significantly different from other continents (p = 0.034).ConclusionThe risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission within gastrointestinal endoscopy units is considerably low if proper use of personal protective equipment is applied. Similarly, a low fatality and complication rate, as well as a high procedural success rate, indicated that a full recovery of endoscopic units should be considered.
| S-EPMC8408897 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn the current SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, there has been worldwide debate on the use of corticosteroids in COVID-19. In the recent RECOVERY trial, evaluating the effect of dexamethasone, a reduced 28-day mortality in patients requiring oxygen therapy or mechanical ventilation was shown. Their results have led to considering amendments in guidelines or actually already recommending corticosteroids in COVID-19. However, the effectiveness and safety of corticosteroids still remain uncertain, and reliable data to further shed light on the benefit and harm are needed.ObjectivesThe aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of corticosteroids in COVID-19.MethodsA systematic literature search of RCTS and observational studies on adult patients was performed across Medline/PubMed, Embase and Web of Science from December 1, 2019, until October 1, 2020, according to the PRISMA guidelines. Primary outcomes were short-term mortality and viral clearance (based on RT-PCR in respiratory specimens). Secondary outcomes were: need for mechanical ventilation, need for other oxygen therapy, length of hospital stay and secondary infections.ResultsForty-four studies were included, covering 20.197 patients. In twenty-two studies, the effect of corticosteroid use on mortality was quantified. The overall pooled estimate (observational studies and RCTs) showed a significant reduced mortality in the corticosteroid group (OR 0.72 (95%CI 0.57-0.87). Furthermore, viral clearance time ranged from 10 to 29 days in the corticosteroid group and from 8 to 24 days in the standard of care group. Fourteen studies reported a positive effect of corticosteroids on need for and duration of mechanical ventilation. A trend toward more infections and antibiotic use was present.ConclusionsOur findings from both observational studies and RCTs confirm a beneficial effect of corticosteroids on short-term mortality and a reduction in need for mechanical ventilation. And although data in the studies were too sparse to draw any firm conclusions, there might be a signal of delayed viral clearance and an increase in secondary infections.
| S-EPMC7735177 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:To evaluate association between biomarkers and outcomes in COVID-19 hospitalised patients. COVID-19 pandemic has been a challenge. Biomarkers have always played an important role in clinical decision making in various infectious diseases. It is crucial to assess the role of biomarkers in evaluating severity of disease and appropriate allocation of resources. DESIGN AND SETTING:Systematic review and meta-analysis. English full text observational studies describing the laboratory findings and outcomes of COVID-19 hospitalised patients were identified searching PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, medRxiv using Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms COVID-19 OR coronavirus OR SARS-CoV-2 OR 2019-nCoV from 1 December 2019 to 15 August 2020 following Meta-analyses Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines. PARTICIPANTS:Studies having biomarkers, including lymphocyte, platelets, D-dimer, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), C reactive protein (CRP), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), alanine aminotransferase (ALT), creatinine, procalcitonin (PCT) and creatine kinase (CK), and describing outcomes were selected with the consensus of three independent reviewers. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Composite poor outcomes include intensive care unit admission, oxygen saturation <90%, invasive mechanical ventilation utilisation, severe disease, in-hospital admission and mortality. The OR and 95%?CI were obtained and forest plots were created using random-effects models. Publication bias and heterogeneity were assessed by sensitivity analysis. RESULTS:32 studies with 10?491 confirmed COVID-19 patients were included. We found that lymphopenia (pooled-OR: 3.33 (95% CI: 2.51-4.41); p<0.00001), thrombocytopenia (2.36 (1.64-3.40); p<0.00001), elevated D-dimer (3.39 (2.66-4.33); p<0.00001), elevated CRP (4.37 (3.37-5.68); p<0.00001), elevated PCT (6.33 (4.24-9.45); p<0.00001), elevated CK (2.42 (1.35-4.32); p=0.003), elevated AST (2.75 (2.30-3.29); p<0.00001), elevated ALT (1.71 (1.32-2.20); p<0.00001), elevated creatinine (2.84 (1.80-4.46); p<0.00001) and LDH (5.48 (3.89-7.71); p<0.00001) were independently associated with higher risk of poor outcomes. CONCLUSION:Our study found a significant association between lymphopenia, thrombocytopenia and elevated levels of CRP, PCT, LDH, D-dimer and COVID-19 severity. The results have the potential to be used as an early biomarker to improve the management of COVID-19 patients, by identification of high-risk patients and appropriate allocation of healthcare resources in the pandemic.
| S-EPMC7493072 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To successfully mitigate the extraordinary devastation caused by the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, it is crucial to identify important risk factors for this disease. One such neglected health determinant is the sex of the patient. This is an essential clinical characteristic, as it can factor into a patient's clinical management and preventative measures. Some clinical studies have shown disparities in the proportion between males and females that have more severe clinical outcomes or, subsequently, die from this disease. However, this association has not been unequivocally established. Thus, the purpose of this investigation was to examine the association between male sex and COVID-19 severity. We systematically reviewed the literature, identified studies that matched predetermined selection criteria, and performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the proportion of males among four disease severity categories. Appropriate assessment strategies were implemented to assess and minimize potential biases. The results of this meta-analysis indicated that males constituted a significantly higher proportion of those who had adverse clinical outcomes and died from COVID-19. As the coronavirus spread from the East to the West, male sex remained a consistent risk factor. Our results support the establishment of the male sex as an important risk factor for this disease. Early identification and appropriate medical care for males with lab-confirmed COVID-19 may substantially change the course of clinical prognosis, resulting in greater numbers of lives saved.
| S-EPMC7331754 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe incidence of elevated liver chemistries and the presence of pre-existing chronic liver disease (CLD) have been variably reported in COVID-19.AimsTo assess the prevalence of CLD, the incidence of elevated liver chemistries and the outcomes of patients with and without underlying CLD/elevated liver chemistries in COVID-19.MethodsA comprehensive search of electronic databases from 1 December 2019 to 24 April 2020 was done. We included studies reporting underlying CLD or elevated liver chemistries and patient outcomes in COVID-19.Results107 articles (n = 20 874 patients) were included for the systematic review. The pooled prevalence of underlying CLD was 3.6% (95% CI, 2.5-5.1) among the 15 407 COVID-19 patients. The pooled incidence of elevated liver chemistries in COVID-19 was 23.1% (19.3-27.3) at initial presentation. Additionally, 24.4% (13.5-40) developed elevated liver chemistries during the illness. The pooled incidence of drug-induced liver injury was 25.4% (14.2-41.4). The pooled prevalence of CLD among 1587 severely infected patients was 3.9% (3%-5.2%). The odds of developing severe COVID-19 in CLD patients was 0.81 (0.31-2.09; P = 0.67) compared to non-CLD patients. COVID-19 patients with elevated liver chemistries had increased risk of mortality (OR-3.46 [2.42-4.95, P < 0.001]) and severe disease (OR-2.87 [95% CI, 2.29-3.6, P < 0.001]) compared to patients without elevated liver chemistries.ConclusionsElevated liver chemistries are common at presentation and during COVID-19. The severity of elevated liver chemistries correlates with the outcome of COVID-19. The presence of CLD does not alter the outcome of COVID-19. Further studies are needed to analyse the outcomes of compensated and decompensated liver disease.
| S-EPMC7361465 | biostudies-literature