Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia in Patients with COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Ippolito M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8150614 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:The accuracy of the signs and tests that clinicians use to diagnose ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) and initiate antibiotic treatment has not been well characterized. We sought to characterize and compare the accuracy of physical examination, chest radiography, endotracheal aspirate (ETA), bronchoscopic sampling cultures (protected specimen brush [PSB] and bronchoalveolar lavage [BAL]), and CPIS?>?6 to diagnose VAP. We searched six databases from inception through September 2019 and selected English-language studies investigating accuracy of any of the above tests for VAP diagnosis. Reference standard was histopathological analysis. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed study quality. We included 25 studies (1639 patients). The pooled sensitivity and specificity of physical examination findings for VAP were poor: fever (66.4% [95% confidence interval [CI]: 40.7-85.0], 53.9% [95% CI 34.5-72.2]) and purulent secretions (77.0% [95% CI 64.7-85.9], 39.0% [95% CI 25.8-54.0]). Any infiltrate on chest radiography had a sensitivity of 88.9% (95% CI 73.9-95.8) and specificity of 26.1% (95% CI 15.1-41.4). ETA had a sensitivity of 75.7% (95% CI 51.5-90.1) and specificity of 67.9% (95% CI 40.5-86.8). Among bronchoscopic sampling methods, PSB had a sensitivity of 61.4% [95% CI 43.7-76.5] and specificity of 76.5% [95% CI 64.2-85.6]; while BAL had a sensitivity of 71.1% [95% CI 49.9-85.9] and specificity of 79.6% [95% CI 66.2-85.9]. CPIS?>?6 had a sensitivity of 73.8% (95% CI 50.6-88.5) and specificity of 66.4% (95% CI 43.9-83.3). Classic clinical indicators had poor accuracy for diagnosis of VAP. Reliance upon these indicators in isolation may result in misdiagnosis and potentially unnecessary antimicrobial use.
| S-EPMC7223448 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPandemic COVID-19 caused by the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 has a high incidence of patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). Many of these patients require admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for invasive ventilation and are at significant risk of developing a secondary, ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP).ObjectivesTo study the incidence of VAP and bacterial lung microbiome composition of ventilated COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients.MethodsIn this retrospective observational study, we compared the incidence of VAP and secondary infections using a combination of microbial culture and a TaqMan multi-pathogen array. In addition, we determined the lung microbiome composition using 16S RNA analysis in a subset of samples. The study involved 81 COVID-19 and 144 non-COVID-19 patients receiving invasive ventilation in a single University teaching hospital between March 15th 2020 and August 30th 2020.ResultsCOVID-19 patients were significantly more likely to develop VAP than patients without COVID (Cox proportional hazard ratio 2.01 95% CI 1.14-3.54, p = 0.0015) with an incidence density of 28/1000 ventilator days versus 13/1000 for patients without COVID (p = 0.009). Although the distribution of organisms causing VAP was similar between the two groups, and the pulmonary microbiome was similar, we identified 3 cases of invasive aspergillosis amongst the patients with COVID-19 but none in the non-COVID-19 cohort. Herpesvirade activation was also numerically more frequent amongst patients with COVID-19.ConclusionCOVID-19 is associated with an increased risk of VAP, which is not fully explained by the prolonged duration of ventilation. The pulmonary dysbiosis caused by COVID-19, and the causative organisms of secondary pneumonia observed are similar to that seen in critically ill patients ventilated for other reasons.
| S-EPMC7797892 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRecently, emerging evidence has suggested that atrial fibrillation (AF) has an epidemiological correlation with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, the clinical outcomes of AF in COVID-19 remain inconsistent and inconclusive. The aim of this study was to provide a comprehensive description of the impact of AF on the prognosis of patients with COVID-19 pneumonia.MethodsThree electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science) were searched for eligible studies as of March 1, 2021. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to evaluate the associations between AF (preexisting and new-onset) and in-hospital mortality, post-discharge mortality, and ventilator use.ResultsA total of 36 individual studies were incorporated into our meta-analysis. The combined results revealed that preexisting AF was associated with increased in-hospital mortality (pooled OR: 2.07; 95% CI: 1.60-2.67; p < 0.001), post-discharge mortality (pooled OR: 2.69; 95% CI: 1.24-5.83; p < 0.05), and ventilator utilization (pooled OR: 4.53; 95% CI: 1.33-15.38; p < 0.05) in patients with COVID-19. In addition, our data demonstrated that new-onset AF during severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection was significantly correlated with increased mortality (pooled OR: 2.38; 95% CI: 2.04-2.77; p < 0.001).ConclusionsThe presence of AF is correlated with adverse outcomes in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia, which deserves increased attention and should be managed appropriately to prevent adverse outcomes.
| S-EPMC8483996 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundData to date is far from sufficient to describe the recent epidemiology of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) in mainland China. This study aimed to estimate the overall incidence of VAP, with a special focus on its temporal trend and associated factors.MethodsMeta-analyses of 195 studies published from 2010 to 2015 were conducted, followed by subgroup analyses by methodological quality, pre-defined setting characteristics and attributes of populations.ResultsThe overall cumulative VAP incidence in mainland China was 23.8% (95% confidence interval (CI) 20.6-27.2%), with the results showing high heterogeneity. The pooled incidence densities were 24.14 (95% CI 21.19-27.51) episodes and 22.83 (95% CI 19.88-26.23) patients per 1000 ventilator-days. A decline in the cumulative incidence was observed from 2006 (49.5%, 95% CI 40.0-59.0%) to 2014 (19.6%, 95% CI 10.4-31.0%); differences in the incidence rates were also documented according to Chinese provinces and diagnostic criteria (p < 0.001). Older age (?60 years), coma, re-intubation, tracheotomy and prolonged ventilation were the factors significantly associated with the occurrence of VAP.ConclusionsThe incidence of VAP remains high in mainland China but has decreased since 2006. The reported rates vary considerably across individual studies, probably due to variations in diagnosis and geographical region. More studies using standard definitions and cut-off points are needed to better clarify the epidemiology of VAP across the country.
| S-EPMC5496595 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundVentilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is considered to be a worldwide issue along with the development of supportive ventilation. The preventing strategy is of great importance for its poor prognostic and difficulties in treatment. Probiotics have been advocated as one of the possible preventive measures. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the potential benefits of probiotics.MethodsThe databases, Web of science, PubMed, Ovid and Cochrane lib were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) publications that compared the effectiveness of probiotics with placebo in the prevention of VAP. The incidence of VAP was considered as the primary endpoint, mortality, length of stay in intensive care units (ICUs), etiology of the infections were considered as secondary endpoints.ResultsA total of 844 patients from 5 trials were subjected to meta-analysis. Probiotics did not significantly decrease the incidence of VAP (RR 0.94, 95%CI 0.85-1.04, p=0.22), however, the administration of probiotics reduced the risk of VAP caused by Pseudomonas aeruginosa (P. aeruginosa) (RR 0.30, 95%CI 0.11-0.91, P=0.03). It failed to affect any other endpoints.ConclusionProbiotic prophylaxis of ventilator-associated pneumonia remained inconclusive and it failed to improve the prognosis of general mechanically ventilated patients. It was noteworthy that infections caused by P. aeruginosa was reduced by administration of probiotics. In further, it is recommended that advanced studies should exploit transformation in pathogenic microorganisms owing to administration of probiotics as well as the specific population.
| S-EPMC3867481 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundObesity has been widely reported to be associated with the disease progression of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19); however, some studies have reported different findings. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the association between obesity and poor outcomes in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia.MethodsA systematic review and meta-analysis of studies from the PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases from 1 November 2019 to 24 May 2020 was performed. Study quality was assessed, and data extraction was conducted. The meta-analysis was carried out using fixed-effects and random-effects models to calculate odds ratios (ORs) of several poor outcomes in obese and non-obese COVID-19 patients.ResultsTwenty-two studies (n = 12,591 patients) were included. Pooled analysis demonstrated that body mass index (BMI) was higher in severe/critical COVID-19 patients than in mild COVID-19 patients (MD 2.48 kg/m2, 95% CI [2.00 to 2.96 kg/m2]). Additionally, obesity in COVID-19 patients was associated with poor outcomes (OR = 1.683, 95% CI [1.408-2.011]), which comprised severe COVID-19, ICU care, invasive mechanical ventilation use, and disease progression (OR = 4.17, 95% CI [2.32-7.48]; OR = 1.57, 95% CI [1.18-2.09]; OR = 2.13, 95% CI [1.10-4.14]; OR = 1.41, 95% CI [1.26-1.58], respectively). Obesity as a risk factor was greater in younger patients (OR 3.30 vs. 1.72). However, obesity did not increase the risk of hospital mortality (OR = 0.89, 95% CI [0.32-2.51]).ConclusionsAs a result of a potentially critical role of obesity in determining the severity of COVID-19, it is important to collect anthropometric information for COVID-19 patients, especially the younger group. However, obesity may not be associated with hospital mortality, and efforts to understand the impact of obesity on the mortality of COVID-19 patients should be a research priority in the future.
| S-EPMC7708895 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThis systematic review, with meta-analysis and meta-regression aims to evaluate the effect of colchicine administration on mortality in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and factors affecting the association.MethodsA systematic literature search using the PubMed, Scopus, and Embase databases were performed from inception of databases up until 3 March 2021. We included studies that fulfill all of the following criteria: 1) observational studies or randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that report COVID-19 patients, 2) reporting colchicine use, and 3) mortality within 30 days. There was no restriction on the age, inpatients or outpatients setting, and severity of diseases. The intervention was colchicine administration during treatment for COVID-19. The control was receiving placebo or standard of care. The outcome was mortality and the pooled effect estimate was reported as odds ratio (OR). Random-effects restricted maximum likelihood meta-regression was performed to evaluate factors affecting the pooled effect estimate.ResultsEight studies comprising of 5530 patients were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. There were three RCTs and five observational studies. Pooled analysis showed that colchicine was associated with lower mortality in patients with COVID-19 (OR 0.47 [0.31, 0.72], p = 0.001; I2: 30.9, p = 0.181). Meta-regression analysis showed that the association between colchicine and mortality was reduced by increasing age (OR 0.92 [0.85, 1.00], p = 0.05), but not gender (reference: male, p = 0.999), diabetes (p = 0.376), hypertension (p = 0.133), and CAD (p = 0.354).ConclusionThis meta-analysis indicates that colchicine may reduce mortality in patients with COVID-19. Meta-regression analysis showed that the benefit was reduced as age increases.ProsperoCRD42021240609.
| S-EPMC8075849 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The prevalence and prognosis of post-acute stage SARS-CoV-2 infection fatigue symptoms remain largely unknown. We performed a systematic review to evaluate the prevalence of fatigue in post-recovery from SARS-CoV-2 infection. Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus, trial registries, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Google Scholar were searched for studies on fatigue in samples that recovered from polymerase chain reaction (PCR) diagnosed COVID-19. English, French, and Spanish studies were included. Meta-analyses were conducted separately for each recruitment setting. We identified 41 studies with 9,362 patients that recovered from COVID-19. Post-COVID-19 patients self-report of fatigue was higher compared to healthy controls (risk ratio (RR) = 3.688, 95%CI [2.502, 5.436], p < .001). Over 50% of patients discharged from inpatient care reported symptoms of fatigue during the first (event rate [ER] = 0.517, 95%CI [0.278, 0.749]) and second month following recovery (ER = 0.527, 95%CI [0.337, 0.709]). Ten percent of the community patients reported fatigue in the first-month post-recovery. Patient setting moderated the association between COVID-19 recovery and fatigue symptoms (R2 = 0.11, p < .001). Female patients recovering from COVID-19 had a greater self-report of fatigue (odds ratio [OR] = 1.782, 95%CI [1.531, 2.870]). Patients recruited through social media had fatigue above 90% across multiple time points. Fatigue was highest in studies from Europe. Fatigue is a symptom associated with functional challenges which could have economic and social impacts. Developing long-term planning for fatigue management amongst patients beyond the acute stages of SARS-CoV-2 infection is essential to optimizing patient care and public health outcomes. Further studies should examine the impact of sociodemographic, pandemic-related restrictions and pre-existing conditions on fatigue.
| S-EPMC8574547 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:To analyze the survival rates of patients with COVID-19 supported with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and compare the survival rates of patients with COVID-19 supported with ECMO to patients with influenza supported with ECMO. DESIGN:A systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the impact of ECMO as supportive therapy of COVID-19. SETTING:The authors performed a search through the Cochrane, EMBASE, and MEDLINE/PubMed databases from inception to February 19, 2021, for studies reporting hospitalized patients with COVID-19 managed with ECMO. PARTICIPANTS:A total of 134 studies were selected, including 6 eligible for the comparative meta-analysis of COVID-19 versus influenza. INTERVENTIONS:The authors pooled the risk ratio and random effects model. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:The primary endpoint was the overall mortality of patients with COVID-19 receiving ECMO. Of the total number of 58,472 patients with COVID-19 reported, ECMO was used in 4,044 patients. The analysis suggested an overall in-hospital mortality of 39% (95% CI 0.34-0.43). In the comparative analysis, patients with COVID-19 on ECMO had a higher risk ratio (RR) for mortality when compared to influenza patients on ECMO: 72/164 (44%) v 71/186 (38%) RR 1.34; 95% CI 1.05-1.71; p = 0.03. CONCLUSIONS:ECMO could be beneficial in patients with COVID-19, according to the authors' meta-analysis. The reported mortality rate was 39%. This systematic analysis can provide clinical advice in the current era and ongoing pandemic.
| S-EPMC8585556 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPneumonia is a serious disease associated with mortality among patients with dementia. However, the reported frequency of pneumonia as a cause of death in patients with dementia varies, the reason for which has not been fully elucidated.MethodsWe conducted a systematic search in PubMed and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (inception to December 2016). Two authors independently determined the suitability of studies and potential bias and extracted the data. The primary outcome was frequency of pneumonia-associated death in patients with dementia. Stratified subgroup analysis was conducted among studies grouped according to type of mortality cause (immediate or underlying), information source of mortality cause (autopsy or death certificate), and study setting (clinic, hospital, or nursing home).ResultsWe included 7 studies reporting the cause of death among patients with dementia and 12 studies comparing the cause of death among patients with and without dementia. The frequency of pneumonia-associated death among 19 eligible studies was 29.69% (95% confidence interval [CI], 25.86-33.53). Those frequencies differed according to whether the source for information about cause of death was an autopsy confirmation (49.98%; 95% CI, 43.75-56.71) or death certificate (19.65%; 95% CI, 15.48-23.83) and according to whether the type of mortality cause was an indirect cause of death (13.96%; 95% CI, 9.42-18.51) or direct cause of death (44.45%; 95% CI, 29.81-50.10). The risk of pneumonia-associated death in patients with dementia was twice as high as among those without dementia (odds ratio, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.63-2.83; p < 0.001).ConclusionThe various frequencies of pneumonia-associated death in patients with dementia were associated with the information source, type of mortality cause, and study setting. Patients with dementia in the terminal stages urgently require careful clinical management of pneumonia, to maximize patient life expectancy and quality.
| S-EPMC6417730 | biostudies-literature