Association of Lung Ultrasound Score with Mortality and Severity of COVID-19: A Meta-Analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objectives
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has rapidly spread all over the world. Lung ultrasound (LUS) has emerged as a useful tool for diagnosing many respiratory diseases. The prognostic role of LUS in COVID-19 patients has not yet been established.Methods
Several databases were searched on 09 April 2021. The difference in LUS score between the death and survival groups, and the relationship between LUS score and COVID-19 severity were both assessed.Results
The LUS score was significantly higher in the death group compared with the survival group (weighted mean difference (WMD) = 8.21, 95% CI: 4.74-11.67, P < 0.001), which was confirmed by trial sequential analysis. Those with mild/moderate, severe and critical COVID-19 had a progressively higher LUS score (critical vs. severe: WMD = 8.78, 95% CI: 4.17-13.38; P < 0.001; critical vs. mild/moderate/severe: WMD = 10.00, 95% CI: 6.83-13.17, P < 0.001; severe vs. moderate: WMD = 5.96, 95% CI: 3.48-8.44, P < 0.001; severe vs. mild/moderate: WMD = 7.31, 95% CI: 4.45-10.17, P < 0.001).Conclusions
The LUS score was associated with mortality and severity of COVID-19. The LUS score might be a risk stratification tool for COVID-19 patients.
SUBMITTER: Song G
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8266421 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Background: Lung injury is a common condition among hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, whether lung ultrasound (LUS) score predicts all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19 is unknown. The aim of the present study was to explore the predictive value of lung ultrasound score for mortality in patients with COVID-19. Methods: Patients with COVID-19 who underwent lung ultrasound were prospectively enrolled from three hospitals in Wuhan, China between February 2020 and March 2020. Demographic, clinical, and laboratory data were collected from digital patient records. Lung ultrasound scores were analyzed offline by two observers. Primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Results: Of the 402 patients, 318 (79.1%) had abnormal lung ultrasound. Compared with survivors (n = 360), non-survivors (n = 42) presented with more B2 lines, pleural line abnormalities, pulmonary consolidation, and pleural effusion (all p < 0.05). Moreover, non-survivors had higher global and anterolateral lung ultrasound score than survivors. In the receiver operating characteristic analysis, areas under the curve were 0.936 and 0.913 for global and anterolateral lung ultrasound score, respectively. A cutoff value of 15 for global lung ultrasound score had a sensitivity of 92.9% and specificity of 85.3%, and 9 for anterolateral score had a sensitivity of 88.1% and specificity of 83.3% for prediction of death. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that both global and anterolateral scores were strong predictors of death (both p < 0.001). Multivariate Cox regression analysis showed that global lung ultrasound score was an independent predictor (hazard ratio, 1.08; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.16; p = 0.03) of death together with age, male sex, C-reactive protein, and creatine kinase-myocardial band. Conclusion: Lung ultrasound score as a semiquantitative tool can be easily measured by bedside lung ultrasound. It is a powerful predictor of in-hospital mortality and may play a crucial role in risk stratification of patients with COVID-19.
| S-EPMC8185027 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundConflicting findings and the analysis of unpublished and retracted data have led to controversy on the safety of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers in people with COVID-19 infection. This meta-analysis examined the association of prescription of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) with the outcome from COVID-19.MethodsA systematic search was conducted to find published studies that reported the outcome of COVID-19 in relation to prescription of ACEI or ARB. Two authors (MF and AD) independently screened and extracted data and assessed study quality and strength of association using standardised tools. The endpoints for the meta-analyses were severe or critical disease outcome and mortality based on standardised criteria.ResultsTwenty-six studies including 8389 people prescribed ACEI or ARB and 20,989 people not prescribed these medications were included. The quality of studies varied, and the overall strength of association was poor with a high risk of confounding bias. Patients prescribed ACEI or ARB had a greater prevalence of risk factors. Meta-analysis found an association between prescription of ACEI or ARB with severe or critical disease outcome (risk ratio, RR, 1.23, 95% confidence interval, CI, 1.06 to 1.42, p = 0.006, I2 = 88%) but this association was lost in sensitivity analyses. There was no association between ACEI or ARB prescription and mortality (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.50, p = 0.19, I2 = 82%).ConclusionsThis meta-analysis suggests that people prescribed ACEI or ARB more commonly had severe or critical disease outcome, but not mortality, in published cohorts of patients diagnosed with COVID-19. This finding is most likely due to a greater prevalence of risk factors in these patients rather than due to exposure to angiotensin pathway inhibitors.
| S-EPMC8421238 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPrediction of outcomes in severe COVID-19 patients using chest computed tomography severity score (CTSS) may enable more effective clinical management and early, timely ICU admission. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the predictive accuracy of the CTSS for disease severity and mortality in severe COVID-19 subjects.MethodsThe electronic databases PubMed, Google Scholar, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched to find eligible studies that investigated the impact of CTSS on disease severity and mortality in COVID-19 patients between 7 January 2020 and 15 June 2021. Two independent authors looked into the risk of bias using the Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool.ResultsSeventeen studies involving 2788 patients reported the predictive value of CTSS for disease severity. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and summary area under the curve (sAUC) of CTSS were 0.85 (95% CI 0.78-0.90, I2 =83), 0.86 (95% CI 0.76-0.92, I2 =96) and 0.91 (95% CI 0.89-0.94), respectively. Six studies involving 1403 patients reported the predictive values of CTSS for COVID-19 mortality. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and sAUC of CTSS were 0.77 (95% CI 0.69-0.83, I2 = 41), 0.79 (95% CI 0.72-0.85, I2 = 88), and 0.84 (95% CI 0.81-0.87), respectively.DiscussionEarly prediction of prognosis is needed to deliver the better care to patients and stratify them as soon as possible. Because different CTSS thresholds have been reported in various studies, clinicians are still determining whether CTSS thresholds should be used to define disease severity and predict prognosis.ConclusionEarly prediction of prognosis is needed to deliver optimal care and timely stratification of patients. CTSS has strong discriminating power for the prediction of disease severity and mortality in patients with COVID-19.
| S-EPMC9933858 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundObesity affects the course of critical illnesses. We aimed to estimate the association of obesity with the severity and mortality in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients.Data sourcesA systematic search was conducted from the inception of the COVID-19 pandemic through to 13 October 2021, on databases including Medline (PubMed), Embase, Science Web, and Cochrane Central Controlled Trials Registry. Preprint servers such as BioRxiv, MedRxiv, ChemRxiv, and SSRN were also scanned.Study selection and data extractionFull-length articles focusing on the association of obesity and outcome in COVID-19 patients were included. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines were used for study selection and data extraction. Our Population of interest were COVID-19 positive patients, obesity is our Intervention/Exposure point, Comparators are Non-obese vs obese patients The chief outcome of the study was the severity of the confirmed COVID-19 positive hospitalized patients in terms of admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) or the requirement of invasive mechanical ventilation/intubation with obesity. All-cause mortality in COVID-19 positive hospitalized patients with obesity was the secondary outcome of the study.ResultsIn total, 3,140,413 patients from 167 studies were included in the study. Obesity was associated with an increased risk of severe disease (RR=1.52, 95% CI 1.41-1.63, p<0.001, I2 = 97%). Similarly, high mortality was observed in obese patients (RR=1.09, 95% CI 1.02-1.16, p=0.006, I2 = 97%). In multivariate meta-regression on severity, the covariate of the female gender, pulmonary disease, diabetes, older age, cardiovascular diseases, and hypertension was found to be significant and explained R2 = 40% of the between-study heterogeneity for severity. The aforementioned covariates were found to be significant for mortality as well, and these covariates collectively explained R2 = 50% of the between-study variability for mortality.ConclusionsOur findings suggest that obesity is significantly associated with increased severity and higher mortality among COVID-19 patients. Therefore, the inclusion of obesity or its surrogate body mass index in prognostic scores and improvement of guidelines for patient care management is recommended.
| S-EPMC9205425 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesOur purpose was to establish different cut-off points based on the lung ultrasound score (LUS) to classify COVID-19 pneumonia severity.MethodsInitially, we conducted a systematic review among previously proposed LUS cut-off points. Then, these results were validated by a single-centre prospective cohort study of adult patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Studied variables were poor outcome (ventilation support, intensive care unit admission or 28-days mortality) and 28-days mortality.ResultsFrom 510 articles, 11 articles were included. Among the cut-off points proposed in the articles included, only the LUS>15 cut-off point could be validated for its original endpoint, demonstrating also the strongest relation with poor outcome (odds ratio [OR]=3.636, confidence interval [CI] 1.411-9.374). Regarding our cohort, 127 patients were admitted. In these patients, LUS was statistically associated with poor outcome (OR=1.303, CI 1.137-1.493), and with 28-days mortality (OR=1.024, CI 1.006-1.042). LUS>15 showed the best diagnostic performance when choosing a single cut-off point in our cohort (area under the curve 0.650). LUS≤7 showed high sensitivity to rule out poor outcome (0.89, CI 0.695-0.955), while LUS>20 revealed high specificity to predict poor outcome (0.86, CI 0.776-0.917).ConclusionsLUS is a good predictor of poor outcome and 28-days mortality in COVID-19. LUS≤7 cut-off point is associated with mild pneumonia, LUS 8-20 with moderate pneumonia and ≥20 with severe pneumonia. If a single cut-off point were used, LUS>15 would be the point which better discriminates mild from severe disease.
| S-EPMC9998289 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We assessed the diagnostic accuracy of the age-adjusted quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score (qSOFA) for predicting mortality and disease severity in pediatric patients with suspected or confirmed infection. We conducted a systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Eleven studies with a total of 172,569 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio of the age-adjusted qSOFA for predicting mortality and disease severity were 0.69 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.53-0.81), 0.71 (95% CI 0.36-0.91), and 6.57 (95% CI 4.46-9.67), respectively. The area under the summary receiver-operating characteristic curve was 0.733. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for predicting mortality were 0.73 (95% CI 0.66-0.79) and 0.63 (95% CI 0.21-0.92), respectively. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for predicting disease severity were 0.73 (95% CI 0.21-0.97) and 0.72 (95% CI 0.11-0.98), respectively. The performance of the age-adjusted qSOFA for predicting mortality and disease severity was better in emergency department patients than in intensive care unit patients. The age-adjusted qSOFA has moderate predictive power and can help in rapidly identifying at-risk children, but its utility may be limited by its insufficient sensitivity.
| S-EPMC8568945 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe numbers of confirmed cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and COVID-19 related deaths are still increasing, so it is very important to determine the risk factors of COVID-19. Dyslipidemia is a common complication in patients with COVID-19, but the association of dyslipidemia with the severity and mortality of COVID-19 is still unclear. The aim of this study is to analyze the potential association of dyslipidemia with the severity and mortality of COVID-19.MethodsWe searched the PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library databases for all relevant studies up to August 24, 2020. All the articles published were retrieved without language restriction. All analysis was performed using Stata 13.1 software and Mantel-Haenszel formula with fixed effects models was used to compare the differences between studies. The Newcastle Ottawa scale was used to assess the quality of the included studies.ResultsTwenty-eight studies involving 12,995 COVID-19 patients were included in the meta-analysis, which was consisted of 26 cohort studies and 2 case-control studies. Dyslipidemia was associated with the severity of COVID-19 (odds ratio [OR] = 1.27, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.11-1.44, P = 0.038, I2 = 39.8%). Further, patients with dyslipidemia had a 2.13-fold increased risk of death compared to patients without dyslipidemia (95% CI 1.84-2.47, P = 0.001, I2 = 66.4%).ConclusionsThe results proved that dyslipidemia is associated with increased severity and mortality of COVID-19. Therefore, we should monitor blood lipids and administer active treatments in COVID-19 patients with dyslipidemia to reduce the severity and mortality.
| S-EPMC8314261 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAcute liver injury (ALI), a complication often seen in COVID-19 patients, can lead to severe liver damage, multi-organ failure, acute vascular events, and can potentially escalate to patient mortality. Given this, we initiated a meta-analysis to investigate the correlation between ALI and adverse outcomes in COVID-19 patients.MethodsWe conducted an exhaustive search of databases, including Medline, Embase, PubMed Central, ScienceDirect, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Library, from the November 2019 until January 2022. The quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Newcastle Ottawa (NO) scale. Our meta-analysis was carried out using a random-effects model and results were presented as pooled odds ratios (ORs) with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).ResultsOur analysis incorporated 20 studies involving a total of 13,850 participants, predominantly from China and the United States. According to the NO scale, the majority of these studies were categorized as low-quality. Patients with ALI faced approximately 7 times higher odds of severe COVID-19 symptoms (pooled OR = 7.09; 95%CI: 4.97 to 10.12) and over 5 times higher odds of mortality (pooled OR = 5.50; 95%CI: 3.37 to 8.99) when compared to those without ALI.ConclusionOur findings affirm that ALI is a potent predictor of adverse outcomes, including severity and mortality, among COVID-19 patients. Recognizing and promptly addressing ALI in COVID-19 patients could be pivotal in improving prognosis and tailoring individualized patient management strategies. This underscores the need for clinicians to be vigilant about liver complications in the COVID-19 patients and integrate appropriate interventions in the treatment paradigm.
| S-EPMC10560047 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: The aim of this retrospective analysis was to assess if serial lung ultrasound assessments in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia, including a novel simplified scoring system, correlate with PaO2:FiO2 ratio, as a marker of disease severity, and patient outcomes. Methods: Patients treated for COVID-19 pneumonia in a tertiary intensive care unit who had a lung ultrasound assessment were included. Standardised assessments of anterior and lateral lung regions were prospectively recorded. A validated lung ultrasound score-of-aeration and a simplified scoring system based on the number of disease-free lung regions were correlated with: PaO2:FiO2 ratio, successful weaning from mechanical ventilation, and status (alive or dead) at discharge. MedCalc© statistical software was used for statistical analysis. Results: 28 patients (109 assessments) were included. Correlation was seen between score-of-aeration and PaO2:FiO2 ratio (r = -0.61, p<0.0001) and between the simplified scoring system and PaO2:FiO2 ratio (r = 0.52 p<0.0001). Achieving a score-of-aeration of ≤9/24 or ≥2 disease-free regions was associated with successful weaning from mechanical ventilation and survival to ICU discharge (accuracy of 94% and 97% respectively). Conclusion: Retrospective analysis from this small cohort of patients demonstrates that scores-of-aeration and a simplified scoring system based on the number of disease-free antero-lateral regions from serial LUS assessments correlate with PaO2:FiO2 ratio as a marker of disease severity in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. In addition, lung ultrasound may help identify patients who will have favourable outcomes.
| S-EPMC9979905 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTo determine the utility of admission laboratory markers in the assessment and prognostication of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), a systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted on the association between admission laboratory values in hospitalized COVID-19 patients and subsequent disease severity and mortality.Material and methodsSearches were conducted in MEDLINE, Pubmed, Embase, and the WHO Global Research Database from December 1,2019 to May 1, 2020 for relevant articles. A random effects meta-analysis was used to calculate the weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for each of 27 laboratory markers. The impact of age and sex on WMDs was estimated using meta-regression techniques for 11 markers.ResultsIn total, 64 studies met the inclusion criteria. The most marked WMDs were for neutrophils (ANC) at 3.82 × 109 /L (2.76, 4.87), lymphocytes (ALC) at -0.34 × 109 /L (-0.45, -0.23), interleukin-6 (IL-6) at 32.59 pg/mL (23.99, 41.19), ferritin at 814.14 ng/mL (551.48, 1076.81), C-reactive protein (CRP) at 66.11 mg/L (52.16, 80.06), D-dimer at 5.74 mg/L (3.91, 7.58), LDH at 232.41 U/L (178.31, 286.52), and high sensitivity troponin I at 90.47 pg/mL (47.79, 133.14) when comparing fatal to nonfatal cases. Similar trends were observed comparing severe to non-severe groups. There were no statistically significant associations between age or sex and WMD for any of the markers included in the meta-regression.ConclusionThe results highlight that hyper inflammation, blunted adaptive immune response, and intravascular coagulation play key roles in the pathogenesis of COVID-19. Markers of these processes are good candidates to identify patients for early intervention and, importantly, are likely reliable regardless of age or sex in adult patients.
| S-EPMC7436507 | biostudies-literature