Browse
Submit Data
Databases
API
Help

Dataset Information

18 Views

0 Connections

0 Citations

0 Reanalyses

0 Downloads

Omics score: 0

Mortality and risk factors associated with pulmonary embolism in coronavirus disease 2019 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: To determine, in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection, the associations of pulmonary embolism (PE) with mortality and risk factors for PE as well as the therapeutic benefit of anticoagulant prophylaxis. Embase, PubMed, Cochrane controlled trials register, and Web of Science databases were searched from inception to October 10, 2020. We included all published trials on PE in patients diagnosed with COVID-19 with eligibility of the trials assessed following the PRISMA guidelines. Sixteen clinical trials with 5826 patients were eligible. There were significant associations of PE with the male gender [odd ratio (OR) = 1.59, 95% CI 1.28-1.97], mechanical ventilation (OR = 3.71, 95% CI 2.57-5.36), intensive care unit admission (OR = 2.99, 95% CI 2.11-4.23), circulating D-dimer [mean difference (MD) = 5.04 µg/mL, 95% CI 3.67-6.42) and CRP (MD = 1.97 mg/dL, 95% CI 0.58- 3.35) concentrations without significant correlation between PE and mortality (OR = 1.31, 95% CI 0.82-2.08) as well as other parameters or comorbidities. After omitting one trial with strict patient selection criteria for anticoagulant prophylaxis, significant prophylactic benefit was noted (OR = 0.31, 95% CI 0.1-0.91). Our findings identified the risk factors associated with PE in COVID-19 patients and supported the therapeutic benefit of anticoagulant prophylaxis against PE in this patient population.

SUBMITTER: Gomez CA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8346591 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Json Xml

Similar Datasets

Incidence of Mortality and Complications in High-Risk Pulmonary Embolism: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Project description: Not available

| S-EPMC11308857 | biostudies-literature

Active pulmonary tuberculosis and coronavirus disease 2019: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Project description:ObjectiveThe proportion of COVID-19 patients having active pulmonary tuberculosis, and its impact on COVID-19 related patient outcomes, is not clear. We conducted this systematic review to evaluate the proportion of patients with active pulmonary tuberculosis among COVID-19 patients, and to assess if comorbid pulmonary tuberculosis worsens clinical outcomes in these patients.MethodsWe queried the PubMed and Embase databases for studies providing data on (a) proportion of COVID-19 patients with active pulmonary tuberculosis or (b) severe disease, hospitalization, or mortality among COVID-19 patients with and without active pulmonary tuberculosis. We calculated the proportion of tuberculosis patients, and the relative risk (RR) for each reported outcome of interest. We used random-effects models to summarize our data.ResultsWe retrieved 3,375 citations, and included 43 studies, in our review. The pooled estimate for proportion of active pulmonary tuberculosis was 1.07% (95% CI 0.81%-1.36%). COVID-19 patients with tuberculosis had a higher risk of mortality (summary RR 1.93, 95% CI 1.56-2.39, from 17 studies) and for severe COVID-19 disease (summary RR 1.46, 95% CI 1.05-2.02, from 20 studies), but not for hospitalization (summary RR 1.86, 95% CI 0.91-3.81, from four studies), as compared to COVID-19 patients without tuberculosis.ConclusionActive pulmonary tuberculosis is relatively common among COVID-19 patients and increases the risk of severe COVID-19 and COVID-19-related mortality.

| S-EPMC8530351 | biostudies-literature

Impact of pulmonary embolism response teams on acute pulmonary embolism: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Project description:BackgroundThe impact of pulmonary embolism response teams (PERTs) on treatment choice and outcomes of patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE) is still uncertain.ObjectiveTo determine the effect of PERTs in the management and outcomes of patients with PE.MethodsPubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL, WorldWideScience and MedRxiv were searched for original articles reporting PERT patient outcomes from 2009. Data were analysed using a random effects model.Results16 studies comprising 3827 PERT patients and 3967 controls met inclusion criteria. The PERT group had more patients with intermediate and high-risk PE (66.2%) compared to the control group (48.5%). Meta-analysis demonstrated an increased risk of catheter-directed interventions, systemic thrombolysis and surgical embolectomy (odds ratio (OR) 2.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.74-2.53; p<0.01), similar bleeding complications (OR 1.10, 95% CI 0.88-1.37) and decreased utilisation of inferior vena cava (IVC) filters (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.58-0.88; p<0.01) in the PERT group. Furthermore, there was a nonsignificant trend towards decreased mortality (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.71-1.07; p=0.19) with PERTs.ConclusionsThe PERT group showed an increased use of advanced therapies and a decreased utilisation of IVC filters. This was not associated with increased bleeding. Despite comprising more severe PE patients, there was a trend towards lower mortality in the PERT group.

| S-EPMC9724819 | biostudies-literature

Prognostic models in acute pulmonary embolism: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Project description:To review the evidence for existing prognostic models in acute pulmonary embolism (PE) and determine how valid and useful they are for predicting patient outcomes.Systematic review and meta-analysis.OVID MEDLINE and EMBASE, and The Cochrane Library from inception to July 2014, and sources of grey literature.Studies aiming at constructing, validating, updating or studying the impact of prognostic models to predict all-cause death, PE-related death or venous thromboembolic events up to a 3-month follow-up in patients with an acute symptomatic PE.Study characteristics and study quality using prognostic criteria. Studies were selected and data extracted by 2 reviewers.Summary estimates (95% CI) for proportion of risk groups and event rates within risk groups, and accuracy.We included 71 studies (44,298 patients). Among them, 17 were model construction studies specific to PE prognosis. The most validated models were the PE Severity Index (PESI) and its simplified version (sPESI). The overall 30-day mortality rate was 2.3% (1.7% to 2.9%) in the low-risk group and 11.4% (9.9% to 13.1%) in the high-risk group for PESI (9 studies), and 1.5% (0.9% to 2.5%) in the low-risk group and 10.7% (8.8% to12.9%) in the high-risk group for sPESI (11 studies). PESI has proved clinically useful in an impact study. Shifting the cut-off or using novel and updated models specifically developed for normotensive PE improves the ability for identifying patients at lower risk for early death or adverse outcome (0.5-1%) and those at higher risk (up to 20-29% of event rate).We provide evidence-based information about the validity and utility of the existing prognostic models in acute PE that may be helpful for identifying patients at low risk. Novel models seem attractive for the high-risk normotensive PE but need to be externally validated then be assessed in impact studies.

| S-EPMC4854007 | biostudies-other

Predictors of mortality in patients with coronavirus disease 2019: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Project description:BackgroundCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with a high mortality rate, especially in patients with severe illness. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the potential predictors of mortality in patients with COVID-19.MethodsPubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and three electronic Chinese databases were searched from December 1, 2019 to April 29, 2020. Eligible studies reporting potential predictors of mortality in patients with COVID-19 were identified. Unadjusted prognostic effect estimates were pooled using the random-effects model if data from at least two studies were available. Adjusted prognostic effect estimates were presented by qualitative analysis.ResultsThirty-six observational studies were identified, of which 27 were included in the meta-analysis. A total of 106 potential risk factors were tested, and the following important predictors were associated with mortality: advanced age, male sex, current smoking status, preexisting comorbidities (especially chronic kidney, respiratory, and cardio-cerebrovascular diseases), symptoms of dyspnea, complications during hospitalization, corticosteroid therapy and a severe condition. Additionally, a series of abnormal laboratory biomarkers of hematologic parameters, hepatorenal function, inflammation, coagulation, and cardiovascular injury were also associated with fatal outcome.ConclusionWe identified predictors of mortality in patients with COVID-19. These findings could help healthcare providers take appropriate measures and improve clinical outcomes in such patients.

| S-EPMC8264491 | biostudies-literature

Anticoagulation and In-Hospital Mortality From Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Project description:Hypercoagulability in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may aggravate disease severity during hospitalization but the reported survival benefits from anticoagulation (AC) vary among studies. We performed a literature research to estimate pooled odds ratios (ORs) of in-hospital mortality and major bleeding comparing among intermediate-to-therapeutic dose AC, prophylactic dose AC, and no AC. Until October 22, 2020, PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library Database were searched for studies reporting AC utilization and mortality in COVID-19. Studies with suspected risk of bias were excluded before the synthesis of pooled ORs with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using random-effects models. Of 37 identified studies (N = 19,510), 17 (N = 17,833) were aggregated in the meta-analysis. The overall mortality rate was 23.1% (95% CI 18.7-28.2). The pooled odds of mortality comparing anticoagulated to non-anticoagulated patients were similar, but lower in prophylactic dose AC group (OR 0.83; 95% CI 0.73-0.95). Notably, intermediate-to-therapeutic dose AC increased mortality (OR 1.60; 95% CI 1.11-2.31) and major bleeding compared to prophylactic dose AC (OR 3.33; 95% CI 2.34-4.72). Our findings support the optimal efficacy and safety profiles of prophylactic dose AC in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

| S-EPMC8060743 | biostudies-literature

Prior Statin Use and Risk of Mortality and Severe Disease From Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Project description:BackgroundStatins up-regulate angiotensin-converting enzyme 2, the receptor of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), while also exhibiting pleiotropic antiviral, antithrombotic, and anti-inflammatory properties. Uncertainties exist about their effect on the course of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We sought to systematically review the literature and perform a meta-analysis to examine the association between prior statin use and outcomes of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).MethodsWe searched Ovid Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, and the preprint server medRxiv from inception to December 2020. We assessed the quality of eligible studies with the Newcastle-Ottawa quality scale. We pooled adjusted relative risk (aRRs) of the association between prior statin use and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 using the DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model and assessed heterogeneity using the I 2 index.ResultsOverall, 19 (16 cohorts and 3 case-control) studies were eligible, with a total of 395 513 patients. Sixteen of 19 studies had low or moderate risk of bias. Among 109 080 patients enrolled in 13 separate studies, prior statin use was associated with a lower risk of mortality (pooled aRR, 0.65 [95% confidence interval {CI}, .56-.77], I 2 = 84.1%) and a reduced risk of severe COVID-19 was also observed in 48 110 patients enrolled in 9 studies (pooled aRR, 0.73 [95% CI, .57-.94], I 2 = 82.8%), with no evidence of publication bias.ConclusionsCumulative evidence suggests that prior statin use is associated with lower risks of mortality or severe disease in patients with COVID-19. These data support the continued use of statins medications in patients with an indication for lipid-lowering therapy during the COVID-19 pandemic.

| S-EPMC8244756 | biostudies-literature

Early diagnosis for pulmonary embolism: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Project description:BackgroundThe incidence of acute pulmonary embolism (APE) (especially early diagnosis) has increased annually in recent years, but the diagnosis of APE is a great challenge for every clinician. However, few studies have evaluated multiple diagnostic indicators simultaneously.MethodsA systematic search was performed using CNKI, Wan fang data, VIP, PubMed and Web of Science for studies on the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism published up to October 31, 2022. Using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2), we evaluated the risk of bias in included studies, and used a random-effects meta-analysis to obtain the summary sensitivity and specificity. The data that were extracted and calculated for this study included the first author, year of publication, country, study type, sample size, disease type, gold standard, diagnostic indicators and 4-compartment table data. We strictly followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematics reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines in this review.ResultsThis study included 30 articles with a total sample size of 8947 cases, involving 4 detection methods: D-dimer, Geneva rules, Wells rules, and lung imaging. The combined effect size showed that lung imaging had the highest diagnostic value (SEN = 0.95, SPE = 0.89), followed by D-dimer (SEN = 0.92, SPE = 0.60), Geneva rules (SEN = 0.78, SPE = 0.68), and Wells rules (SEN = 0.77, SPE = 0.67). The area of lung imaging was largest under the Summary Receiver Operator Characteristic (SROC) curve (AUC = 0.97), followed by Geneva rules (AUC = 0.80), Wells rules (AUC = 0.79), and D-dimer (AUC = 0.74).ConclusionAll 4 detection methods showed good ability to diagnose PE, and lung imaging was the best. Clinical trials are recommended to build an early decision-making model for the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism in order to increase the detection rate and improve prognosis.

| S-EPMC10344512 | biostudies-literature

Risk factors for 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) patients progressing to critical illness: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Project description:IMPORTANCE:With the rising number of COVID-19 cases, global health resources are strained by the pandemic. No proven effective therapies or vaccines for this virus are currently available. In order to maximize the use of limited medical resources, distinguishing between mild and severe patients as early as possible has become pivotal. OBJECTIVE:To systematically review evidence for the risk factors of COVID-19 patients progressing to critical illness. EVIDENCE REVIEW:We conducted a comprehensive search for primary literature in both Chinese and English electronic bibliographic databases. The American agency for health research and quality tool was used for quality assessment. A meta-analysis was undertaken using STATA version 15.0. RESULTS:Twenty articles (4062 patients) were eligible for this systematic review and meta-analysis. First and foremost, we observed that elderly male patients with a high body mass index, high breathing rate and a combination of underlying diseases (such as hypertension, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) were more likely to develop severe COVID-19 infections. Second, compared with non-severe patients, severe patients had more serious symptoms such as fever and dyspnea. Besides, abnormal laboratory tests were more prevalent in severe patients than in mild cases, such as elevated levels of white blood cell counts, liver enzymes, lactate dehydrogenase, creatine kinase, C-reactive protein and procalcitonin, as well as decreased levels of lymphocytes and albumin. INTERPRETATION:This is the first systematic review exploring the risk factors for severe illness in COVID-19 patients. Our study may be helpful for clinical decision-making and optimizing resource allocation.

| S-EPMC7343456 | biostudies-literature

Elevated D-Dimer Levels Are Associated With Increased Risk of Mortality in Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Project description:The 2019 novel coronavirus, declared a pandemic, has infected 2.6 million people as of April 27, 2020, and has resulted in the death of 181,938 people. D-dimer is an important prognostic tool, is often elevated in patients with severe coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) infection and in those who suffered death. In this systematic review, we aimed to investigate the prognostic role of D-dimer in COVID-19-infected patients. We searched PubMed, Medline, Embase, Ovid, and Cochrane for studies reporting admission D-dimer levels in COVID-19 patients and its effect on mortality. Eighteen studies (16 retrospective and 2 prospective) with a total of 3682 patients met the inclusion criteria. The pooled weighted mean difference (WMD) demonstrated significantly elevated D-dimer levels in patients who died versus those who survived (WMD, 6.13?mg/L; 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.16-8.11; P < 0.001). Similarly, the pooled mean D-dimer levels were significantly elevated in patients with severe COVID-19 infection (WMD, 0.54?mg/L; 95% CI 0.28-0.80; P < 0.001). The risk of mortality was fourfold higher in patients with positive D-dimer versus negative D-dimer (risk ratio, 4.11; 95% CI, 2.48-6.84; P < 0.001) and the risk of developing severe disease was twofold higher in patients with positive D-dimer levels versus negative D-dimer (risk ratio, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.34-3.11; P < 0.001). Our meta-analysis demonstrates that patients with COVID-19 infection presenting with elevated D-dimer levels have an increased risk of severe disease and mortality.

| S-EPMC7437424 | biostudies-literature

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

OmicsDI is an Elixir interoperability service. Learn more ›

Tweets

OmicsDI Databases

PRIDE
PeptideAtlas
MassIVE
JPOST Repository
Physiome Model Repository

EGA
EVA
ENA
LINCS
PAXDB
Cell Collective

MetaboLights
Metabolomics Workbench
MetabolomeExpress
GNPS
BioModels
FAIRDOMHub

ArrayExpress
dbGaP
ExpressionAtlas
GEO
NODE

Information

Databases
Help
API
Contact us
Code on GitHub
Terms of use
Submit Data