Dataset Information

Longer Prehospitalization and Preintubation Periods in Intubated Non-survivors and ECMO Patients With COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

ABSTRACT: Purpose: There is no clear consensus on the clinical course of critical COVID-19 patients. We examined the clinical course among intubated survivors, non-survivors, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) patients to reveal the standard clinical course and the difference among critical COVID-19 patients. Methods: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus for original studies published until December 11, 2020, including case accumulation and clinical course reporting. Pregnant patients and children were excluded. We followed PRISMA guidelines and registered them with PROSPERO (CRD42021235534). Results: Of the 11,716 studies identified, 94 met the selection criteria, and 2,549 cases were included in this meta-analysis. The times from intubation to extubation and death were 12.07 days (95% confidence interval 9.80–14.33 days) and 10.14 days (8.18–12.10 days), respectively, and the ECMO duration was 14.72 days (10.57–18.87 days). The time from symptom onset to hospitalization (prehospitalization period) of intubated survivors, non-survivors, and ECMO patients was 6.15 (4.61–7.69 days), 6.45 (4.55–8.34 days), and 7.15 days (6.48–7.81 days), and that from symptom onset to intubation (preintubation period) was 8.58 (7.36–9.80 days), 9.14 (7.26–11.01 days), and 10.54 days (9.18–11.90 days), respectively. Sensitivity analysis showed that the time from intubation to extubation and death was longer in the US and Europe than in East Asia. Conclusion: For COVID-19, we hypothesize that prehospitalization and preintubation periods are longer in intubated non-survivors and ECMO patients than in intubated survivors. These periods may serve as a predictor of disease severity or death and support therapeutic strategy determination.

SUBMITTER: Funakoshi K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8554002 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPost-acute coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) symptoms occurred in most of the COVID-19 survivors. However, few studies have examined the issue of whether hospitalization results in different post-acute COVID-19 symptom risks. This study aimed to compare potential COVID-19 long-term effects in hospitalized and non-hospitalized COVID-19 survivors.MethodsThis study is designed as a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. A systematic search of six databases was performed for identifying articles published from inception until April 20th, 2022, which compared post-acute COVID-19 symptom risk in hospitalized and non-hospitalized COVID-19 survivors using a predesigned search strategy included terms for SARS-CoV-2 (eg, COVID, coronavirus, and 2019-nCoV), post-acute COVID-19 Syndrome (eg, post-COVID, post COVID conditions, chronic COVID symptom, long COVID, long COVID symptom, long-haul COVID, COVID sequelae, convalescence, and persistent COVID symptom), and hospitalization (hospitalized, in hospital, and home-isolated). The present meta-analysis was conducted according to The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 statement using R software 4.1.3 to create forest plots. Q statistics and the I 2 index were used to evaluate heterogeneity in this meta-analysis.ResultsSix observational studies conducted in Spain, Austria, Switzerland, Canada, and the USA involving 419 hospitalized and 742 non-hospitalized COVID-19 survivors were included. The number of COVID-19 survivors in included studies ranged from 63 to 431, and follow-up data were collected through visits in four studies and another two used an electronic questionnaire, visit and telephone, respectively. Significant increase in the risks of long dyspnea (OR = 3.18, 95% CI = 1.90-5.32), anxiety (OR = 3.09, 95% CI = 1.47-6.47), myalgia (OR = 2.33, 95% CI = 1.02-5.33), and hair loss (OR = 2.76, 95% CI = 1.07-7.12) risk were found in hospitalized COVID-19 survivors compared with outpatients. Conversely, persisting ageusia risk was significantly reduced in hospitalized COVID-19 survivors than in non-hospitalized patients.ConclusionThe findings suggested that special attention and patient-centered rehabilitation service based on a needs survey should be provided for hospitalized COVID-19 survivors who experienced high post-acute COVID-19 symptoms risk.

Project description:BackgroundAwake prone positioning has been broadly utilised for non-intubated patients with COVID-19-related acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure, but the results from published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the past year are contradictory. We aimed to systematically synthesise the outcomes associated with awake prone positioning, and evaluate these outcomes in relevant subpopulations.MethodsIn this systematic review and meta-analysis, two independent groups of researchers searched MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, MedRxiv, BioRxiv, and ClinicalTrials.gov for RCTs and observational studies (with a control group) of awake prone positioning in patients with COVID-19-related acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure published in English from Jan 1, 2020, to Nov 8, 2021. We excluded trials that included patients intubated before or at enrolment, paediatric patients (ie, younger than 18 years), or trials that did not include the supine position in the control group. The same two independent groups screened studies, extracted the summary data from published reports, and assessed the risk of bias. We used a random-effects meta-analysis to pool individual studies. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach to assess the certainty and quality of the evidence. The primary outcome was the reported cumulative intubation risk across RCTs, and effect estimates were calculated as risk ratios (RR;95% CI). The analysis was primarily conducted on RCTs, and observational studies were used for sensitivity analyses. No serious adverse events associated with awake prone positioning were reported. The study protocol was prospectively registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021271285.FindingsA total of 1243 studies were identified, we assessed 138 full-text articles and received the aggregated results of three unpublished RCTs; therefore, after exclusions, 29 studies were included in the study. Ten were RCTs (1985 patients) and 19 were observational studies (2669 patients). In ten RCTs, awake prone positioning compared with the supine position significantly reduced the need for intubation in the overall population (RR 0·84 [95% CI 0·72-0·97]). A reduced need for intubation was shown among patients who received advanced respiratory support (ie, high-flow nasal cannula or non-invasive ventilation) at enrolment (RR 0·83 [0·71-0·97]) and in intensive care unit (ICU) settings (RR 0·83 [0·71-0·97]) but not in patients receiving conventional oxygen therapy (RR 0·87 [0·45-1·69]) or in non-ICU settings (RR 0·88 [0·44-1·76]). No obvious risk of bias and publication bias was found among the included RCTs for the primary outcome.InterpretationIn patients with COVID-19-related acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure, awake prone positioning reduced the need for intubation, particularly among those requiring advanced respiratory support and those in ICU settings. Awake prone positioning should be used in patients who have acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19 and require advanced respiratory support or are treated in the ICU.FundingOpenAI, Rice Foundation, National Institute for Health Research, and Oxford Biomedical Research Centre.

Project description:BackgroundCases of spontaneous pneumothorax have been described in patients suffering from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia. The aim of this study is to systematically review all the cases of spontaneous pneumothorax that occurred in healthy patients with no underlying lung disease and who did not receive invasive mechanical ventilation.MethodsA PubMed research was conducted. The following data were collected: age, sex, side of the pneumothorax, smoking habit, time form onset of symptoms to the diagnosis of pneumothorax, the development of new bullous lesions on computed tomography and the type of treatment. In order to analyze the most homogeneous population possible, intubated patients were deliberately excluded. In total, 44 cases of spontaneous pneumothorax in otherwise healthy patients were taken into account. Since the available data were extracted from small observational studies, no particular bias risk assessment was performed. Descriptive statistics were used to synthesize results.ResultsThere were 37 male (84.1%) and 6 female (13.6%) patients. The majority of patients (66%) were treated only by chest tube thoracostomy, which most of the times resulted in a complete resolution of the pneumothorax. Simple surveillance was applied in 10 cases. Three patients underwent minimally invasive surgery. In 14 cases (31.8%) air-filled lesions were detected on imaging. Eleven patients received corticosteroids during their hospital stay. In the majority of cases (86.3%) the pneumothorax was resolved.DiscussionEven if the level of evidence, derived from case reports and small case series is low, the existence of a true secondary spontaneous pneumothorax due to SARS-CoV-2 should be recognized. Imaging techniques should be repeated throughout the clinical course of the patients in order to detect newly developed pulmonary complications. Surgical treatment is feasible and patients whose general condition permits, should be offered surgery according to the existing guidelines regarding spontaneous pneumothorax. National registries and databases are necessary in order to better understand the pathogenesis and complications of this novel entity.

Project description:BackgroundCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is the etiology of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is used to support gas exchange in patients who have failed conventional mechanical ventilation. However, there is no clear consensus on the timing of ECMO use in severe COVID-19 patients.ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to compare the differences in pre-ECMO time and ECMO duration between COVID-19 survivors and non-survivors and to explore the association between them.MethodsPubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, and other sources were searched until 21 October 2022. Studies reporting the relationship between ECMO-related time and COVID-19 survival were included. All available data were pooled using random-effects methods. Linear regression analysis was used to determine the correlation between pre-ECMO time and ECMO duration. The meta-analysis was registered with PROSPERO under registration number CRD42023403236.ResultsOut of the initial 2473 citations, we analyzed 318 full-text articles, and 54 studies were included, involving 13,691 patients. There were significant differences between survivors and non-survivors in the time from COVID-19 diagnosis (standardized mean difference (SMD) = -0.41, 95% confidence interval (CI): [-0.53, -0.29], p < 0.00001), hospital (SMD = -0.53, 95% CI: [-0.97, -0.09], p = 0.02) and intensive care unit (ICU) admission (SMD = -0.28, 95% CI: [-0.49, -0.08], p = 0.007), intubation or mechanical ventilation to ECMO (SMD = -0.21, 95% CI: [-0.32, -0.09], p = 0.0003) and ECMO duration (SMD = -0.18, 95% CI: [-0.30, -0.06], p = 0.003). There was no statistical association between a longer time from symptom onset to ECMO (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.05, 95% CI: [0.99, 1.12], p = 0.11) or time from intubation or mechanical ventilation (MV) and the risk of mortality (highest vs. lowest time groups odds ratio (OR) = 1.18, 95% CI: [0.78, 1.78], p = 0.42; per one-day increase OR = 1.14, 95% CI: [0.86, 1.52], p = 0.36; HR = 0.99, 95% CI: [0.95, 1.02], p = 0.39). There was no linear relationship between pre-ECMO time and ECMO duration.ConclusionThere are differences in pre-ECMO time between COVID-19 survivors and non-survivors, and there is insufficient evidence to conclude that longer pre-ECMO time is responsible for reduced survival in COVID-19 patients. ECMO duration differed between survivors and non-survivors, and the timing of pre-ECMO does not have an impact on ECMO duration. Further studies are needed to explore the association between pre-ECMO and ECMO time in the survival of COVID-19 patients.

Project description:BackgroundPatients with Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related acute respiratory disease (ARDS) increasingly receive extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support. While ECMO has been shown to increase risk of stroke, few studies have examined this association in COVID-19 patients.ObjectiveWe conducted a systematic review to characterise neurological events during ECMO support in COVID-19 patients.DesignSystematic review of cohort and large case series of COVID-19 patients who received ECMO support.Data sourcesStudies retrieved from PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Web of Science, Scopus, Clinicaltrials.gov, and mdRxiv from inception to November 11, 2020.Eligibility criteriaInclusion criteria were a) Adult population (>18 year old); b) Positive PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 with active COVID-19 disease; c) ECMO therapy due to COVID-19 ARDS; and d) Neurological events and outcome described while on ECMO support. We excluded articles when no details of neurologic events were available.Results1,322 patients from 12 case series and retrospective cohort studies were included in our study. The median age was 49.2, and 75% (n=985) of the patients were male. Diabetes mellitus and dyslipidaemia were the most common comorbidities (24% and 20%, respectively). Most (95%, n=1,241) patients were on venovenous ECMO with a median P:F ratio at the time of ECMO cannulation of 69.1. The prevalence of intracranial haemorrhage (ICH), ischaemic stroke, and hypoxic ischaemic brain injury (HIBI) was 5.9% (n=78), 1.1% (n=15), and 0.3% (n=4), respectively. The overall mortality of the 1,296 ECMO patients in the 10 studies that reported death was 36% (n=477), and the mortality of the subset of patients who had a neurological event was 92%.ConclusionsNeurological injury is a concern for COVID-19 patients who receive ECMO. Further research is required to explore how neuromonitoring protocols can inform tailored anticoagulation management and improve survival in COVID-19 patients with ECMO support.

Dataset Information

Longer Prehospitalization and Preintubation Periods in Intubated Non-survivors and ECMO Patients With COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets