ECMO in COVID-19 Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Bertini P
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8585556 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
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.
| S-EPMC8553269 | biostudies-literature
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC8554002 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Obesity is common in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The effects of obesity on clinical outcomes of COVID-19 warrant systematical investigation. OBJECTIVE:This study explores the effects of obesity with the risk of severe disease among patients with COVID-19. METHODS:Body mass index (BMI) and degree of visceral adipose tissue (VAT) accumulation were used as indicators for obesity status. Publication databases including preprints were searched up to August 10, 2020. Clinical outcomes of severe COVID-19 included hospitalization, a requirement for treatment in an intensive care unit (ICU), invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), and mortality. Risks for severe COVID-19 outcomes are presented as odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence interval (95%CI) for cohort studies with BMI-defined obesity, and standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95%CI for controlled studies with VAT-defined excessive adiposity. RESULTS:A total of 45, 650 participants from 30 studies with BMI-defined obesity and 3 controlled studies with VAT-defined adiposity were included for assessing the risk of severe COVID-19. Univariate analyses showed significantly higher ORs of severe COVID-19 with higher BMI: 1.76 (95%: 1.21, 2.56, P?=?0.003) for hospitalization, 1.67 (95%CI: 1.26, 2.21, P<0.001) for ICU admission, 2.19 (95%CI: 1.56, 3.07, P<0.001) for IMV requirement, and 1.37 (95%CI: 1.06, 1.75, P?=?0.014) for death, giving an overall OR for severe COVID-19 of 1.67 (95%CI: 1.43, 1.96; P<0.001). Multivariate analyses revealed increased ORs of severe COVID-19 associated with higher BMI: 2.36 (95%CI: 1.37, 4.07, P?=?0.002) for hospitalization, 2.32 (95%CI: 1.38, 3.90, P?=?0.001) for requiring ICU admission, 2.63 (95%CI: 1.32, 5.25, P?=?0.006) for IMV support, and 1.49 (95%CI: 1.20, 1.85, P<0.001) for mortality, giving an overall OR for severe COVID-19 of 2.09 (95%CI: 1.67, 2.62; P<0.001). Compared to non-severe COVID-19 patients, severe COVID-19 cases showed significantly higher VAT accumulation with a SMD of 0.49 for hospitalization (95% CI: 0.11, 0.87; P?=?0.011), 0.57 (95% CI: 0.33, 0.81; P<0.001) for requiring ICU admission and 0.37 (95% CI: 0.03, 0.71; P?=?0.035) for IMV support. The overall SMD for severe COVID-19 was 0.50 (95% CI: 0.33, 0.68; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS:Obesity increases risk for hospitalization, ICU admission, IMV requirement and death among patients with COVID-19. Further, excessive visceral adiposity appears to be associated with severe COVID-19 outcomes. These findings emphasize the need for effective actions by individuals, the public and governments to increase awareness of the risks resulting from obesity and how these are heightened in the current global pandemic.
| S-EPMC7521361 | biostudies-literature
Project description:A systematic review and meta-analysis of the entire COVID-19 Tracheostomy cohort was conducted to determine the cumulative incidence of complications, mortality, time to decannulation and ventilatory weaning. Outcomes of surgical versus percutaneous and outcomes relative to tracheostomy timing were also analysed. Studies reporting outcome data on patients with COVID-19 undergoing tracheostomy were identified and screened by 2 independent reviewers. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. Outcome data were analysed using a random-effects model. From 1016 unique studies, 39 articles reporting outcomes for a total of 3929 patients were included for meta-analysis. Weighted mean follow-up time was 42.03±26 days post-tracheostomy. Meta-analysis showed that 61.2% of patients were weaned from mechanical ventilation [95%CI 52.6%-69.5%], 44.2% of patients were decannulated [95%CI 33.96%-54.67%], and cumulative mortality was found to be 19.23% [95%CI 15.2%-23.6%] across the entire tracheostomy cohort. The cumulative incidence of complications was 14.24% [95%CI 9.6%-19.6%], with bleeding accounting for 52% of all complications. No difference was found in incidence of mortality (RR1.96; p=0.34), decannulation (RR1.35, p=0.27), complications (RR0.75, p=0.09) and time to decannulation (SMD 0.46, p=0.68) between percutaneous and surgical tracheostomy. Moreover, no difference was found in mortality (RR1.57, p=0.43) between early and late tracheostomy, and timing of tracheostomy did not predict time to decannulation. Ten confirmed nosocomial staff infections were reported from 1398 tracheostomies. This study provides an overview of outcomes of tracheostomy in COVID-19 patients, and contributes to our understanding of tracheostomy decisions in this patient cohort.
| S-EPMC8130586 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAzithromycin has been widely used in the management of COVID-19. However, the evidence on its actual effects remains disperse and difficult to apply in clinical settings. This systematic review and meta-analysis summarizes the available evidence to date on the beneficial and adverse effects of azithromycin in patients with COVID-19.MethodsThe PRISMA 2020 statement criteria were followed. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing clinical outcomes of patients treated with and without azithromycin, indexed until 5 July 2021, were searched in PubMed, Embase, The Web of Science, Scopus, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and MedRXivs. We used random-effects models to estimate pooled effect size from aggregate data.ResultsThe initial search produced 4950 results. Finally, 16 studies, 5 RCTs and 11 with an observational design, with a total of 22 984 patients, were included. The meta-analysis showed no difference in mortality for those treated with or without azithromycin, in observational studies [OR: 0.90 (0.66-1.24)], RCTs [OR: 0.97 (0.87-1.08)] and also when both types of studies were pooled together [with an overall OR: 0.95 (0.79-1.13)]. Different individual studies also reported no significant difference for those treated with or without azithromycin in need for hospital admission or time to admission from ambulatory settings, clinical severity, need for intensive care, or adverse effects.ConclusionsThe results presented in this systematic review do not support the use of azithromycin in the management of COVID-19. Future research on treatment for patients with COVID-19 may need to focus on other drugs.
| S-EPMC8690025 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionWith the accumulating evidence of ocular manifestations of the 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19), the study aimed to systematically summarize the ocular manifestations in COVID-19 patients.MethodsThe PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science databases were searched through June 2021. Studies that provided clinical characteristics and outcomes and reported on the ocular manifestations or conjunctival swab RT-PCR tests among COVID-19 patients were included.ResultsA total of 30 studies involving 5,717 patients were identified. Ocular manifestations including conjunctival hyperemia (7.6%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.8-8.9%), conjunctival discharge (4.8%, 95% CI 1.8-8.9%), epiphora (6.9%, 95% CI 2.8-12.8%), and foreign body sensation (6.9%, 95% CI 2.4-13.0%) were observed. The positive rate of conjunctival swab tests was 3.9% (95% CI 0.2-6.4%). Severe cases of COVID-19 were associated with an increased risk of developing ocular complications (odds ratio [OR] = 2.77, 95% CI 1.75-4.40).ConclusionsDespite their relatively low incidence rate in COVID-19 patients, ocular manifestations may be non-specific and present as the initial symptoms of infection. The presence of SARS-CoV-2 in the conjunctival swabs implicates the eye as a potential source of infection. Early diagnosis and proper eye protection would help prevent viral transmission.
| S-EPMC8574127 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has killed over 2.5 million people worldwide, but effective care and therapy have yet to be discovered. We conducted this analysis to better understand tocilizumab treatment for COVID-19 patients.Main textWe searched major databases for manuscripts reporting the effects of tocilizumab on COVID-19 patients. A total of 25 publications were analyzed with Revman 5.3 and R for the meta-analysis. Significant better clinical outcomes were found in the tocilizumab treatment group when compared to the standard care group [odds ratio (OR) = 0.70, 95% confidential interval (C): 0.54-0.90, P = 0.007]. Tocilizumab treatment showed a stronger correlation with good prognosis among COVID-19 patients that needed mechanical ventilation (OR = 0.59, 95% CI, 0.37-0.93, P = 0.02). Among stratified analyses, reduction of overall mortality correlates with tocilizumab treatment in patients less than 65 years old (OR = 0.68, 95% CI: 0.60-0.77, P < 0.00001), and with intensive care unit patients (OR = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.55-0.70, P < 0.00001). Pooled estimates of hazard ratio showed that tocilizumab treatment predicts better overall survival in COVID-19 patients (HR = 0.45, 95% CI: 0.24-0.84, P = 0.01), especially in severe cases (HR = 0.58, 95% CI 0.49-0.68, P < 0.00001).ConclusionsOur study shows that tocilizumab treatment is associated with a lower risk of mortality and mechanical ventilation requirement among COVID-19 patients. Tocilizumab may have substantial effectiveness in reducing mortality among COVID-19 patients, especially among critical cases. This systematic review provides an up-to-date evidence of potential therapeutic role of tocilizumab in COVID-19 management.
| S-EPMC8128625 | biostudies-literature
Project description:COVID-19 patients frequently exhibit coagulation abnormalities and thrombotic events. In this meta-analysis, we investigated the association between coagulopathy and the severity of COVID-19 illness. Using PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, WanFang Database, CNKI, and medRxiv, a systematic literature search was conducted for studies published between December 1, 2019 and May 1, 2020. We then analyzed coagulation parameters in COVID-19 patients exhibiting less severe and more severe symptoms. All statistical analyses were performed using Stata14.0 software. A total of 3,952 confirmed COVID-19 patients from 25 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Patients with severe symptoms exhibited higher levels of D-dimer, prothrombin time (PT), and fibrinogen (FIB) than patients with less severe symptoms (SMD 0.83, 95% CI: 0.70-0.97, I2 56.9%; SMD 0.39, 95% CI: 0.14-0.64, I2 79.4%; and SMD 0.35, 95% CI: 0.17-0.53, I2 42.4%, respectively). However, platelet and activated partial thromboplastin times did not differ (SMD -0.26, 95% CI: -0.56-0.05, I2 82.2%; and SMD -0.14, 95% CI: -0.45-0.18, I2 75.7%, respectively). These findings demonstrate that hypercoagulable coagulopathy is associated with the severity of COVID-19 symptoms and that D-dimer, PT, and FIB values are the main parameters that should be considered when evaluating coagulopathy in COVID-19 patients.
| S-EPMC7803569 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCoronavirus disease (COVID-19) is an infectious disease caused by a newly discovered coronavirus. Although general and local public health report deathly cases, case fatality rates are still largely unknown. Thus, we sought to evaluate the mortality of COVID-19.MethodsWe searched PubMed and EMBASE databases for articles evaluating the clinical characteristics of COVID-19 patients that included clinical outcomes, between December 2020 and 24 April 2020. Two authors performed an independent selection using predefined terms of search.ResultsWe retrieved 33 studies with a total of 13,398 patients with COVID-19 diagnosis. The mortality rate of the COVID-19 patients was 17.1% (95% CI 12.7; 22.7, I2 = 96.9%). For general patients admitted to the hospital (excluding critical care-only studies) the mortality rate of the COVID-19 was 11.5% (95% CI 7.7; 16.9, I2 = 96.7%). Among critical illness studies (n = 7) we found a 40.5% mortality (95% CI 31.2; 50.6, I2 = 91.8%).ConclusionHigh COVID-19 mortality among general admitted patients and critical care cases should guide resources allocations and economic burden calculations during the pandemics.
| S-EPMC7920817 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Backgrounds and aimsThe role of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in the treatment of COVID-19 is not fully known. We studied the efficacy of HCQ compared to the control in COVID-19 subjects on - a. viral clearance measured by reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and, b. death due to all cause.MethodsPubMed, Scopus, Cochrane and MedRxiv database were searched using the specific keywords up to April 30, 2020. Studies that met our objectives were assessed for the risk of bias applying various tools as indicated. Three studies each that reported the outcome of viral clearance by RT-PCR and death due to all cause, were meta-analyzed by applying inverse variance-weighted averages of logarithmic risk ratio (RR) using a random effects model. Heterogeneity and publication bias were assessed using the I2 statistic and funnel plots, respectively.ResultsMeta-analysis of 3 studies (n = 210) on viral clearance assessed by RT-PCR showed no benefit (RR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.38; p = 0.74), although with a moderate heterogeneity (I2 = 61.7%, p = 0.07). While meta-analysis of 3 studies (n = 474) showed a significant increase in death with HCQ, compared to the control (RR, 2.17; 95% 1.32 to 3.57; p = 0.002), without any heterogeneity (I2 = 0.0%, p = 0.43).ConclusionsNo benefit on viral clearance but a significant increase in mortality was observed with HCQ compared to control in patients with COVID-19.
| S-EPMC7215156 | biostudies-literature