Pulmonary barotrauma in COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
An ever-increasing number of studies have reported an increased incidence of spontaneous pulmonary barotrauma such as pneumothorax, pneumomediastinum, and subcutaneous emphysema in patients with COVID-19. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the value and significance of the available data.Methods
A thorough systematic search was conducted to identify studies of barotrauma in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Data analysis of case reports was done using a statistical package for the social sciences (SPSS) version 22, and meta-analysis was performed using CMA-3.Results
We identified a total of 4488 studies after thorough database searching.118 case reports and series, and 15 observational studies were included in the qualitative analysis. Fifteen studies were included in the quantitative analysis. The observational studies reported barotrauma in 4.2% (2.4-7.3%) among hospitalized patients; 15.6% (11-21.8%) among critically ill patients; and 18.4% (13-25.3%) in patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation, showing a linear relationship of barotrauma with the severity of the disease. In addition, barotrauma was associated with a longer length of hospital stay, more extended ICU stay, and higher in-hospital mortality. Also, a slightly higher odds of barotrauma was seen in COVID-19 ARDS compared with non-COVID-19 ARDS.Conclusion
COVID-19 pneumonia is associated with a higher incidence of barotrauma. It presents unique challenges for invasive and non-invasive ventilation management. Further studies are required to unravel the underlying pathophysiology and develop safer management strategies.
SUBMITTER: Shrestha DB
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8721930 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Introduction: Inhaled pulmonary vasodilators (IPVD) have been previously studied in patients with non-coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The use of IPVD has been shown to improve the partial pressure of oxygen in arterial blood (PaO2), reduce fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) requirements, and ultimately increase PaO2/FiO2 (P/F) ratios in ARDS patients. However, the role of IPVD in COVID-19 ARDS is still unclear. Therefore, we performed this meta-analysis to evaluate the role of IPVD in COVID-19 patients. Methods: Comprehensive literature search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases from inception through April 22, 2022 was performed for all published studies that utilized IPVD in COVID-19 ARDS patients. The single arm studies and case series were combined for a 1-arm meta-analysis, and the 2-arm studies were combined for a 2-arm meta-analysis. Primary outcomes for the 1-arm and 2-arm meta-analyzes were change in pre- and post-IPVD P/F ratios and mortality, respectively. Secondary outcomes for the 1-arm meta-analysis were change in pre- and post-IPVD positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and lung compliance, and for the 2-arm meta-analysis the secondary outcomes were need for endotracheal intubation and hospital length of stay (LOS). Results: 13 single arm retrospective studies and 5 case series involving 613 patients were included in the 1-arm meta-analysis. 3 studies involving 640 patients were included in the 2-arm meta-analysis. The pre-IPVD P/F ratios were significantly lower compared to post-IPVD, but there was no significant difference between pre- and post-IPVD PEEP and lung compliance. The mortality rates, need for endotracheal intubation, and hospital LOS were similar between the IPVD and standard therapy groups. Conclusion: Although IPVD may improve oxygenation, our investigation showed no benefits in terms of mortality compared to standard therapy alone. However, randomized controlled trials are warranted to validate our findings.
| S-EPMC9346441 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Acute pulmonary embolism (PE) has been described as a frequent and prognostically relevant complication of COVID-19 infection. AIM:We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the in-hospital incidence of acute PE among COVID-19 patients based on studies published within four months of COVID-19 outbreak. MATERIAL AND METHODS:Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed in abstracting data and assessing validity. We searched Medline, Scopus and Web of Science to locate all articles published up to August 1, 2020 reporting the incidence of acute PE (or lung thrombosis) in COVID-19 patients. The pooled in-hospital incidence of acute PE among COVID-19 patients was calculated using a random effects model and presenting the related 95% confidence interval (CI). Statistical heterogeneity was measured using the Higgins I2 statistic. RESULTS:We analysed data from 7178 COVID-19 patients [mean age 60.4 years] included in twenty-three studies. Among patients hospitalized in general wards and intensive care unit (ICU), the pooled in-hospital incidence of PE (or lung thrombosis) was 14.7% of cases (95% CI: 9.9-21.3%, I2=95.0%, p<0.0001) and 23.4% (95% CI:16.7-31.8%, I2=88.7%, p<0.0001), respectively. Segmental/sub-segmental pulmonary arteries were more frequently involved compared to main/lobar arteries (6.8% vs18.8%, p<0.001). Computer tomography pulmonary angiogram (CTPA) was used only in 35.3% of patients with COVID-19 infection across six studies. CONCLUSIONS:The in-hospital incidence of acute PE among COVID-19 patients is higher in ICU patients compared to those hospitalized in general wards. CTPA was rarely used suggesting a potential underestimation of PE cases.
| S-EPMC7498252 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background The association of pulmonary embolism (PE) with deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remains unclear, and the diagnostic accuracy of D-dimer tests for PE is unknown. Purpose To conduct meta-analysis of the study-level incidence of PE and DVT and to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of D-dimer tests for PE from multicenter individual patient data. Materials and Methods A systematic literature search identified studies evaluating the incidence of PE or DVT in patients with COVID-19 from January 1, 2020, to June 15, 2020. These outcomes were pooled using a random-effects model and were further evaluated using metaregression analysis. The diagnostic accuracy of D-dimer tests for PE was estimated on the basis of individual patient data using the summary receiver operating characteristic curve. Results Twenty-seven studies with 3342 patients with COVID-19 were included in the analysis. The pooled incidence rates of PE and DVT were 16.5% (95% CI: 11.6, 22.9; I2 = 0.93) and 14.8% (95% CI: 8.5, 24.5; I2 = 0.94), respectively. PE was more frequently found in patients who were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) (24.7% [95% CI: 18.6, 32.1] vs 10.5% [95% CI: 5.1, 20.2] in those not admitted to the ICU) and in studies with universal screening using CT pulmonary angiography. DVT was present in 42.4% of patients with PE. D-dimer tests had an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.737 for PE, and D-dimer levels of 500 and 1000 ?g/L showed high sensitivity (96% and 91%, respectively) but low specificity (10% and 24%, respectively). Conclusion Pulmonary embolism (PE) and deep vein thrombosis (DVT) occurred in 16.5% and 14.8% of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), respectively, and more than half of patients with PE lacked DVT. The cutoffs of D-dimer levels used to exclude PE in preexisting guidelines seem applicable to patients with COVID-19. © RSNA, 2020 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Woodard in this issue.
| S-EPMC7745997 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background COVID-19 appears to be associated with a high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). We aimed to systematically review and meta-analyze the risk of clinically relevant VTE in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. Methods This meta-analysis included original articles in English published from January 1st, 2020 to June 15th, 2020 in Pubmed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of science, and Cochrane. Outcomes were major VTE, defined as any objectively diagnosed pulmonary embolism (PE) and/or proximal deep vein thrombosis (DVT). Primary analysis estimated the risk of VTE, stratified by acutely and critically ill inpatients. Secondary analyses explored the separate risk of proximal DVT and of PE; the risk of major VTE stratified by screening and by type of anticoagulation. Results In 33 studies (n?=?4009 inpatients) with heterogeneous thrombotic risk factors, VTE incidence was 9% (95%CI 5–13%, I2 =?92.5) overall, and 21% (95%CI 14–28%, I2 =?87.6%) for patients hospitalized in the ICU. Proximal lower limb DVT incidence was 3% (95%CI 1–5%, I2 =?87.0%) and 8% (95%CI 3–14%, I2 =?87.6%), respectively. PE incidence was 8% (95%CI 4–13%, I2 =?92.1%) and 17% (95%CI 11–25%, I2 =?89.3%), respectively. Screening and absence of anticoagulation were associated with a higher VTE incidence. When restricting to medically ill inpatients, the VTE incidence was 2% (95%CI 0–6%). Conclusions The risk of major VTE among COVID-19 inpatients is high but varies greatly with severity of the disease. These findings reinforce the need for the use of thromboprophylaxis in all COVID-19 inpatients and for clinical trials testing different thromboprophylaxis regimens in subgroups of COVID-19 inpatients. Trial registration The review protocol was registered in PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42020193369). Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12959-021-00266-x.
| S-EPMC7942819 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 was first detected in Wuhan, China, in late 2019 and continues to spread worldwide. Persistent questions remain about the relationship between the severity of COVID-19 and comorbid diseases, as well as other chronic pulmonary conditions. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to examine in detail whether the underlying chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases (COPD), asthma and chronic respiratory diseases (CRDs) were associated with an increased risk of more severe COVID-19. A comprehensive literature search was performed using five international search engines. In the initial search, 722 articles were identified. After eliminating duplicate records and further consideration of eligibility criteria, 53 studies with 658,073 patients were included in the final analysis. COPD was present in 5.2% (2191/42,373) of patients with severe COVID-19 and in 1.4% (4203/306,151) of patients with non-severe COVID-19 (random-effects model; OR = 2.58, 95% CI = 1.99-3.34, Z = 7.15, p < 0.001). CRD was present in 8.6% (3780/44,041) of patients with severe COVID-19 and in 5.7% (16,057/280,447) of patients with non-severe COVID-19 (random-effects model; OR = 2.14, 95% CI = 1.74-2.64, Z = 7.1, p < 0.001). Asthma was present in 2.3% (1873/81,319) of patients with severe COVID-19 and in 2.2% (11,796/538,737) of patients with non-severe COVID-19 (random-effects model; OR = 1.13, 95% CI = 0.79-1.60, Z = 0.66, p = 0.50). In conclusion, comorbid COPD and CRD were clearly associated with a higher severity of COVID-19; however, no association between asthma and severe COVID-19 was identified.
| S-EPMC8207055 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Due to lack of preparedness of health systems, fast spread of the new virus, high mortality rates, and lack of a definite treatment, the outbreak of Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) led to high levels of fear and anxiety in different populations. In addition, isolation, mental disorders, and limitations in social interactions as a result of lockdown and travel ban increased the fear of the new coronavirus. Methods: International databases, including Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science, and Google scholar, were searched without any time limitation, and all observational studies published in English reporting the mean of fear of COVID-19 based on the Fear of COVID-19 scale (FCV-19S) were included in the analysis. Methodological quality was assessed using the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines. Random effects model, subgroup analysis, and meta-regression analysis were used to analyze the data. Heterogeneity across studies was examined using Cochran's Q test and I 2 statistic. All the statistical analyses were conducted using R software v4.0.3. Results: A total of 44 articles with a sample size of 52,462 were reviewed. A pooled mean of 18.57 was found for fear of COVID-19. The mean of fear of COVID-19 was higher in women than in men (20.67 vs. 18.21). The highest and lowest means of fear of COVID-19 had been found in Asia (18.36) and Australia (17.43) based on continent, and in hospital staff (19.51) and college students (17.95) based on target population, respectively. In addition, the highest and lowest means of fear of COVID-19 were related to items #1 and #3 of the scale, respectively. According to the results of meta-regression analysis, there was no significant association between the mean of fear of COVID-19 and sample size and participants' age. In addition, publication error was not significant (P = 0.721). Conclusion: The mean of fear of COVID-19 was high around the world; therefore, it seems necessary to pay more attention to the negative effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health.
| S-EPMC8231929 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundNonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have been discouraged for the treatment of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections, fearing that they could increase the risk of infection or the severity of SARS-CoV-2.MethodsOriginal studies providing information on exposure to NSAIDs and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outcomes were retrieved and were included in a descriptive analysis and a meta-analysis with Cochrane Revue Manager (REVMAN 5.4), using inverse variance odds ratio (OR) with random- or fixed-effects models.ResultsOf 92,853 papers mentioning COVID-19, 266 mentioned NSAIDs and 61 mentioned ibuprofen; 19 papers had analysable data. Three papers described NSAID exposure and the risk of SARS-CoV-2 positivity, five papers described the risk of hospital admission in positive patients, 10 papers described death, and six papers described severe composite outcomes. Five papers studied exposure to ibuprofen and death. Using random-effects models, there was no excess risk of SARS-CoV-2 positivity (OR 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.71-1.05). In SARS-CoV-2-positive patients, exposure to NSAIDs was not associated with excess risk of hospital admission (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.80-1.17), death (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.80-0.98), or severe outcomes (OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.90-1.44). With ibuprofen, there was no increased risk of death (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.78-1.13). Using a fixed-effect model did not modify the results, nor did the sensitivity analyses.ConclusionThe theoretical risks of NSAIDs or ibuprofen in SARS-CoV-2 infection are not confirmed by observational data.
| S-EPMC8327046 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a global pandemic, affecting millions of people. However, the relationship between COVID-19 and acute cerebrovascular diseases is unclear.AimsWe aimed to characterize the incidence, risk factors, clinical-radiological manifestations, and outcome of COVID-19-associated stroke.MethodsThree medical databases were systematically reviewed for published articles on acute cerebrovascular diseases in COVID-19 (December 2019-September 2020). The review protocol was previously registered (PROSPERO ID = CRD42020185476). Data were extracted from articles reporting ≥5 stroke cases in COVID-19. We complied with the PRISMA guidelines and used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale to assess data quality. Data were pooled using a random-effect model.Summary of reviewOf 2277 initially identified articles, 61 (2.7%) were entered in the meta-analysis. Out of 108,571 patients with COVID-19, acute CVD occurred in 1.4% (95%CI: 1.0-1.9). The most common manifestation was acute ischemic stroke (87.4%); intracerebral hemorrhage was less common (11.6%). Patients with COVID-19 developing acute cerebrovascular diseases, compared to those who did not, were older (pooled median difference = 4.8 years; 95%CI: 1.7-22.4), more likely to have hypertension (OR = 7.35; 95%CI: 1.94-27.87), diabetes mellitus (OR = 5.56; 95%CI: 3.34-9.24), coronary artery disease (OR = 3.12; 95%CI: 1.61-6.02), and severe infection (OR = 5.10; 95%CI: 2.72-9.54). Compared to individuals who experienced a stroke without the infection, patients with COVID-19 and stroke were younger (pooled median difference = -6.0 years; 95%CI: -12.3 to -1.4), had higher NIHSS (pooled median difference = 5; 95%CI: 3-9), higher frequency of large vessel occlusion (OR = 2.73; 95%CI: 1.63-4.57), and higher in-hospital mortality rate (OR = 5.21; 95%CI: 3.43-7.90).ConclusionsAcute cerebrovascular diseases are not uncommon in patients with COVID-19, especially in those whom are severely infected and have pre-existing vascular risk factors. The pattern of large vessel occlusion and multi-territory infarcts suggests that cerebral thrombosis and/or thromboembolism could be possible causative pathways for the disease.
| S-EPMC7859578 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe long-term prognosis of COVID-19 survivors remains poorly understood. It is evidenced that the lung is the main damaged organ in COVID-19 survivors, most notably in impairment of pulmonary diffusion function. Hence, we conducted a meta-analysis of the potential risk factors for impaired diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide (DLCO) in convalescent COVID-19 patients.MethodsWe performed a systematic search of PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Ovid databases for relevant studies from inception until January 7, 2022, limited to papers involving human subjects. Studies were reviewed for methodological quality. Fix-effects and random-effects models were used to pool results. Heterogeneity was assessed using I2. The publication bias was assessed using the Egger's test. PROSPERO registration: CRD42021265377.FindingsA total of eighteen qualified articles were identified and included in the systematic review, and twelve studies were included in the meta-analysis. Our results showed that female (OR: 4.011; 95% CI: 2.928-5.495), altered chest computerized tomography (CT) (OR: 3.002; 95% CI: 1.319-6.835), age (OR: 1.018; 95% CI: 1.007-1.030), higher D-dimer levels (OR: 1.012; 95% CI: 1.001-1.023) and urea nitrogen (OR: 1.004;95% CI: 1.002-1.007) were identified as risk factors for impaired DLCO.InterpretationPulmonary diffusion capacity was the most common impaired lung function in recovered patients with COVID-19. Several risk factors, such as female, altered chest CT, older age, higher D-dimer levels and urea nitrogen are associated with impairment of DLCO. Raising awareness and implementing interventions for possible modifiable risk factors may be valuable for pulmonary rehabilitation.FundingThis work was financially supported by Emergency Key Program of Guangzhou Laboratory (EKPG21-29, EKPG21-31), Incubation Program of National Science Foundation for Distinguished Young Scholars by Guangzhou Medical University (GMU2020-207).
| S-EPMC9137275 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeCorticosteroids are now recommended for patients with severe COVID-19 including those with COVID-related ARDS. This has generated renewed interest regarding whether corticosteroids should be used in non-COVID ARDS as well. The objective of this study was to summarize all RCTs examining the use of corticosteroids in ARDS.MethodsThe protocol of this study was pre-registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020200659). We searched online databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, CDC library of COVID research, CINAHL, and COCHRANE. We included RCTs that compared the effect of corticosteroids to placebo or usual care in adult patients with ARDS, including patients with COVID-19. Three reviewers abstracted data independently and in duplicate using a pre-specified standardized form. We assessed individual study risk of bias using the revised Cochrane ROB-2 tool and rated certainty in outcomes using GRADE methodology. We pooled data using a random effects model. The main outcome for this review was 28-day-mortality.ResultsWe included 18 RCTs enrolling 2826 patients. The use of corticosteroids probably reduced mortality in patients with ARDS of any etiology (2740 patients in 16 trials, RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.72-0.95, ARR 8.0%, 95% CI 2.2-12.5%, moderate certainty). Patients who received a longer course of corticosteroids (over 7 days) had higher rates of survival compared to a shorter course.ConclusionThe use of corticosteroids probably reduces mortality in patients with ARDS. This effect was consistent between patients with COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 ARDS, corticosteroid types, and dosage.
| S-EPMC8054852 | biostudies-literature