Literature DB >> 34086779

Variation in outcome of invasive mechanical ventilation between different countries for patients with severe COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Hany Hasan Elsayed1, Aly Sherif Hassaballa2, Taha Aly Ahmed2, Mohammed Gumaa3, Hazem Youssef Sharkawy2, Assem Adel Moharram4.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: COVID 19 is the most recent cause of Adult respiratory distress syndrome ARDS. Invasive mechanical ventilation IMV can support gas exchange in patients failing non-invasive ventilation, but its reported outcome is highly variable between countries. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis on IMV for COVID-associated ARDS to study its outcome among different countries.
METHODS: CENTRAL, MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Scopus were systematically searched up to August 8, 2020. Studies reporting five or more patients with end point outcome for severe COVID 19 infection treated with IMV were included. The main outcome assessed was mortality. Baseline, procedural, outcome, and validity data were systematically appraised and pooled with random-effect methods. Subgroup analysis for different countries was performed. Meta-regression for the effect of study timing and patient age and were tested. Publication bias was examined. This trial was registered with PROSPERO under registration number CRD42020190365.
FINDINGS: Our electronic search retrieved 4770 citations, 103 of which were selected for full-text review. Twenty-one studies with a combined population of 37359 patients with COVID-19 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. From this population, 5800 patients were treated by invasive mechanical ventilation. Out of those, 3301 patients reached an endpoint of ICU discharge or death after invasive mechanical ventilation while the rest were still in the ICU. Mortality from IMV was highly variable among the included studies ranging between 21% and 100%. Random-effect pooled estimates suggested an overall in-hospital mortality risk ratio of 0.70 (95% confidence interval 0.608 to 0.797; I2 = 98%). Subgroup analysis according to country of origin showed homogeneity in the 8 Chinese studies with high pooled mortality risk ratio of 0.97 (I2 = 24%, p = 0.23) (95% CI = 0.94-1.00), similar to Italy with a low pooled mortality risk ratio of 0.26 (95% CI 0.08-0.43) with homogeneity (p = 0.86) while the later larger studies coming from the USA showed pooled estimate mortality risk ratio of 0.60 (95% CI 0.43-0.76) with persistent heterogeneity (I2 = 98%, p<0.001). Meta-regression showed that outcome from IMV improved with time (p<0.001). Age had no statistically significant effect on mortality (p = 0.102). Publication bias was excluded by visualizing the funnel plot of standard error, Egger's test with p = 0.714 and Begg&Mazumdar test with p = 0.334.
INTERPRETATION: The study included the largest number of patients with outcome findings of IMV in this current pandemic. Our findings showed that the use of IMV for selected COVID 19 patients with severe ARDS carries a high mortality, but outcome has improved over the last few months and in more recent studies. The results should encourage physicians to use this facility when indicated for severely ill COVID-19 patients.

Entities:  

Year:  2021        PMID: 34086779     DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0252760

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  PLoS One        ISSN: 1932-6203            Impact factor:   3.240


  5 in total

1.  Neurologic manifestations of COVID-19 in critically ill patients: results of the prospective multicenter registry PANDEMIC.

Authors:  Konstantinos Dimitriadis; Jan Meis; Hermann Neugebauer; Kristian Barlinn; Bernhard Neumann; Georg Gahn; Piergiorgio Lochner; Benjamin Knier; Sarah Lindemann; Kurt Wolfram Sühs; Kristina Szabo; Thomas Pfefferkorn; Ingo Schirotzek; Tobias Freilinger; Bassa Burc; Albrecht Günther; Matthias Wittstock; Patrick Schramm; Gernot Reimann; Jana Godau; Gabor Nagy; Fatima B Koenig; Fabian Essig; Hartwig Klinker; Christian Hartmann; Moritz L Schmidbauer; Tim Steinberg; Lora Lefterova; Christina Klose; Julian Bösel
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2022-07-16       Impact factor: 19.334

2.  Efficacy and safety of HD-tDCS and respiratory rehabilitation for critically ill patients with COVID-19 The HD-RECOVERY randomized clinical trial.

Authors:  Suellen Marinho Andrade; Maria Cecília de Araújo Silvestre; Eduardo Ériko Tenório de França; Maria Heloísa Bezerra Sales Queiroz; Kelly de Jesus Santana; Marcela Lais Lima Holmes Madruga; Cristina Katya Torres Teixeira Mendes; Eliane Araújo de Oliveira; João Felipe Bezerra; Renata Gomes Barreto; Silmara Maria Alves Fernandes da Silva; Thais Alves de Sousa; Wendy Chrystyan Medeiros de Sousa; Mariana Patrícia da Silva; Vanessa Meira Cintra Ribeiro; Paulo Lucena; Daniel Beltrammi; Rodrigo Ramos Catharino; Egas Caparelli-Dáquer; Benjamin M Hampstead; Abhishek Datta; Antonio Lucio Teixeira; Bernardino Fernández-Calvo; João Ricardo Sato; Marom Bikson
Journal:  Brain Stimul       Date:  2022-05-11       Impact factor: 9.184

3.  Programmed multi-level ventilation in COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome: a multi-center retrospective observational study.

Authors:  Filip Depta; Pavol Török; Andrew G Miller; Peter Firment; Jozef Leškanič; Adam Porubän; Pavol Halaš; Stanislav Mandinec; Vladimír Filka; Henryk Zajac; Michael A Gentile; Marko Zdravkovic
Journal:  J Int Med Res       Date:  2022-05       Impact factor: 1.573

4.  Determinants of Outcome Among Critically Ill Police Personnel With COVID-19: A Retrospective Observational Study From Andhra Pradesh, India.

Authors:  Limalemla Jamir; Mukesh Tripathi; Sumita Shankar; Rakesh Kakkar; Ravishankar Ayyanar; Rajeev Aravindakshan
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2021-12-13

5.  Determinants of Increased Effort of Breathing in Non-Intubated Critical COVID-19 Patients.

Authors:  Vaidas Vicka; Elija Januskeviciute; Justina Krauklyte; Aiste Aleknaviciene; Donata Ringaitiene; Ligita Jancoriene; Jurate Sipylaite
Journal:  Medicina (Kaunas)       Date:  2022-08-21       Impact factor: 2.948

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.