Characteristics and outcome of critically ill patients with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia admitted to a tertiary care center in the United Arab Emirates during the first wave of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. A retrospective analysis

Ismail, Khaled M.; Bensasi, Hatim; Ahmed, Taha; Nazir, Aamir; Abdelkhalek, Mohamed; Mohamed, Walid; Lodhe, Dipak; Buschbeck, Samuel; Bauer, Michael; Sakr, Yasser

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0251687

Cited by 12 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The studies originated from multiple countries, with 13 of coming from institutions located in the USA [20,21,23,[32][33][34][35]38,42,43,45,48,51]. Nineteen studies included only patients admitted in the ICU [20,22,24,25,27,[30][31][32][35][36][37][38][39][43][44][45][46][47]52], five studies included patients admitted in a COVID-19-dedicated HDU [28,29,33,34,42], eight studies included patients who were admitted in both HDU and ICU [21,23,26,40,41,48,49,51], and one study included Emergency Department patients who were later admitted either in the HDU of ICU [50]. Thirty studies included data about patients who received vs. patients who did not receive vasopressors…”

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Twenty-one out of the 33 included studies provided data on hospital mortality in patients who received vs. patients who did not receive vasopressors, resulting in a total population of 7900 individuals [25,27,[31][32][33][34][35][36][37][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48]50,52]. Due to high heterogeneity (I 2 : 94%, PQ<0.001), the random-effects model was implemented.…”

Section: Primary Outcomementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Association of vasopressors with mortality in critically ill patients with COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Mermiri

Mavrovounis

Laou

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: The effect of vasopressors on mortality of critically ill patients with COVID-19 has not been studied extensively. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, and clinicaltrials.gov was conducted for relevant articles until January 2022. Eligibility criteria were randomized controlled and non-randomized trials. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 28 days or 30 days. The quality of studies was assessed using the MINORS tool. Paired meta-analysis was used to estimate the pooled risk ratios along with their 95% Confidence Interval. Results: In total, 33 studies were included. Twenty-one studies with a total population of 7900 individuals provided data on mortality. Patients who received vasopressors were statistically significantly more likely to die compared to those who did not receive vasopressor therapy [RR (95%CI): 4.26 (3.15, 5.76); p<0.001]. This result remained statistically significant regardless of the in-hospital setting. In-hospital and 30-day mortality were statistically significantly higher in patients who received vasopressors [RR (95%CI): 4.60 (2.47, 8.55); p<0.001 and RR (95%CI): 2.97 (1.72, 5.14); p<0.001, respectively]. Four studies provided data on specific vasopressors; the highest mortality rate was observed in patients treated with vasopressin or epinephrine, while patients receiving angiotensin-II as a sole or second-line vasopressor agent had the lowest mortality rate. Also, analysis of 10 studies with a total population of 3519 individuals revealed that patients who received vasopressors were statistically significantly more likely to experience acute kidney injury [RR (95%CI): 3.17 (2.21, 4.54); p<0.001]. Conclusion: Vasopressors have detrimental effect on survival of critically ill patients with COVID-19.

show abstract

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Primary Outcomementioning

confidence: 99%

Association of vasopressors with mortality in critically ill patients with COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Mermiri

Mavrovounis

Laou

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is consistent with the findings of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) 27 and WHO 4 and with many studies. 28 , 29 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison Between Physiological Scores SIPF, CURB-65, and APACHE II as Predictors of Prognosis and Mortality in Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19 Pneumonia: A Multicenter Study, Saudi Arabia

Eldaboosy¹,

Almoosa²,

Saad³

et al. 2022

IDR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background A coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) is associated with catastrophic effects on the world with high morbidity and mortality. We aimed to evaluate the accuracy of physiological shock index (SIPF) (shock index and hypoxemia), CURB −65, acute physiology, and chronic health assessment II (APACHE II) as predictors of prognosis and in-hospital mortality in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. Methods In Saudi Arabia, a multicenter retrospective study was conducted on hospitalized adult patients confirmed to have COVID-19 pneumonia. Information needed to calculate SIPF, CURB-65, and APACHE II scores were obtained from medical records within 24 hours of admission. Results The study included 1131 COVID-19 patients who met the inclusion criteria. They were divided into two groups: (A) the ICU group (n=340; 30.1%) and (B) the ward group (n=791; 69.9%). The most common concomitant diseases of patients at initial ICU admission were hypertension (71.5%) and diabetes (62.4%), and most of them were men (63.8%). The overall mortality was 18.7%, and the mortality rate was higher in the ICU group than in the ward group (39.4% vs 9.6%; p < 0.001). The SIPF score showed a significantly higher ability to predict both ICU admission and mortality in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia compared with APACHE II and CURB −65; (AUC 0.89 vs 0.87; p < 0.001) and (AUC 0.89 vs 0.84; p < 0.001) for ICU admission and (AUC 0.90 vs 0.65; p < 0.001) and (AUC 0.90 vs 0.80; p < 0.001) for mortality, respectively. Conclusion The ability of the SIPF score to predict ICU admission and mortality in COVID-19 pneumonia is higher than that of APACHE II and CURB-65. The overall mortality was 18.7%, and the mortality rate was higher in the ICU group than in the ward group (39.4% vs 9.6%; p < 0.001).

show abstract

“…There was, however, marked differences among countries: from 23.4% in Japan [ 21 ] to 57—59.6% in Brazil [ 22 , 23 ]. Among patient receiving mechanical ventilation (and presumably therefore in an ICU), mortality has shown marked variability: United Arab Emirates—20.2% [ 24 ], Netherlands – 38% [ 25 ], Italy – 51.7% [ 26 ], Germany – 52.8% [ 27 ], Russia – 65.4% [ 28 ], United Kingdom – 69% [ 29 ], Mexico -73.7% [ 30 ], and Romania 95% [ 31 ]. More locally, ICU mortality in New York City among patients requiring mechanical ventilation has been reported as high as 88.1% [ 32 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patient care in rapid-expansion intensive care units during the COVID-19 pandemic crisis

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The coronavirus-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic highlighted the unfortunate reality that many hospitals have insufficient intensive care unit (ICU) capacity to meet massive, unanticipated increases in demand. To drastically increase ICU capacity, NewYork-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center modified its existing operating rooms and post-anaesthesia care units during the initial expansion phase to accommodate the surge of critically ill patients. Methods This retrospective chart review examined patient care in non-standard Expansion ICUs as compared to standard ICUs. We compared clinical data between the two settings to determine whether the expeditious development and deployment of critical care resources during an evolving medical crisis could provide appropriate care. Results Sixty-six patients were admitted to Expansion ICUs from March 1st to April 30th, 2020 and 343 were admitted to standard ICUs. Most patients were male (70%), White (30%), 45–64 years old (35%), non-smokers (73%), had hypertension (58%), and were hospitalized for a median of 40 days. For patients that died, there was no difference in treatment management, but the Expansion cohort had a higher median ICU length of stay (q = 0.037) and ventilatory length (q = 0.015). The cohorts had similar rates of discharge to home, but the Expansion ICU cohort had higher rates of discharge to a rehabilitation facility and overall lower mortality. Conclusions We found no significantly worse outcomes for the Expansion ICU cohort compared to the standard ICU cohort at our institution during the COVID-19 pandemic, which demonstrates the feasibility of providing safe and effective care for patients in an Expansion ICU.

show abstract

Characteristics and outcome of critically ill patients with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia admitted to a tertiary care center in the United Arab Emirates during the first wave of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. A retrospective analysis

Cited by 12 publications

References 43 publications

Association of vasopressors with mortality in critically ill patients with COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Association of vasopressors with mortality in critically ill patients with COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Comparison Between Physiological Scores SIPF, CURB-65, and APACHE II as Predictors of Prognosis and Mortality in Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19 Pneumonia: A Multicenter Study, Saudi Arabia

Patient care in rapid-expansion intensive care units during the COVID-19 pandemic crisis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About