2022
DOI: 10.53854/liim-3001-6
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Differential mortality with COVID-19 and invasive mechanical ventilation between high-income and low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression

Abstract: The COVID-19 pandemic has markedly affected the health care of patients in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs), but no systematic study to corroborate this effect has been undertaken. In addition, the survival outcomes of patients with COVID-19 who received invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) have not been well established. We pooled evidence from all available studies and did a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess and compare mortality outcomes between LMICs and high-income countries (HICs). We… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Mortality in mechanically ventilated COVID‐19 patients has been shown to vary over time and in different regions, 5 , 41 suggesting different viral strains and health care burden as possible determining factors. A vast majority of patients in this study had P/F ratios below 13 kPa on ICU admission, corresponding to severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in mechanically ventilated patients.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Mortality in mechanically ventilated COVID‐19 patients has been shown to vary over time and in different regions, 5 , 41 suggesting different viral strains and health care burden as possible determining factors. A vast majority of patients in this study had P/F ratios below 13 kPa on ICU admission, corresponding to severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in mechanically ventilated patients.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Of the remaining 34 studies, 26 studies were excluded after full review, leaving eight studies. Among the studies excluded after full-text review, 19 were not RCTs, 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 two were conference abstracts, 27 , 28 and five did not meet inclusion criteria. 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 The Helmet-COVID RCT, comparing helmet-NIV vs usual respiratory support did not meet inclusion criteria because it included facemask-NIV as part of usual respiratory support.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%