Mortality and Clinical Interventions in Critically ill Patient With Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective: The aims of this systematic review and meta-analysis were to summarize the current existing evidence on the outcome of critically ill patients with COVID-19 as well as to evaluate the effectiveness of clinical interventions.Data Sources: We searched MEDLINE, the Cochrane library, Web of Science, the China Biology Medicine disc, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang Data from their inception to May 15, 2021. The search strings consisted of various search terms related to the concepts of mortality of critically ill patients and clinical interventions.Study Selection: After eliminating duplicates, two reviewers independently screened all titles and abstracts first, and then the full texts of potentially relevant articles were reviewed to identify cohort studies and case series that focus on the mortality of critically ill patients and clinical interventions.Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the mortality of critically ill patients with COVID-19. The secondary outcomes included all sorts of supportive care.Results: There were 27 cohort studies and six case series involving 42,219 participants that met our inclusion criteria. All-cause mortality in the intensive care unit (ICU) was 35% and mortality in hospital was 32% in critically ill patients with COVID-19 for the year 2020, with very high between-study heterogeneity (I2 = 97%; p < 0.01). In a subgroup analysis, the mortality during ICU hospitalization in China was 39%, in Asia—except for China—it was 48%, in Europe it was 34%, in America it was 15%, and in the Middle East it was 39%. Non-surviving patients who had an older age [−8.10, 95% CI (−9.31 to −6.90)], a higher APACHE II score [−4.90, 95% CI (−6.54 to −3.27)], a higher SOFA score [−2.27, 95% CI (−2.95 to −1.59)], and a lower PaO2/FiO2 ratio [34.77, 95% CI (14.68 to 54.85)] than those who survived. Among clinical interventions, invasive mechanical ventilation [risk ratio (RR) 0.49, 95% CI (0.39–0.61)], kidney replacement therapy [RR 0.34, 95% CI (0.26–0.43)], and vasopressor [RR 0.54, 95% CI (0.34–0.88)] were used more in surviving patients.Conclusions: Mortality was high in critically ill patients with COVID-19 based on low-quality evidence and regional difference that existed. The early identification of critical characteristics and the use of support care help to indicate the outcome of critically ill patients.

Download Full-text

Epidemiology, clinical characteristics and treatment of critically ill patients with COVID-19): a protocol for a living systematic review

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2020-042008 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (1) ◽

pp. e042008

Author(s):

Lazar Milovanovic ◽

Erin Hessey ◽

Meghan Sebastianski ◽

Diana Keto-Lambert ◽

Ben Vandermeer ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Critically Ill ◽

Critically Ill Patients ◽

Search Strategy ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Case Series ◽

Case Fatality ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Icu Admission ◽

Epidemiological Characteristics

IntroductionIn December 2019, the first cases of COVID-19 associated with SARS-CoV-2 viral infection were described in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China. Since then, it has spread rapidly affecting 188 countries and was declared a pandemic by the WHO on 11 March 2020. Preliminary reports suggest up to 30% of patients require intensive care unit (ICU) admission and case fatality rate estimate is 2.3%–7.2%. The primary reason for ICU admission is hypoxaemic respiratory failure, while factors associated with ICU admission include increased age, presence of comorbidities and cytokine storm. Case series and retrospective trials initially assessed proposed treatments with randomised controlled trials now reporting early outcomes. We conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify epidemiological factors, treatments and complications that predict mortality among critically ill patients with COVID-19.Methods and analysisOur comprehensive search strategy was developed in consultation with a research librarian. We will search electronic databases: Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, Ovid Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and Wiley Cochrane Library. The search strategy combines concepts from COVID-19, validated COVID-19 search filters and geographical locations of large outbreaks. Citation screening, selection, quality assessment and data abstraction will be performed in duplicate. Clinically homogenous epidemiological characteristics, interventions and complications will be pooled in statistical meta-analysis. Within the framework of a living systematic review, the search and data analysis will be updated every 6 months.Ethics and disseminationOur systematic review will synthesise literature on risk factors and interventions associated with mortality in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Results will be presented at national and international conferences and submitted for peer-reviewed publication. The pooled analysis can provide guidance to inform clinical guidelines for care of critically ill patients with COVID-19. Iterative updates will be made public through open access. Research ethics approval is not required.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020176672.

Download Full-text

Potentially Effective Drugs for the Treatment of COVID-19 or MIS-C in Children: A Systematic Review

10.21203/rs.3.rs-851844/v1 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Zijun Wang ◽

Siya Zhao ◽

Yuyi Tang ◽

Zhili Wang ◽

Qianling Shi ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Mechanical Ventilation ◽

Cohort Studies ◽

Children And Adolescents ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Invasive Mechanical Ventilation ◽

Case Series ◽

Current Evidence ◽

Control Group ◽

Case Series Study

Abstract Introduction: The purpose of this systematic review is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of using potential drugs: remdesivir and glucocorticoid in treating children and adolescents with COVID-19 and intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) in treating MIS-C. Methods: We searched seven databases, three preprint platform, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Google from December 1, 2019, to August 5, 2021, to collect evidence of remdesivir, glucocorticoid, and IVIG which were used in children and adolescents with COVID-19 or MIS-C. Results: A total of nine cohort studies and one case series study were included in this systematic review. In terms of remdesivir, the meta-analysis of single-arm cohort studies have shown that, after the treatment, 54.7% (95%CI, 10.3% to 99.1%) experienced adverse events, 5.6% (95%CI, 1.2% to 10.1%) died, 27.0% (95%CI, 0% to 73.0%) needed extracorporeal membrane oxygenation or invasive mechanical ventilation. As for glucocorticoids, the results of the meta-analysis showed that the fixed-effect summary odds ratio for the association with mortality was 2.79 (95%CI, 0.13 to 60.87), and the mechanical ventilation rate was 3.12 (95%CI, 0.80 to 12.08) for glucocorticoids compared with the control group. In terms of IVIG, most of the included cohort studies showed that for MIS-C patients with more severe clinical symptoms, IVIG combined with methylprednisolone could achieve better clinical efficacy than IVIG alone.Conclusions: Overall, the current evidence in the included studies is insignificant and of low quality. It is recommended to conduct high-quality randomized controlled trials of remdesivir, glucocorticoids, and IVIG in children and adolescents with COVID-19 or MIS-C to provide substantial evidence for the development of guidelines.

Download Full-text

P0625CONTINUOUS RENAL REPLACEMENT THERAPY WITHOUT ANTICOAGULATION IN CRITICALLY ILL PATIENTS AT HIGH RISK OF BLEEDING-A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS

Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation ◽

10.1093/ndt/gfaa142.p0625 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 35 (Supplement_3) ◽

Author(s):

Shiren Sun ◽

Wei Zhang ◽

Ming Bai ◽

Lijuan Zhao ◽

Xiaolan Chen ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Renal Replacement Therapy ◽

High Risk ◽

Replacement Therapy ◽

Critically Ill ◽

Critically Ill Patients ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Bleeding Risk ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Risk Of Bleeding

Abstract Background and Aims Continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) has been widely used in the critical care setting and anticoagulation is usually necessitated. However, critically ill patients are commonly at incremental risk of bleeding, which contributed to the hesitation of anticoagulant use for CRRT in clinical practice. The current guideline recommended CRRT proceed without anticoagulation in patients with contraindication to citrate and increased bleeding risk. Nevertheless, the efficacy of anticoagulation-free CRRT remains inconsistent. Therefore, the purpose of our present systematic review is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of anticoagulant-free CRRT based on the current literatures. Method We conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed (US National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, MD, USA), Cochrane Library databases and EMBASE from database inception to January 12, 2019 for potential candidate studies. Studies included adult critically ill (age > 18 years) patients with increased bleeding risk, and underwent CRRT without anticoagulation were considered for the inclusion. Results Finally, 17 observational studies and 3 randomized controlled trials with 1615 patients were included in our present meta-analysis. There was no significant difference in filter lifespan between the anticoagulation-free and systemic heparin group. The filter lifespan was significantly prolonged in the citrate (WMD -23.01, 95%CI [-28.62, -17.39], P < 0.001; I2 = 0%, P = 0.53) and nafamostat (WMD -8.4, 95%CI [-9.9, -6.9], P < 0.001; I2 = 33.7%, P = 0.21) groups, compared with anticoagulation-free group. The averaged filter lifespan of the anticoagulation-free CRRT ranged from 10.2 to 52.5 hours. Conclusion The filter lifespan in anticoagulation-free patients with increased bleeding risk was comparable to that in patients without increased bleeding risk underwent systemic heparin anticoagulation CRRT. Nafamostat was not recommended for CRRT anticoagulation due to its drawbacks. Currently, the optimal choice of anticoagulation strategy for critically ill patients without citrate contraindications at high risk of bleeding should be regional citrate anticoagulation. Further studies should focus on the special cut-off value of activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT), international normalized ratio (INR) and platelet (PLT) count, at which the anticoagulation-free CRRT would be beneficial.

Download Full-text

Potentially effective drugs for the treatment of COVID-19 or MIS-C in children: a systematic review

10.1101/2021.07.20.21260827 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Zijun Wang ◽

Siya Zhao ◽

Yuyi Tang ◽

Zhili Wang ◽

Qianling Shi ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Mechanical Ventilation ◽

Cohort Studies ◽

Children And Adolescents ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Invasive Mechanical Ventilation ◽

Case Series ◽

Current Evidence ◽

Control Group ◽

Case Series Study

AbstractIntroductionThe purpose of this systematic review is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of using potential drugs: remdesivir and glucocorticoid in treating children and adolescents with COVID-19 and intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) in treating MIS-C.MethodsWe searched seven databases, three preprint platform, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Google from December 1, 2019, to August 5, 2021, to collect evidence of remdesivir, glucocorticoid, and IVIG which were used in children and adolescents with COVID-19 or MIS-C.ResultsA total of six cohort studies and one case series study were included in this systematic review. In terms of remdesivir, the meta-analysis of single-arm cohort studies have shown that, after the treatment, 37.1% (95%CI, 0.0% to 74.5%) experienced adverse events, 5.9% (95%CI, 1.5% to 10.2%) died, 37.2% (95%CI, 0% to 76.0%) needed extracorporeal membrane oxygenation or invasive mechanical ventilation. As for glucocorticoids, the results of the meta-analysis showed that the fixed-effect summary odds ratio for the association with mortality was 2.79 (95%CI, 0.13 to 60.87), and the mechanical ventilation rate was 3.12 (95%CI, 0.80 to 12.08) for glucocorticoids compared with the control group. In terms of IVIG, the two included cohort studies showed that for MIS-C patients with more severe clinical symptoms, IVIG combined with methylprednisolone could achieve better clinical efficacy than IVIG alone.ConclusionsOverall, the current evidence in the included studies is insignificant and of low quality. It is recommended to conduct high-quality randomized controlled trials of remdesivir, glucocorticoids, and IVIG in children and adolescents with COVID-19 or MIS-C to provide substantial evidence for the development of guidelines.

Download Full-text

Diagnosis Accuracy of Lung Ultrasound for ARF in Critically Ill Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Frontiers in Medicine ◽

10.3389/fmed.2021.705960 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 8 ◽

Author(s):

Xueyan Yuan ◽

Ling Liu ◽

Wei Chang ◽

Zongsheng Wu ◽

Lili Huang ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Critically Ill ◽

Sensitivity And Specificity ◽

Critically Ill Patients ◽

Lung Ultrasound ◽

Early Recognition ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Characteristic Curve ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Bivariate Model

Background: Acute respiratory failure (ARF) is a commonly distressing condition in critically ill patients. Its early recognition and treatment may improve clinical outcomes. Mounting evidence suggests that lung ultrasound (LUS) could be an alternative to chest X-ray (CXR) or computed tomography (CT) for the diagnosis of ARF in critically ill patients. This meta-analysis aimed to determine whether LUS can be an alternative tool used to investigate the cause of ARF or thoracic pathologies associated with the diagnosis of ARF in critically ill patients.Method: A systematic literature search of the PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases was conducted from inception to March 2020. Two researchers independently screened studies investigating the accuracy of LUS with CXR or CT for adult critically ill patients with ARF. Data with baseline, true positives, false positives, false negatives, and true negatives were extracted. The study quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were obtained using a bivariate model.Results: Eleven studies, including 1,232 patients, were included in the meta-analysis. Most studies were of low quality. LUS had a pooled sensitivity of 92% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 85–96) and a pooled specificity of 98% (95% CI: 94–99). The area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve was 98% (95% CI: 97–99). The sensitivity and specificity of LUS to identify different pathological types of ARF were investigated. For consolidation (1,040 patients), LUS had a sensitivity of 89% and a specificity of 97%. For pleural effusion (279 patients), LUS had a pooled sensitivity of 95% and a specificity of 99%. For acute interstitial syndrome (174 patients), LUS had a pooled sensitivity of 95% and a specificity of 91%.Conclusions: LUS is an adjuvant tool that has a moderate sensitivity and high specificity for the diagnosis of ARF in critically ill patients.Systematic Review Registration: The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020211493).

Download Full-text

Determining the optimal time for liberation from renal replacement therapy in critically ill patients: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis (DOnE RRT)

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023306 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 8 (11) ◽

pp. e023306 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Abdalrhman Al Saadon ◽

Riley Katulka ◽

Meghan Sebastianski ◽

Robin Featherstone ◽

Ben Vandermeer ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Intensive Care ◽

Renal Replacement Therapy ◽

Replacement Therapy ◽

Critically Ill ◽

Critically Ill Patients ◽

Biochemical Markers ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Grey Literature ◽

Cochrane Library

IntroductionRenal replacement therapy (RRT) is a complex and expensive form of life-sustaining therapy, reserved for our most acutely ill patients. While a number of randomised trials have evaluated the optimal timing to start RRT among critically ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU), there has been a paucity of trials providing guidance on when and under what circumstances to ideally liberate a patient from RRT. We are conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify clinical and biochemical markers that predict kidney recovery and successful liberation from acute RRT among critically ill patients with acute kidney injury.Methods and analysisOur comprehensive search strategy was developed in consultation with a research librarian and independently peer-reviewed by a second librarian. We will search electronic databases: Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase and Wiley Cochrane Library. Selected grey literature sources will also be searched. Our search strategies will focus on concepts related to RRT (ie, intermittent haemodialysis, slow low-efficiency dialysis, continuous renal replacement therapy), intensive care (ie, involving any ICU setting) and discontinuation of therapy (ie, either clinical, physiological and biochemical parameters of weaning acute RRT) from 1990 to October 10, 2017. Citation screening, selection, quality assessment and data abstraction will be performed in duplicate. Studies will, where possible, be pooled in statistical meta-analysis. When deemed sufficiently clinically homogenous, and we have four or more studies reporting, sensitivities and specificities will be pooled simultaneously using a hierarchical summary receiver operator characteristic curve and bivariate analysis.Ethics and disseminationOur systematic review will synthesise the literature on clinical and biochemical markers that predict liberation from RRT. Research ethics approval is not required.Trial registration numberCRD42018074615.

Download Full-text