Shock (Augusta, Ga.) · 2020
Clinical Course of 195 Critically Ill COVID-19 Patients: A Retrospective Multicenter Study.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Zhou Shuliang, Yang Yadong, Zhang Xingguo, Li Zhifeng, Liu Xing, Hu Chang, Chen Chunxi, Wang Dawei, Peng Zhiyong
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) outbreak has spread around the world. However, the dynamic course of critically ill COVID-19 has not been described thoroughly.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 195 critically ill COVID-19 patients in Hubei province, China, between January 5, 2020 and April 3, 2020. Epidemiologic data, clinical features, treatments, and outcomes were collected and analyzed.
RESULTS: Most critically ill patients were older with higher Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores. After critical illness onset, a total of 181 (92.8%) patients received ventilation support, of which 84 (43.1%) received noninvasive and 97 (49.7%) received invasive mechanic ventilation (IMV). Among the 97 patients with IMV, 28 (28.9%) received prone ventilation, 57 (58.8%) received neuromuscular blocked therapy, and 22 (11.3%) received tracheostomy due to prolonged ventilator use. Early hypoxemia, subsequent hypercapnia, pulmonary hypertension, and finally pulmonary fibrosis were notable in the clinical course of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Eighty-nine (45.6%) patients presented with shock. Acute kidney injury (29.7%) and secondary infection (28.2%) were also notable. The overall mortality of critically ill patients at day 28 was 42.1%. Intensive care unit (ICU) mortality was around 33%, as 16 patients died prior to ICU admission. A low PaO2/FiO2 ratio was an independent risk factor for death. High viral load was observed in most non-survivors.
CONCLUSION: ARDS and shock were notable in the critical illness of COVID-19. Ventilation support and hemodynamic support were the cornerstones for critical care. High viral load was associated with death of critically ill COVID-19 patients.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 195 critically ill COVID-19 patients in Hubei province, China, between January 5, 2020 and April 3, 2020. Epidemiologic data, clinical features, treatments, and outcomes were collected and analyzed.
RESULTS: Most critically ill patients were older with higher Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores. After critical illness onset, a total of 181 (92.8%) patients received ventilation support, of which 84 (43.1%) received noninvasive and 97 (49.7%) received invasive mechanic ventilation (IMV). Among the 97 patients with IMV, 28 (28.9%) received prone ventilation, 57 (58.8%) received neuromuscular blocked therapy, and 22 (11.3%) received tracheostomy due to prolonged ventilator use. Early hypoxemia, subsequent hypercapnia, pulmonary hypertension, and finally pulmonary fibrosis were notable in the clinical course of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Eighty-nine (45.6%) patients presented with shock. Acute kidney injury (29.7%) and secondary infection (28.2%) were also notable. The overall mortality of critically ill patients at day 28 was 42.1%. Intensive care unit (ICU) mortality was around 33%, as 16 patients died prior to ICU admission. A low PaO2/FiO2 ratio was an independent risk factor for death. High viral load was observed in most non-survivors.
CONCLUSION: ARDS and shock were notable in the critical illness of COVID-19. Ventilation support and hemodynamic support were the cornerstones for critical care. High viral load was associated with death of critically ill COVID-19 patients.