ArticleWorld journal of clinical cases2021
Retrospective analysis of influencing factors on the efficacy of mechanical ventilation in severe and critical COVID-19 patients.
Article in World journal of clinical cases, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has spread widely around the world with strong infectivity, rapid mutation and a high mortality rate. Mechanical ventilation has been included in the
aimThe aim of this study was to determine the influencing factors on the efficacy of mechanical ventilation in severe and critical COVID-19 patients.
methodsA total of 27 severe and critical COVID-19 patients were enrolled in this study and treated with mechanical ventilation at the Optical Valley Campus of Hubei Maternal and Child Health Care Hospital (Wuhan, Hubei Province) from February 20, 2020 to April 5, 2020. According to the final treatment outcomes, the patients were divided into the "effective group" and "death group." The clinical data of the two groups, such as the treatment process and final outcome, were retrospectively analyzed in order to determine the specific curative effects on the two groups and the reasons for the differences in such curative effects, as well as to explore the factors related to death.
resultsThis study enrolled 27 severe and critical COVID-19 patients, including 17 males (63.0%) and 10 females (37.0%). Their ages were 74.41 ± 11.73-years-old, and 19 patients (70.4%) were over 70-years-old. Severe COVID-19 patients over 70-years-old who were treated with mechanical ventilation died in 14 cases (82.4%); thus, this was the peak age. A total of 17 patients died of basic disease, 16 of whom had more than two basic diseases. The basic diseases were hypertension, diabetes, and cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases. At the same time, 13 patients (76.5%) died from an abnormal increase in blood glucose. Among them, eight had diabetes before contracting COVID-19 and five had a stress-induced increase in blood glucose after contracting COVID-19. Diabetic ketoacidosis occurred in one case. The use of tocilizumab may be a double-edged sword that carries a certain risk in clinical usage. Among the patients who died, 16 (94.1%) went into septic shock at the end. There were significant differences in the degree of infection, cardiac and renal function, and blood glucose between the death group and effective group.
conclusionAge, blood glucose, cardiac and renal function, and inflammatory reaction are important indicators of poor prognosis for mechanical ventilation in severe and critical COVID-19 patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.