No abstract

Objectives To determine the impact of the Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on the length of stay (LOS) and prognosis of patients in the resuscitation area. Methods A retrospective analysis of case data of patients in the resuscitation area during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic (January 15, 2020– January 14, 2021) was performed and compared with the pre-COVID-19 period (January 15, 2019 – January 14, 2020) in the First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University. The patients’ information, including age, sex, length of stay, and death, was collected. The Wilcoxon Rank sum test was performed to compare the LOS difference between the two periods. Fisher's Exact test and Chi-Squared test were used to analyze the prognosis of patients. The LOS and prognosis in different departments of the resuscitation area (emergency internal medicine, emergency surgery, emergency neurology, and other departments) were further analyzed. Results Of the total 8278 patients, 4159 (50.24%) were enrolled in the COVID-19 pandemic period group, and 4119 (49.76%) were enrolled pre-COVID-19 period group. The length of stay was prolonged significantly in the COVID-19 period compared with the pre-COVID-19 period (13h VS 9.8h, p < 0.001). The LOS in the COVID-19 period was prolonged in both emergency internal medicine (15.3h VS 11.3h, p < 0.001) and emergency surgery (8.7h VS 4.9h, p < 0.001) but not in emergency neurology or other emergency departments. There was no significant difference in mortality between the two cohorts (4.8% VS 5.3%, p = 0.341). Conclusion The COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a significant increase in the length of resuscitation area stay, which may lead to resuscitation area crowding. The influence of the COVID-19 pandemic on patients of different departments was variable. There was no significant impact on the LOS of emergency neurology. According to different departments of the resuscitation area, the COVID-19 pandemic didn’t significantly impact the prognosis of patients.

No abstract

No abstract

Background. Enteral nutrition (EN) is often used in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI), but some studies have shown that EN has its disadvantages. However, it is not clear which nutritional support is appropriate to reduce mortality, improve prognosis, and improve nutritional status in patients with TBI. We performed this Bayesian network meta-analysis to evaluate the improvement of nutritional indicators and the clinical outcomes of patients with TBI. Methods. We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science from inception until December 2021. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which compared the effects of different nutritional supports on clinical outcomes and nutritional indicators in patients with TBI were included. The co-primary outcomes included mortality and the value of serum albumin. The secondary outcomes were nitrogen balance, the length of study (LOS) in the ICU, and feeding-related complications. The network meta-analysis was performed to adjust for indirect comparison and mixed treatment analysis. Results. 7 studies enroll a total of 456 patients who received different nutritional supports including parenteral nutrition (PN), enteral nutrition (EN), and PN + EN. No effects on in-hospital mortality (Median RR = 1.06, 95% Crl = 0.12 to 1.77) and the value of 0-1 days of serum albumin were found between the included regimens. However, the value of 11–13 days of serum albumin of EN was better than that of PN (WMD = −4.95, 95% CI = −7.18 to −2.72, P < 0.0001 , I2 = 0%), and 16–20 days of serum albumin of EN + PN was better than that of EN (WMD = −7.42, 95% CI = −14.51 to −0.34, P = 0.04 , I2 = 90%). No effects on the 5–7 day nitrogen balance were found between the included regimens. In addition, the complications including pneumonia and sepsis have no statistical difference between EN and PN. EN was superior to PN in terms of LOS in the ICU and the incidence rate of stress ulcers. Although the difference in indirect comparisons between the included regimens was not statistically significant, the results showed that PN seemed to rank behind other regimens, and the difference between them was extremely small. Conclusion. Available evidence suggests that EN + PN appears to be the most effective strategy for patients with TBI in improving clinical outcomes and nutritional support compared with other nutritional supports. Further trials are required.