Background The epidemiology, clinical course, and outcomes of COVID-19 patients in the Russian population are unknown. Information on the differences between laboratory-confirmed and clinically-diagnosed COVID-19 in real-life settings is lacking. Methods We extracted data from the medical records of adult patients who were consecutively admitted for suspected COVID-19 infection in Moscow, between April 8 and May 28, 2020. Results Of the 4261 patients hospitalised for suspected COVID-19, outcomes were available for 3480 patients (median age 56 years (interquartile range 45-66). The commonest comorbidities were hypertension, obesity, chronic cardiac disease and diabetes. Half of the patients (n=1728) had a positive RT-PCR while 1748 were negative on RT-PCR but had clinical symptoms and characteristic CT signs suggestive of COVID-19 infection.No significant differences in frequency of symptoms, laboratory test results and risk factors for in-hospital mortality were found between those exclusively clinically diagnosed or with positive SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR.In a multivariable logistic regression model the following were associated with in-hospital mortality; older age (per 1 year increase) odds ratio [OR] 1.05 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03 - 1.06); male sex (OR 1.71, 1.24 - 2.37); chronic kidney disease (OR 2.99, 1.89 – 4.64); diabetes (OR 2.1, 1.46 - 2.99); chronic cardiac disease (OR 1.78, 1.24 - 2.57) and dementia (OR 2.73, 1.34 – 5.47). Conclusions Age, male sex, and chronic comorbidities were risk factors for in-hospital mortality. The combination of clinical features were sufficient to diagnoseCOVID-19 infection indicating that laboratory testing is not critical in real-life clinical practice.
Федеральный дистанционный консультативный центр анестезиологии и реаниматологии на базе Первого МГМУ им. И.М. Сеченова
Цель. Изучение летальности и факторов риска смерти больных с COVID-19, госпитализированных для респираторной поддержки в отделения реанимации и интенсивной терапии (ОРИТ) лечебных учреждений Российской Федерации. Материал и методы. Ретроспективное исследование было выполнено в Федеральном дистанционном консультативном центре анестезиологии и реаниматологии для взрослых пациентов с COVID-19 на базе Первого МГМУ им. И.М. Сеченова. В исследование включали всех пациентов с известными исходами (смерть от любых причин или выздоровление) SARS-CoV-2 пневмонии, осложнившейся острым респираторным дистресс синдромом (ОРДС), которые были проконсультированы с 16 марта по 3 мая 2020 г. Факторы риска смерти анализировали с помощью многофакторной регрессионной модели Кокса. Результаты. В исследование были включены 1522 пациента, 864 (56,8%) мужчины и 658 (43,2%) женщин. Медиана возраста-62 года. 922 (60,6%) больных находились в ОРИТ стационаров Москвы и Московской области, 600 (39,4%)-лечебных учреждений в 70 регионах Российской Федерации. У 995 (65,4%) больных диагноз SARS-CoV-2 инфекции был подтвержден с помощью ПЦР. Умерли 995 (65,4%) пациентов, выжили 527 (34,6%). Основными причинами смерти были ОРДС (93,2%), сер
The articles published under CC BY NC-ND license Опиоидная анальгезия продолжает оставаться «золотым стандартом» послеоперационного обезболивания в большинстве развитых стран. В то же время в последние годы накоплены данные, свидетельствующие о негативном влиянии опиоидов на течение раннего послеоперационного периода. Помимо традиционных побочных эффектов этих препаратов (угнетение сознания, избыточная седация, тошнота и т.д.), рассматривается их способность формировать опиоид-индуцированную гиперальгезию, оказывать иммуносупрессивное действие, снижать мощность местных анестетиков. Кроме того, опиоидная анальгезия препятствует реализации концепции ускоренной послеоперационной реабилитации пациентов (fast-track surgery и ERAS). В обзоре рассматриваются современные возможности проведения безопиоидной или низкоопиоидной анестезии в основном при лапароскопических операциях. Отказаться от применения опиоидных анальгетиков или сократить до минимума их дозировки в периоперационный период позволяет концепция мультимодальной анальгезии. Мультимодальная анальгезия предусматривает одновременное назначение двух и более препаратов, воздействующих на разные уровни формирования острого болевого синдрома. В обзоре дана характеристика основных компонентов безопиоидной анестезии и анальгезии (НПВС, парацетамола, дексмедетомидина, габапентина, кетамина, лидокаина, дексаметазона) с позиций доказательной медицины. Представлены схемы безопиоидной анестезии и анальгезии при ряде хирургических вмешательств, в частности, при лапароскопической холецистэктомии и лапароскопической гемиколонэктомии.Ключевые слова: безопиоидная анестезия, анальгезия, мультимодальная анальгезия, нестероидные противовоспалительные средства, дексмедетомидин, габапентин, лидокаин, кетамин, дексаметазон Opioid analgesia continues to be the "gold standard" of postoperative analgesia in most developed countries. At the same time, in recent years, evidence has been accumulated indicating the negative impact of opioids on the course of the early postoperative period. In addition to the traditional side effects of these drugs (depression of consciousness, excessive sedation, nausea, etc.), their ability to form opioid-induced hyperalgesia, to have an immunosuppressive effect, to reduce the power of local anesthetics is considered. In addition, opioid analgesia prevents the implementation of the concept of accelerated postoperative patient rehabilitation (fast-track surgery and ERAS). The review examines the modern possibilities of conducting free or low-opioid anesthesia, mainly during laparoscopic surgery. The concept of multimodal analgesia makes it possible to refuse the use of opioid analgesics or to minimize their dosage in the perioperative period. Multimodal analgesia involves the simultaneous administration of two or more drugs that affect different levels of the formation of acute pain. The characteristics of the main components of opioid-free anesthesia and analgesia (NSAIDs, paracetamol, dexmedetomidine, gabapentin, ketamine, lidocaine, dexamethasone) are de...
Background Data on the lung respiratory mechanics and gas exchange in the time course of COVID-19-associated respiratory failure is limited. This study aimed to explore respiratory mechanics and gas exchange, the lung recruitability and risk of overdistension during the time course of mechanical ventilation. Methods This was a prospective observational study in critically ill mechanically ventilated patients (n = 116) with COVID-19 admitted into Intensive Care Units of Sechenov University. The primary endpoints were: «optimum» positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) level balanced between the lowest driving pressure and the highest SpO2 and number of patients with recruitable lung on Days 1 and 7 of mechanical ventilation. We measured driving pressure at different levels of PEEP (14, 12, 10 and 8 cmH2O) with preset tidal volume, and with the increase of tidal volume by 100 ml and 200 ml at preset PEEP level, and calculated static respiratory system compliance (CRS), PaO2/FiO2, alveolar dead space and ventilatory ratio on Days 1, 3, 5, 7, 10, 14 and 21. Results The «optimum» PEEP levels on Day 1 were 11.0 (10.0–12.8) cmH2O and 10.0 (9.0–12.0) cmH2O on Day 7. Positive response to recruitment was observed on Day 1 in 27.6% and on Day 7 in 9.2% of patients. PEEP increase from 10 to 14 cmH2O and VT increase by 100 and 200 ml led to a significant decrease in CRS from Day 1 to Day 14 (p < 0.05). Ventilatory ratio was 2.2 (1.7–2,7) in non-survivors and in 1.9 (1.6–2.6) survivors on Day 1 and decreased on Day 7 in survivors only (p < 0.01). PaO2/FiO2 was 105.5 (76.2–141.7) mmHg in non-survivors on Day 1 and 136.6 (106.7–160.8) in survivors (p = 0.002). In survivors, PaO2/FiO2 rose on Day 3 (p = 0.008) and then between Days 7 and 10 (p = 0.046). Conclusion Lung recruitability was low in COVID-19 and decreased during the course of the disease, but lung overdistension occurred at «intermediate» PEEP and VT levels. In survivors gas exchange improvements after Day 7 mismatched CRS. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04445961. Registered 24 June 2020—Retrospectively registered.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.