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

Abstract

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.

Surge Capacity in the COVID-19 Era: a Natural Experiment of Neurocritical Care in General Critical Care

“…Using a multihospital, single-system cohort of patients with COVID-19 requiring critical care, we found that patients admitted to either general-intensivist-staffed or neurointensivist-staffed ICUs had a similar clinical course and outcome. Our experience across both ICU types is comparable to reported ICU mortality, with national rates ~ 30% (although international rates vary) [ 9 , 10 ].…”

Association of vasopressors with mortality in critically ill patients with COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis

“…Universally, the mortality of critically ill patients with COVID-19 is higher than that of other critically ill patients [53,54]. A main cause for this difference is the characteristics of the SARS-CoV-2 infection, which can rapidly affect other organs including the cardiovascular system [55].…”

RNA Sequencing in COVID-19 patients identifies neutrophil activation biomarkers as a promising diagnostic platform for infections

“…The COVID-19 pandemic, initiated by SARS-CoV2 viral infection, illustrates the need for the rapid detection of novel and variant pathogens, as well as specific risk prediction models to identify patients at high risk of severe or fatal disease. Unfortunately, clinical risk models for critically ill patients have been only modestly accurate in predicting outcomes for COVID-19 patients [ 1 ]. Furthermore, similar to septic shock, there is an incomplete understanding of the relative contributions of the pathogen load versus a hyperactive immune response by the host.…”