Original Article Archives - Page 2 of 25 - Critical Care Science (CCS)
Abstract
Crit Care Sci. 2024;36:e20240246en
DOI 10.62675/2965-2774.20240246-en
To discuss the strengths and limitations of ventilator-free days and to provide a comprehensive discussion of the different analytic methods for analyzing and interpreting this outcome.
Using simulations, the power of different analytical methods was assessed, namely: quantile (median) regression, cumulative logistic regression, generalized pairwise comparison, conditional approach and truncated approach. Overall, 3,000 simulations of a two-arm trial with n = 300 per arm were computed using a two-sided alternative hypothesis and a type I error rate of α = 0.05.
When considering power, median regression did not perform well in studies where the treatment effect was mainly driven by mortality. Median regression performed better in situations with a weak effect on mortality but a strong effect on duration, duration only, and moderate mortality and duration. Cumulative logistic regression was found to produce similar power to the Wilcoxon rank-sum test across all scenarios, being the best strategy for the scenarios of moderate mortality and duration, weak mortality and strong duration, and duration only.
In this study, we describe the relative power of new methods for analyzing ventilator-free days in critical care research. Our data provide validation and guidance for the use of the cumulative logistic model, median regression, generalized pairwise comparisons, and the conditional and truncated approach in specific scenarios.
Abstract
Crit Care Sci. 2024;36:e20240246en
DOI 10.62675/2965-2774.20240246-en
To discuss the strengths and limitations of ventilator-free days and to provide a comprehensive discussion of the different analytic methods for analyzing and interpreting this outcome.
Using simulations, the power of different analytical methods was assessed, namely: quantile (median) regression, cumulative logistic regression, generalized pairwise comparison, conditional approach and truncated approach. Overall, 3,000 simulations of a two-arm trial with n = 300 per arm were computed using a two-sided alternative hypothesis and a type I error rate of α = 0.05.
When considering power, median regression did not perform well in studies where the treatment effect was mainly driven by mortality. Median regression performed better in situations with a weak effect on mortality but a strong effect on duration, duration only, and moderate mortality and duration. Cumulative logistic regression was found to produce similar power to the Wilcoxon rank-sum test across all scenarios, being the best strategy for the scenarios of moderate mortality and duration, weak mortality and strong duration, and duration only.
In this study, we describe the relative power of new methods for analyzing ventilator-free days in critical care research. Our data provide validation and guidance for the use of the cumulative logistic model, median regression, generalized pairwise comparisons, and the conditional and truncated approach in specific scenarios.
, , , , Abstract
Crit Care Sci. 2024;36:e20240196en
DOI 10.62675/2965-2774.20240196-en
, , , , To provide insights into the potential benefits of goal-directed therapy guided by FloTrac in reducing postoperative complications and improving outcomes.
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to evaluate goal-directed therapy guided by FloTrac in major surgery, comparing goal-directed therapy with usual care or invasive monitoring in cardiac and noncardiac surgery subgroups. The quality of the articles and evidence were evaluated with a risk of bias tool and GRADE.
We included 29 randomized controlled trials with 3,468 patients. Goal-directed therapy significantly reduced the duration of hospital stay (mean difference -1.43 days; 95%CI 2.07 to -0.79; I2 81%), intensive care unit stay (mean difference -0.77 days; 95%CI -1.18 to -0.36; I2 93%), and mechanical ventilation (mean difference -2.48 hours, 95%CI -4.10 to -0.86, I2 63%). There was no statistically significant difference in mortality, myocardial infarction, acute kidney injury or hypotension, but goal-directed therapy significantly reduced the risk of heart failure or pulmonary edema (RR 0.46; 95%CI 0.23 - 0.92; I2 0%).
Goal-directed therapy guided by the FloTrac sensor improved clinical outcomes and shortened the length of stay in the hospital and intensive care unit in patients undergoing major surgery. Further research can validate these results using specific protocols and better understand the potential benefits of FloTrac beyond these outcomes.
Abstract
Crit Care Sci. 2024;36:e20240196en
DOI 10.62675/2965-2774.20240196-en
, , , , To provide insights into the potential benefits of goal-directed therapy guided by FloTrac in reducing postoperative complications and improving outcomes.
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to evaluate goal-directed therapy guided by FloTrac in major surgery, comparing goal-directed therapy with usual care or invasive monitoring in cardiac and noncardiac surgery subgroups. The quality of the articles and evidence were evaluated with a risk of bias tool and GRADE.
We included 29 randomized controlled trials with 3,468 patients. Goal-directed therapy significantly reduced the duration of hospital stay (mean difference -1.43 days; 95%CI 2.07 to -0.79; I2 81%), intensive care unit stay (mean difference -0.77 days; 95%CI -1.18 to -0.36; I2 93%), and mechanical ventilation (mean difference -2.48 hours, 95%CI -4.10 to -0.86, I2 63%). There was no statistically significant difference in mortality, myocardial infarction, acute kidney injury or hypotension, but goal-directed therapy significantly reduced the risk of heart failure or pulmonary edema (RR 0.46; 95%CI 0.23 - 0.92; I2 0%).
Goal-directed therapy guided by the FloTrac sensor improved clinical outcomes and shortened the length of stay in the hospital and intensive care unit in patients undergoing major surgery. Further research can validate these results using specific protocols and better understand the potential benefits of FloTrac beyond these outcomes.
, , , , , Abstract
Crit Care Sci. 2024;36:e20240208en
DOI 10.62675/2965-2774.20240208-en
, , , , , , , To evaluate the association between driving pressure and tidal volume based on predicted body weight and mortality in a cohort of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome caused by COVID-19.
This was a prospective, observational study that included patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome due to COVID-19 admitted to two intensive care units. We performed multivariable analyses to determine whether driving pressure and tidal volume/kg predicted body weight on the first day of mechanical ventilation, as independent variables, are associated with hospital mortality.
We included 231 patients. The mean age was 64 (53 - 74) years, and the mean Simplified Acute and Physiology Score 3 score was 45 (39 - 54). The hospital mortality rate was 51.9%. Driving pressure was independently associated with hospital mortality (odds ratio 1.21, 95%CI 1.04 - 1.41 for each cm H2O increase in driving pressure, p = 0.01). Based on a double stratification analysis, we found that for the same level of tidal volume/kg predicted body weight, the risk of hospital death increased with increasing driving pressure. However, changes in tidal volume/kg predicted body weight were not associated with mortality when they did not lead to an increase in driving pressure.
In patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome caused by COVID-19, exposure to higher driving pressure, as opposed to higher tidal volume/kg predicted body weight, is associated with greater mortality. These results suggest that driving pressure might be a primary target for lung-protective mechanical ventilation in these patients.
Abstract
Crit Care Sci. 2024;36:e20240208en
DOI 10.62675/2965-2774.20240208-en
, , , , , , , To evaluate the association between driving pressure and tidal volume based on predicted body weight and mortality in a cohort of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome caused by COVID-19.
This was a prospective, observational study that included patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome due to COVID-19 admitted to two intensive care units. We performed multivariable analyses to determine whether driving pressure and tidal volume/kg predicted body weight on the first day of mechanical ventilation, as independent variables, are associated with hospital mortality.
We included 231 patients. The mean age was 64 (53 - 74) years, and the mean Simplified Acute and Physiology Score 3 score was 45 (39 - 54). The hospital mortality rate was 51.9%. Driving pressure was independently associated with hospital mortality (odds ratio 1.21, 95%CI 1.04 - 1.41 for each cm H2O increase in driving pressure, p = 0.01). Based on a double stratification analysis, we found that for the same level of tidal volume/kg predicted body weight, the risk of hospital death increased with increasing driving pressure. However, changes in tidal volume/kg predicted body weight were not associated with mortality when they did not lead to an increase in driving pressure.
In patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome caused by COVID-19, exposure to higher driving pressure, as opposed to higher tidal volume/kg predicted body weight, is associated with greater mortality. These results suggest that driving pressure might be a primary target for lung-protective mechanical ventilation in these patients.
, , , , , Abstract
Crit Care Sci. 2024;36:e20240284en
DOI 10.62675/2965-2774.20240284-en
, , , , , , , , , , , , To examine the physical function and respiratory muscle strength of patients - who recovered from critical COVID-19 – after intensive care unit discharge to the ward on Days one (D1) and seven (D7), and to investigate variables associated with functional impairment.
This was a prospective cohort study of adult patients with COVID-19 who needed invasive mechanical ventilation, non-invasive ventilation or high-flow nasal cannula and were discharged from the intensive care unit to the ward. Participants were submitted to Medical Research Council sum-score, handgrip strength, maximal inspiratory pressure, maximal expiratory pressure, and short physical performance battery tests. Participants were grouped into two groups according to their need for invasive ventilation: the Invasive Mechanical Ventilation Group (IMV Group) and the Non-Invasive Mechanical Ventilation Group (Non-IMV Group).
Patients in the IMV Group (n = 31) were younger and had higher Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores than those in the Non-IMV Group (n = 33). The short physical performance battery scores (range 0 - 12) on D1 and D7 were 6.1 ± 4.3 and 7.3 ± 3.8, respectively for the Non-Invasive Mechanical Ventilation Group, and 1.3 ± 2.5 and 2.6 ± 3.7, respectively for the IMV Group. The prevalence of intensive care unit-acquired weakness on D7 was 13% for the Non-IMV Group and 72% for the IMV Group. The maximal inspiratory pressure, maximal expiratory pressure, and handgrip strength increased on D7 in both groups, but the maximal expiratory pressure and handgrip strength were still weak. Only maximal inspiratory pressure was recovered (i.e., > 80% of the predicted value) in the Non-IMV Group. Female sex, and the need and duration of invasive mechanical were independently and negatively associated with the short physical performance battery score and handgrip strength.
Patients who recovered from critical COVID-19 and who received invasive mechanical ventilation presented greater disability than those who were not invasively ventilated. However, they both showed marginal functional improvement during early recovery, regardless of the need for invasive mechanical ventilation. This might highlight the severity of disability caused by SARS-CoV-2.
Abstract
Crit Care Sci. 2024;36:e20240284en
DOI 10.62675/2965-2774.20240284-en
, , , , , , , , , , , , To examine the physical function and respiratory muscle strength of patients - who recovered from critical COVID-19 – after intensive care unit discharge to the ward on Days one (D1) and seven (D7), and to investigate variables associated with functional impairment.
This was a prospective cohort study of adult patients with COVID-19 who needed invasive mechanical ventilation, non-invasive ventilation or high-flow nasal cannula and were discharged from the intensive care unit to the ward. Participants were submitted to Medical Research Council sum-score, handgrip strength, maximal inspiratory pressure, maximal expiratory pressure, and short physical performance battery tests. Participants were grouped into two groups according to their need for invasive ventilation: the Invasive Mechanical Ventilation Group (IMV Group) and the Non-Invasive Mechanical Ventilation Group (Non-IMV Group).
Patients in the IMV Group (n = 31) were younger and had higher Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores than those in the Non-IMV Group (n = 33). The short physical performance battery scores (range 0 - 12) on D1 and D7 were 6.1 ± 4.3 and 7.3 ± 3.8, respectively for the Non-Invasive Mechanical Ventilation Group, and 1.3 ± 2.5 and 2.6 ± 3.7, respectively for the IMV Group. The prevalence of intensive care unit-acquired weakness on D7 was 13% for the Non-IMV Group and 72% for the IMV Group. The maximal inspiratory pressure, maximal expiratory pressure, and handgrip strength increased on D7 in both groups, but the maximal expiratory pressure and handgrip strength were still weak. Only maximal inspiratory pressure was recovered (i.e., > 80% of the predicted value) in the Non-IMV Group. Female sex, and the need and duration of invasive mechanical were independently and negatively associated with the short physical performance battery score and handgrip strength.
Patients who recovered from critical COVID-19 and who received invasive mechanical ventilation presented greater disability than those who were not invasively ventilated. However, they both showed marginal functional improvement during early recovery, regardless of the need for invasive mechanical ventilation. This might highlight the severity of disability caused by SARS-CoV-2.
, , , , , Abstract
Crit Care Sci. 2024;36:e20240144en
DOI 10.62675/2965-2774.20240144-pt
, , , , , , To determine whether enteral melatonin decreases the incidence of delirium in critically ill adults.
In this randomized controlled trial, adults were admitted to the intensive care unit and received either usual standard care alone (Control Group) or in combination with 3mg of enteral melatonin once a day at 9 PM (Melatonin Group). Concealment of allocation was done by serially numbered opaque sealed envelopes. The intensivist assessing delirium and the investigator performing the data analysis were blinded to the group allocation. The primary outcome was the incidence of delirium within 24 hours of the intensive care unit stay. The secondary outcomes were the incidence of delirium on Days 3 and 7, intensive care unit mortality, length of intensive care unit stay, duration of mechanical ventilation and Glasgow outcome score (at discharge).
We included 108 patients in the final analysis, with 54 patients in each group. At 24 hours of intensive care unit stay, there was no difference in the incidence of delirium between Melatonin and Control Groups (29.6 versus 46.2%; RR = 0.6; 95%CI 0.38 - 1.05; p = 0.11). No secondary outcome showed a statistically significant difference.
Enteral melatonin 3mg is not more effective at decreasing the incidence of delirium than standard care is in critically ill adults.
Abstract
Crit Care Sci. 2024;36:e20240144en
DOI 10.62675/2965-2774.20240144-pt
, , , , , , To determine whether enteral melatonin decreases the incidence of delirium in critically ill adults.
In this randomized controlled trial, adults were admitted to the intensive care unit and received either usual standard care alone (Control Group) or in combination with 3mg of enteral melatonin once a day at 9 PM (Melatonin Group). Concealment of allocation was done by serially numbered opaque sealed envelopes. The intensivist assessing delirium and the investigator performing the data analysis were blinded to the group allocation. The primary outcome was the incidence of delirium within 24 hours of the intensive care unit stay. The secondary outcomes were the incidence of delirium on Days 3 and 7, intensive care unit mortality, length of intensive care unit stay, duration of mechanical ventilation and Glasgow outcome score (at discharge).
We included 108 patients in the final analysis, with 54 patients in each group. At 24 hours of intensive care unit stay, there was no difference in the incidence of delirium between Melatonin and Control Groups (29.6 versus 46.2%; RR = 0.6; 95%CI 0.38 - 1.05; p = 0.11). No secondary outcome showed a statistically significant difference.
Enteral melatonin 3mg is not more effective at decreasing the incidence of delirium than standard care is in critically ill adults.
, , , , , Abstract
Crit Care Sci. 2024;36:e20240176en
DOI 10.62675/2965-2774.20240176-en
, , , , , To systematically review the effect of the prone position on endotracheal intubation and mortality in nonintubated COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome.
We registered the protocol (CRD42021286711) and searched for four databases and gray literature from inception to December 31, 2022. We included observational studies and clinical trials. There was no limit by date or the language of publication. We excluded case reports, case series, studies not available in full text, and those studies that included children < 18-years-old.
We included ten observational studies, eight clinical trials, 3,969 patients, 1,120 endotracheal intubation events, and 843 deaths. All of the studies had a low risk of bias (Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Risk of Bias 2 tools). We found that the conscious prone position decreased the odds of endotracheal intubation by 44% (OR 0.56; 95%CI 0.40 - 0.78) and mortality by 43% (OR 0.57; 95%CI 0.39 - 0.84) in nonintubated COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. This protective effect on endotracheal intubation and mortality was more robust in those who spent > 8 hours/day in the conscious prone position (OR 0.43; 95%CI 0.26 - 0.72 and OR 0.38; 95%CI 0.24 - 0.60, respectively). The certainty of the evidence according to the GRADE criteria was moderate.
The conscious prone position decreased the odds of endotracheal intubation and mortality, especially when patients spent over 8 hours/day in the conscious prone position and treatment in the intensive care unit. However, our results should be cautiously interpreted due to limitations in evaluating randomized clinical trials, nonrandomized clinical trials and observational studies. However, despite systematic reviews with meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials, we must keep in mind that these studies remain heterogeneous from a clinical and methodological point of view.
Abstract
Crit Care Sci. 2024;36:e20240176en
DOI 10.62675/2965-2774.20240176-en
, , , , , To systematically review the effect of the prone position on endotracheal intubation and mortality in nonintubated COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome.
We registered the protocol (CRD42021286711) and searched for four databases and gray literature from inception to December 31, 2022. We included observational studies and clinical trials. There was no limit by date or the language of publication. We excluded case reports, case series, studies not available in full text, and those studies that included children < 18-years-old.
We included ten observational studies, eight clinical trials, 3,969 patients, 1,120 endotracheal intubation events, and 843 deaths. All of the studies had a low risk of bias (Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Risk of Bias 2 tools). We found that the conscious prone position decreased the odds of endotracheal intubation by 44% (OR 0.56; 95%CI 0.40 - 0.78) and mortality by 43% (OR 0.57; 95%CI 0.39 - 0.84) in nonintubated COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. This protective effect on endotracheal intubation and mortality was more robust in those who spent > 8 hours/day in the conscious prone position (OR 0.43; 95%CI 0.26 - 0.72 and OR 0.38; 95%CI 0.24 - 0.60, respectively). The certainty of the evidence according to the GRADE criteria was moderate.
The conscious prone position decreased the odds of endotracheal intubation and mortality, especially when patients spent over 8 hours/day in the conscious prone position and treatment in the intensive care unit. However, our results should be cautiously interpreted due to limitations in evaluating randomized clinical trials, nonrandomized clinical trials and observational studies. However, despite systematic reviews with meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials, we must keep in mind that these studies remain heterogeneous from a clinical and methodological point of view.
Abstract
Crit Care Sci. 2024;36:e20240158en
DOI 10.62675/2965-2774.20240158-en
To evaluate the association of biomarkers with successful ventilatory weaning in COVID-19 patients.
An observational, retrospective, and single-center study was conducted between March 2020 and April 2021. C-reactive protein, total lymphocytes, and the neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio were evaluated during attrition and extubation, and the variation in these biomarker values was measured. The primary outcome was successful extubation. ROC curves were drawn to find the best cutoff points for the biomarkers based on sensitivity and specificity. Statistical analysis was performed using logistic regression.
Of the 2,377 patients admitted to the intensive care unit, 458 were included in the analysis, 356 in the Successful Weaning Group and 102 in the Failure Group. The cutoff points found from the ROC curves were −62.4% for C-reactive protein, +45.7% for total lymphocytes, and −32.9% for neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio. These points were significantly associated with greater extubation success. In the multivariate analysis, only C-reactive protein variation remained statistically significant (OR 2.6; 95%CI 1.51 – 4.5; p < 0.001).
In this study, a decrease in C-reactive protein levels was associated with successful extubation in COVID-19 patients. Total lymphocytes and the neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio did not maintain the association after multivariate analysis. However, a decrease in C-reactive protein levels should not be used as a sole variable to identify COVID-19 patients suitable for weaning; as in our study, the area under the ROC curve demonstrated poor accuracy in discriminating extubation outcomes, with low sensitivity and specificity.
Abstract
Crit Care Sci. 2024;36:e20240158en
DOI 10.62675/2965-2774.20240158-en
To evaluate the association of biomarkers with successful ventilatory weaning in COVID-19 patients.
An observational, retrospective, and single-center study was conducted between March 2020 and April 2021. C-reactive protein, total lymphocytes, and the neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio were evaluated during attrition and extubation, and the variation in these biomarker values was measured. The primary outcome was successful extubation. ROC curves were drawn to find the best cutoff points for the biomarkers based on sensitivity and specificity. Statistical analysis was performed using logistic regression.
Of the 2,377 patients admitted to the intensive care unit, 458 were included in the analysis, 356 in the Successful Weaning Group and 102 in the Failure Group. The cutoff points found from the ROC curves were −62.4% for C-reactive protein, +45.7% for total lymphocytes, and −32.9% for neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio. These points were significantly associated with greater extubation success. In the multivariate analysis, only C-reactive protein variation remained statistically significant (OR 2.6; 95%CI 1.51 – 4.5; p < 0.001).
In this study, a decrease in C-reactive protein levels was associated with successful extubation in COVID-19 patients. Total lymphocytes and the neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio did not maintain the association after multivariate analysis. However, a decrease in C-reactive protein levels should not be used as a sole variable to identify COVID-19 patients suitable for weaning; as in our study, the area under the ROC curve demonstrated poor accuracy in discriminating extubation outcomes, with low sensitivity and specificity.
, , , , , Abstract
Crit Care Sci. 2023;35(4):355-366
DOI 10.5935/2965-2774.20230015-pt
, , , , , , , , , To compare, within a cohort of patients with acute respiratory failure, the phenotypes of patients with and without COVID-19 in the context of the pandemic and evaluate whether COVID-19 is an independent predictor of intensive care unit mortality.
This historical cohort study evaluated 1001 acute respiratory failure patients with suspected COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit of 8 hospitals. Patients were classified as COVID-19 cases and non-COVID-19 cases according to real-time polymerase chain reaction results. Data on clinical and demographic characteristics were collected on intensive care unit admission, as well as daily clinical and laboratory data and intensive care unit outcomes.
Although the groups did not differ in terms of APACHE II or SOFA scores at admission, the COVID-19 group had more initial symptoms of fever, myalgia and diarrhea, had a longer duration of symptoms, and had a higher prevalence of obesity. They also had a lower PaO2/FiO2 ratio, lower platelet levels than non-COVID-19 patients, and more metabolic changes, such as higher levels of blood glucose, C-reactive protein, and lactic dehydrogenase. Patients with non-COVID-19 acute respiratory failure had a higher prevalence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease/asthma and cardiopathy. Patients with COVID-19 stayed in the hospital longer and had more complications, such as acute kidney failure, severe acute respiratory distress syndrome and severe infection. The all-cause mortality rate was also higher in this group (43.7% in the COVID-19 group versus 27.4% in the non-COVID-19 group). The diagnosis of COVID-19 was a predictor of intensive care unit mortality (odds ratio, 2.77; 95%CI, 1.89 - 4.07; p < 0.001), regardless of age or Charlson Comorbidity Index score.
In a prospective cohort of patients admitted with acute respiratory failure, patients with COVID-19 had a clearly different phenotype and a higher mortality than non-COVID-19 patients. This may help to outline more accurate screening and appropriate and timely treatment for these patients.
Abstract
Crit Care Sci. 2023;35(4):355-366
DOI 10.5935/2965-2774.20230015-pt
, , , , , , , , , To compare, within a cohort of patients with acute respiratory failure, the phenotypes of patients with and without COVID-19 in the context of the pandemic and evaluate whether COVID-19 is an independent predictor of intensive care unit mortality.
This historical cohort study evaluated 1001 acute respiratory failure patients with suspected COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit of 8 hospitals. Patients were classified as COVID-19 cases and non-COVID-19 cases according to real-time polymerase chain reaction results. Data on clinical and demographic characteristics were collected on intensive care unit admission, as well as daily clinical and laboratory data and intensive care unit outcomes.
Although the groups did not differ in terms of APACHE II or SOFA scores at admission, the COVID-19 group had more initial symptoms of fever, myalgia and diarrhea, had a longer duration of symptoms, and had a higher prevalence of obesity. They also had a lower PaO2/FiO2 ratio, lower platelet levels than non-COVID-19 patients, and more metabolic changes, such as higher levels of blood glucose, C-reactive protein, and lactic dehydrogenase. Patients with non-COVID-19 acute respiratory failure had a higher prevalence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease/asthma and cardiopathy. Patients with COVID-19 stayed in the hospital longer and had more complications, such as acute kidney failure, severe acute respiratory distress syndrome and severe infection. The all-cause mortality rate was also higher in this group (43.7% in the COVID-19 group versus 27.4% in the non-COVID-19 group). The diagnosis of COVID-19 was a predictor of intensive care unit mortality (odds ratio, 2.77; 95%CI, 1.89 - 4.07; p < 0.001), regardless of age or Charlson Comorbidity Index score.
In a prospective cohort of patients admitted with acute respiratory failure, patients with COVID-19 had a clearly different phenotype and a higher mortality than non-COVID-19 patients. This may help to outline more accurate screening and appropriate and timely treatment for these patients.
Search
Search in:
Case reports (56) Child (53) Coronavirus infections (34) COVID-19 (46) Critical care (116) Critical illness (54) Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (26) Infant, newborn (27) Intensive care (72) Intensive care units (256) Intensive care units, pediatric (31) mechanical ventilation (38) Mortality (76) Physical therapy modalities (28) Prognosis (61) Respiration, artificial (119) Respiratory insufficiency (26) risk factors (34) SARS-CoV-2 (28) Sepsis (98)