Longer Prehospitalization and Preintubation Periods in Intubated Non-survivors and ECMO Patients With COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Abstract

Purpose: There is no clear consensus on the clinical course of critical COVID-19 patients. We examined the clinical course among intubated survivors, non-survivors, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) patients to reveal the standard clinical course and the difference among critical COVID-19 patients.

Methods: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus for original studies published until December 11, 2020, including case accumulation and clinical course reporting. Pregnant patients and children were excluded. We followed PRISMA guidelines and registered them with PROSPERO (CRD42021235534).

Results: Of the 11,716 studies identified, 94 met the selection criteria, and 2,549 cases were included in this meta-analysis. The times from intubation to extubation and death were 12.07 days (95% confidence interval 9.80–14.33 days) and 10.14 days (8.18–12.10 days), respectively, and the ECMO duration was 14.72 days (10.57–18.87 days). The time from symptom onset to hospitalization (prehospitalization period) of intubated survivors, non-survivors, and ECMO patients was 6.15 (4.61–7.69 days), 6.45 (4.55–8.34 days), and 7.15 days (6.48–7.81 days), and that from symptom onset to intubation (preintubation period) was 8.58 (7.36–9.80 days), 9.14 (7.26–11.01 days), and 10.54 days (9.18–11.90 days), respectively. Sensitivity analysis showed that the time from intubation to extubation and death was longer in the US and Europe than in East Asia.

Conclusion: For COVID-19, we hypothesize that prehospitalization and preintubation periods are longer in intubated non-survivors and ECMO patients than in intubated survivors. These periods may serve as a predictor of disease severity or death and support therapeutic strategy determination.

Introduction

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and was first reported in Wuhan, China, in December 2019 (1). As of August 2021, COVID-19 had spread to 223 countries, areas, or territories, and the global cumulative case numbers have reached 197 million. Over 4.2 million COVID-19 patients have died since the start of the pandemic (2), even though every government has taken aggressive preventive measures such as lockdown (3), universal masking (4), and social distancing (4). The hospitalization rate of COVID-19 is reportedly 14% (almost 10 times higher than influenza) (5–7). Moreover, up to 26.1% of hospitalized COVID-19 patients are admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) (8). Therefore, COVID-19 has placed an unprecedented burden on the ICU, and in some regions, ICU capacity exceeds 100% with only COVID-19 patients because of the astonishing number, high rate of ICU admission, and long clinical course (9). Furthermore, 71–88% of COVID-19 patients in the ICU need intubation (2.45–4.01 times higher than influenza) (10–14), and 3–27.2% of intubated COVID-19 patients require ECMO (10, 15). Overall, the high occupancy rate of hospital beds and ICUs by COVID-19 patients is a serious problem worldwide.

The clinical course of patients with severe COVID-19 from symptom onset to clinical events is highly informative when considering prognosis, therapeutic strategy, ICU bed management, and medical economy. Nevertheless, comparing each patient's clinical course with the standard clinical course of COVID-19 is difficult because there is no consensus to date regarding the standard clinical course. For example, the duration of intubation has been reported to be 10–16 days (16, 17), yet both the patients' backgrounds and regions where the studies were conducted differed in these reports. Moreover, known risk factors for COVID-19 mortality include age (18), sex (19), comorbidities (19), and blood counts (absolute lymphocyte number and CRP) (20); however, few articles have assessed differences in the clinical course between intubated survivors, non-survivors, and ECMO patients.

In this study, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the clinical course, i.e., time (days) from symptom onset, hospitalization, intubation, and ECMO initiation to each clinical event in critical COVID-19 patients. We also assessed the difference in the clinical course between intubated survivors, non-survivors, and ECMO patients with COVID-19 to reveal whether the clinical course is a prognostic factor. Finally, we conducted sensitivity analysis to assess factors (patient background and region) that may influence the time from intubation to extubation or death.

Methods

Search Strategy and Selection Criteria

This meta-analysis was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement (Supplementary Table 1) (21). This study searched for articles documenting the clinical course in critical COVID-19 patients: the time (days) from symptom onset to hospitalization (prehospitalization period) to intubation (preintubation period) and to ECMO initiation (pre-ECMO period); the time from hospitalization to intubation (hospitalization-intubation period) and to ECMO initiation (hospitalization-ECMO period), discharge (hospitalization-discharge period), and death (hospitalization-death period); the time from hospitalization to death (hospitalization-death period); the time from intubation to extubation (intubation period), to ECMO (intubation-ECMO period), and to death (intubation-death period); and the time from ECMO initiation to decannulation (ECMO period) and to death (ECMO-death period). Three sources, namely, PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus, were searched [(COVID-19) OR (SARS-CoV-2) AND (intensive care unit) OR (acute respiratory distress syndrome) OR (mechanical ventilation) OR (extracorporeal membrane oxygenation)], with no language restriction. The searches were performed to identify articles published until December 11th, 2020, when the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine was first approved in the world, including “online first” articles, published until December 11, 2020, when the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine was first approved. The last searches were performed on June 26, 2021.

The inclusion criteria were studies of human subjects, case accumulations, a title or abstract consisting of the clinical course of intubated survivors, non-survivors, and/or ECMO patients with COVID-19, and a link from the search site to the full text (PDF or website) of the article. In this study, “survivors” referred to extubated patients who had not died during the study period. This study excluded studies involving children (under 18 years old) and pregnant women and non-English articles; a case report was also excluded because properly calculating the average value and standard deviation (SD) was difficult. Redundancies between the search sites were eliminated, i.e., individual studies were counted only once in this analysis.

Data Extraction and Quality Assessment

Data were extracted from all studies included in this analysis (author, year of publication, country where the study was conducted, number of patients, age, percentage of males, comorbidities, and treatment); the details are provided in Table 1. The average number of days and SD showing each clinical course or the median number of days and interquartile range (IQR) and/or range were extracted. The average number of days and SD were calculated from the median and IQR or range data using the reported methods if only the median and IQR or range were given in the study (22).

Two authors (K.F. and T.M.) independently assessed and selected references. In cases of inconsistent results, a third author (A.K.) provided an opinion to resolve the issue. The quality of the selected studies was evaluated according to the study quality assessment tools (Quality Assessment Tool for Case Series Studies) from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) (23). The evidence level was assessed based on the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine 2011 (24). Asymmetry in a funnel plot was employed to determine publication bias.

Data Analysis

A meta-analysis was performed to estimate the clinical course of intubated survivors, non-survivors, and ECMO patients with COVID-19. Clinical data were analyzed using the metamean package. Outcomes are described as the mean number of days at each event, such as admission, intubation, or death from the onset of COVID-19 (baseline) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each clinical course. For all outcomes, mean differences were calculated using the random-effects model (DerSimonian and Laird method) (25). I² values of 25, 50, and 75% were defined as low, moderate, and high, respectively (26). All analyses were conducted using R version 4.0.3 (R Project for Statistical Computing) (27). Sensitivity analyses were carried out with regard to the intubation period and intubation-death period based on region (East Asia, the US, and Europe), age, sex, and comorbidities (hypertension and diabetes mellitus). Spearman's correlation coefficient was calculated in R version 4.0.3. P values ≤ 0.05 were considered statistically significant. This study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021235534).

Results

We identified 17,259 articles and excluded 5,543 due to duplication. We also screened 11,716 publications and identified 94 articles (15–17, 28–118), with 2,549 cases, from among 1,559 articles that underwent full-text assessment (Figure 1). Each article is summarized in Supplementary Table 1. The mean age ranged from 38 to 75 years, and the rate of male patients ranged from 0% to 100%. COVID-19 patients were reportedly treated with glucocorticoids, tocilizumab/sarilumab, remdesivir, and hydroxychloroquine; however, treatment was not described in more than 70% of the articles. There were 36 articles from the US, 19 from China, ten from France, seven from Italy, five from Japan, and a few from other countries. Despite several cohort studies, there were few intubated survivors and non-survivors, and most were case accumulations. Therefore, the risk of bias was calculated based on case accumulation. The risk of bias was more than 5 points, with 6.71 points as the average, i.e., moderate risk (Supplementary Table 2).

Figure 1

Moreover, we conducted a meta-analysis on the clinical course of intubated survivors, non-survivors, and ECMO patients with COVID-19. First, we analyzed the intubation period and the intubation-death period of intubated survivors and non-survivors. Thirty-three reports with 325 survivors and 24 reports with 1,225 non-survivors were identified and analyzed (Figure 2). The average intubation period among intubated survivors was 12.07 days (95% CIs 9.80–14.33 days), and the average intubation-death period was 10.14 days (8.18–12.10 days). The prehospitalization periods for intubated survivors and non-survivors were 6.15 (4.61–7.69 days) and 6.45 (4.55–8.34 days) days, respectively, and the preintubation periods were 8.58 days (7.36–9.80 days) and 9.64 days (7.75–11.53 days), respectively. A symptom-death period of 17.86 days (13.02–22.69 days) was calculated (Figure 3). Additionally, the hospitalization-intubation period among intubated survivors and non-survivors was 2.62 days (1.66–3.58 days) and 3.28 days (2.15–4.41 days), respectively; the hospitalization-discharge and hospitalization-death periods were 24.48 days (12.54–36.41 days) and 12.47 days (10.56–14.39 days), respectively (Figure 4). Funnel plots are illustrated in Supplementary Figure 1.

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

Regarding the clinical course of those treated with ECMO, the ECMO period of both survivors and non-survivors and the ECMO-death period were 14.72 days (10.57–18.87 days) and 21.05 days (12.04–30.07 days), respectively (Supplementary Figure 2). For ECMO patients, the prehospitalization, preintubation, and pre-ECMO periods were 7.15 (6.48–7.81 days), 10.54 (9.18–11.90 days), and 14.80 (13.29–16.31 days) days, respectively, and the hospitalization-intubation, hospitalization-ECMO, and intubation-ECMO periods were 3.39 (2.08–4.69 days), 5.97 (3.91–8.02 days), and 4.57 (3.59–5.54 days) days, respectively (data not shown).

The results provided above are summarized in Figure 5. The prehospitalization and preintubation periods of intubated non-survivors and ECMO patients appeared to be longer than those of intubated survivors (no direct comparison).

Figure 5

Finally, sensitivity analysis focusing on regional differences and patient backgrounds was performed. The regions where the studies were conducted were classified into three groups: Europe, the US, and East Asia. The intubation period was 14.87 days (10.99–18.76 days), 12.61 days (10.50–14.72 days), and 9.66 days (5.07–14.25 days) in Europe, the US, and East Asia (Supplementary Figure 3), and the intubation-death period was 13.05 days (9.53–16.58 days), 11.34 days (8.06–14.61 days), and 5.39 days (-1.14–11.91 days), respectively. Both the intubation period and intubation-death period tended to be longer in the US and Europe than in East Asia. Nevertheless, the mean age of intubated survivors did not differ much among Europe [64.85 (60.84–68.85)], the US [58.09 (49.32–66.87)], and Asia [61.64 (57.20–66.07)]; the mean age of intubated non-survivors was 67.86 (65.86–69.86) in Europe and 70.67 (61.88–79.46) in the US [one paper reported that the mean age of non-survivors in China was 65 (±4)]. We also analyzed age, sex, and comorbidities (diabetes mellitus and hypertension) but found no significant differences (data not shown).

Discussion

This study demonstrated the clinical course and differences among the clinical courses of intubated survivors, non-survivors, and ECMO patients with COVID-19. In this meta-analysis, intubation, intubation-death, and ECMO periods were 12.07 days (9.80–14.33 days), 10.14 days (8.18–12.10 days), and 14.72 days (10.57–18.87 days), respectively. The prehospitalization periods of intubated survivors, non-survivors, and ECMO patients were 6.15 days (4.61–7.69 days), 6.45 days (4.55–8.34 days), and 7.15 days (6.48–7.81 days), respectively, and the preintubation periods were 8.58 days (7.36–9.80 days), 9.14 days (7.26–11.01 days), and 10.54 days (9.18–11.90 days), respectively. According to sensitivity analysis, the intubation period in survivors and the intubation-death period were longer in the US and Europe than in East Asia.

For COVID-19, the intubation period in survivors and the intubation-death period appear to be more prolonged than those in patients intubated for other diseases or reasons. In addition, the intubation periods in survivors and non-survivors were 12.1 days and 10 days, respectively. In contrast, previously reported intubation periods in ICU patients, including postoperative patients, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients, pneumocystis pneumonia survivors, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) patients, community-acquired pneumonia patients, and SARS-CoV-1 pneumonia survivors, were 3.3 ± 3 days (mortality 24.3%) (119), 6.8 ± 4.9 days (mortality 13%) (120), 7.7 ± 8.2 days (121), 8.8 (± 6) days (122), 10–11 days (123), 12.1 ± 6.1 days (124), and 7.3–15 days (mean days are calculated from each original datum) (125–127), respectively. One study comparing COVID-19 with influenza found that the intubation period in COVID-19 patients was longer than that in influenza patients (16.2 vs. 7.3 days) (127). Thus, the intubation period in COVID-19 survivors is prolonged compared with that in patients intubated due to COPD, HIV-PCP, and influenza. However, approximately the same duration has been observed for patients intubated due to community-acquired pneumonia and SARS-CoV-1 or COVID-19.

Moreover, the ECMO period in COVID-19 patients was not longer than that in patients with ARDS for other reasons. Although ECMO is commonly used during cardiac surgery, severe ARDS patients (aPaO₂:FiO₂ of <80 mmHg, a Murray score >3.0 and pH <7.20) have been treated with ECMO, improving the survival rate to more than 50% (128, 129). Accordingly, critical COVID-19 patients also receive ECMO. In our meta-analysis, the ECMO period with COVID-19 was 14.72 days (10.57–18.87 days); in previous reports, the ECMO period in severe ARDS patients was 10.3 ± 7.5 (mean days were calculated from the data) days (128) and 15 ± 13 days (129), and that in severe ARDS patients with influenza was 10 days (130). These data indicate that the ECMO period in COVID-19 patients is not as long as we expected. We presume that time is needed to improve both ARDS caused by COVID-19 and ARDS caused by other reasons, as recovery in patients with critical ARDS is difficult.

In this study, the preintubation period was longer in intubated survivors than in intubated non-survivors or ECMO patients. This tendency was also observed when assessing data for the prehospitalization and hospitalization-intubation periods, despite no direct comparison. Indeed, the time from symptom onset to pneumonia was longer in COVID-19 patients with severe disease than in those without severe disease (131), the time from symptom onset to dyspnea and hospitalization in ICU COVID-19 patients was longer than that in non-ICU COVID-19 patients, and the time from symptom onset to ICU admission tended to be longer in COVID-19 non-survivors than in COVID-19 survivors (10).

There are two possibilities for these findings. First, hospitalization delay and lack of medical resources may contribute to the result. COVID-19 pandemic forces people to self-restraint, and it leads to hospitalization delay. Moreover, a shortage of ventilators also leads to intubation delay and poor prognosis (132–134). In fact, the hospitalization-intubation period among non-survivors, and ECMO patients tended to be longer than that among intubated survivors; the hospitalization-intubation period among intubated survivors, non-survivors, and ECMO patients with COVID-19 was 2.62 days (1.66–3.58 days), 3.28 days (2.15–4.41 days), and 3.39 (2.08–4.69 days), respectively. Second, a critical condition itself leads to a long prehospitalization period. Although the mechanism has yet to be elucidated, some of the COVID-19 patients experience asymptomatic hypoxia, which is also called “silent hypoxia.” In COVID-19 patients, 28.1% of hospitalized patients are estimated to have “silent hypoxia;” 33% of hospitalized patients with “silent hypoxia” are admitted to the ICU, and 25.9% of hospitalized patients with “silent hypoxia” die (135). Hence, “silent hypoxia” itself is a critical condition that leads to a long prehospitalization period. In this situation, monitoring blood oxygen, early hospitalization with oxygen supplementation, and systemic management arguably lead to a better prognosis.

The reasons why the intubation period was shorter in East Asia than in the US and Europe may include selection bias, information bias, differences in treatment, ventilator and ICU bed availability, race, and genetics. We detected bias concerning the East Asia data, which showed minor variations in regions and faculties compared to those from the US and Europe because East Asia's data were mainly from China, especially Wuhan. The shortage of ventilators and ICU beds has been highlighted in the US and Europe (132, 136), and it arguably contributed to a delay of intubation and a prolonged clinical course. Race and genetic background are also possible reasons for the observed clinical differences among regions. For example, data from the US show that Asians were hospitalized less but that Black and Hispanics were hospitalized more (137, 138). Sixteen percent of the genes were derived from Neanderthals, one of the prognostic factors maintained in Europe (almost 0% in East Asia) (139). GWASs have revealed that SNPs and blood type, the percentages of which differ among races and regions, are also prognostic factors. Thus, an international cohort study is needed to reveal the difference in clinical course between race and region.

Limitations

There were also some limitations in this meta-analysis. Although many studies were included, more studies and patients are needed. Furthermore, heterogeneity was high because it was difficult to standardize the patients' backgrounds. This study revealed the clinical course of survivors and non-survivors, but a direct comparison with survivors and non-survivors is still needed. Clinical information, for example, age, BMI, cardiac disease, kidney disease, and chronic obstructive disease, was not sufficiently described in the cases we included, and articles in some of the countries reporting were limited. Social information was also not described in the cases we included; however, whether social information, such as patient or national income level, affects the clinical course is of great interest. Moreover, differences in viral strain and treatment including anti-inflammatory treatment, because of the study period. In general, comparing clinical data with our data will reveal more knowledge about COVID-19.

Conclusions

Our data indicate that prehospitalization and intubation periods were longer in intubated non-survivors and ECMO patients than in intubated survivors with COVID-19. These periods might serve as predictors of disease severity or death and support therapeutic strategy determination. In the near future, viral strains and treatments should be taken into account when evaluating the clinical course of COVID-19.

Funding

This work was supported by research grants from the Center of Innovation program (COISTREAM) from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan (MEXT) (to AK), the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) KAKENHI (JP18H05282 to AK), the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development (AMED) (J200705023, J200705710, J200705049, JP18cm016335, JP18cm059042, and J210705582 to AK), a grant from the Kansai Economic Federation (KANKEIREN), and Grants from Mitsubishi Foundation (to AK). This work was also supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) KAKENHI (JP21K16287 to TM).

Publisher's Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

References

• 1.

  LiQGuanXWuPWangXZhouLTongYet al. Early transmission dynamics in Wuhan, China, of novel coronavirus-infected pneumonia. N Engl J Med. (2020) 382:1199–207. 10.1056/NEJMoa2001316

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 2.

  Weekly Epidemiological Update on COVID-19,. (2021). Available online at: https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/weekly-epidemiological-update-on-covid-19-−3-august-2021 (accessed August 5, 2021).

  • Google Scholar

• 3.

  FlaxmanSMishraSGandyAUnwinHJTMellanTACouplandHet al. Estimating the effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions on COVID-19 in Europe. Nature. (2020) 584:257–61. 10.1038/s41586-020-2405-7

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 4.

  ChuDKAklEADudaSSoloKYaacoubSSchünemannHJet al. Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. (2020) 395:1973–87. 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31142-9

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 5.

  WuZMcGooganJM. Characteristics of and important lessons from the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak in china: summary of a report of 72 314 cases from the chinese center for disease control and prevention. JAMA. (2020) 323:1239–42. 10.1001/jama.2020.2648

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 6.

  StokesEKZambranoLDAndersonKNMarderEPRazKMEl Burai FelixSet al. Coronavirus disease 2019 case surveillance - United States, January 22-May 30, 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. (2020) 69:759–65. 10.15585/mmwr.mm6924e2

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 7.

  CDC. Disease Burden of Influenza. (2020). Available online at: https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/index.html (accessed June 1, 2021).

  • Google Scholar

• 8.

  WangDHuBHuCZhuFLiuXZhangJet al. Clinical characteristics of 138 hospitalized patients with 2019 novel coronavirus-infected pneumonia in Wuhan, China. JAMA. (2020) 323:1061–9. 10.1001/jama.2020.1585

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 9.

  BravataDMPerkinsAJMyersLJArlingGZhangYZillichAJet al. Association of intensive care unit patient load and demand with mortality rates in US department of veterans affairs hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic. JAMA Netw Open. (2021) 4:e2034266. 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.34266

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 10.

  YangXYuYXuJShuHXiaJ 'anLiuHet al. Clinical course and outcomes of critically ill patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia in Wuhan, China: a single-centered, retrospective, observational study. Lancet Res Med. (2020) 8:475–81. 10.1016/S2213-2600(20)30079-5

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 11.

  ArentzMYimEKlaffLLokhandwalaSRiedoFXChongMet al. Characteristics and outcomes of 21 critically ill patients with COVID-19 in Washington State. JAMA. (2020) 323:1612–4. 10.1001/jama.2020.4326

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 12.

  GrasselliGZangrilloAZanellaAAntonelliMCabriniLCastelliAet al. Baseline characteristics and outcomes of 1591 patients infected with sars-cov-2 admitted to ICUs of the lombardy region, Italy. JAMA. (2020) 323:1574–81. 10.1001/jama.2020.5394

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 13.

  PirothLCottenetJMarietA-SBonniaudPBlotMTubert-BitterPet al. Comparison of the characteristics, morbidity, and mortality of COVID-19 and seasonal influenza: a nationwide, population-based retrospective cohort study. Lancet Respir Med. (2021) 9:251–9. 10.1016/S2213-2600(20)30527-0

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 14.

  XieYBoweBMaddukuriGAl-AlyZ. Comparative evaluation of clinical manifestations and risk of death in patients admitted to hospital with covid-19 and seasonal influenza: cohort study. BMJ. (2020) 371:m4677. 10.1136/bmj.m4677

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 15.

  CummingsMJBaldwinMRAbramsDJacobsonSDMeyerBJBaloughEMet al. Epidemiology, clinical course, and outcomes of critically ill adults with COVID-19 in New York City: a prospective cohort study. Lancet. (2020) 395:1763–70. 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31189-2

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 16.

  GavinWCampbellEZaidiS-AGavinNDbeiboLBeelerCet al. Clinical characteristics, outcomes and prognosticators in adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Am J Infect Control. (2021) 49:158–65. 10.1016/j.ajic.2020.07.005

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 17.

  ZiehrDRAlladinaJPetriCRMaleyJHMoskowitzAMedoffBDet al. Respiratory pathophysiology of mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19: a cohort study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. (2020) 201:1560–4. 10.1164/rccm.202004-1163LE

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 18.

  ChenRLiangWJiangMGuanWZhanCWangTet al. Risk factors of fatal outcome in hospitalized subjects with coronavirus disease 2019 from a nationwide analysis in China. Chest. (2020) 158:97–105. 10.1016/j.chest.2020.04.010

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 19.

  ChenTDaiZMoPLiXMaZSongSet al. Clinical characteristics and outcomes of older patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Wuhan, China: a single-centered, retrospective study. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. (2020) 75:1788–95. 10.1093/gerona/glaa089

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 20.

  WuSDuZShenSZhangBYangHLiXet al. Identification and validation of a novel clinical signature to predict the prognosis in confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 patients. Clin Infect Dis. (2020) 71:3154–62. 10.1093/cid/ciaa793

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 21.

  MoherDLiberatiATetzlaffJAltmanDGPRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. (2009) 6:e1000097. 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 22.

  WanXWangWLiuJTongT. Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from the sample size, median, range and/or interquartile range. BMC Med Res Methodol. (2014) 14:135. 10.1186/1471-2288-14-135

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 23.

  Study Quality Assessment Tools. Available online at: https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-topics/study-quality-assessment-tools (accessed May 28, 2021).

  • Google Scholar

• 24.

  OCEBM Levels of Evidence (2020). Available online at: https://www.cebm.ox.ac.uk/resources/levels-of-evidence/ocebm-levels-of-evidence (Accessed March 28, 2021).

• 25.

  DerSimonianRLairdN. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. (1986) 7:177–88. 10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 26.

  HigginsJPTThompsonSGDeeksJJAltmanDG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. (2003) 327:557–60. 10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 27.

  The R Project for Statistical Computing. Available online at: https://www.r-project.org/ (accessed January 4, 2021).

• 28.

  AbeTIzumoTUedaAHayashiMIshibashiY. Successful treatment of two Japanese ESRD cases with severe COVID-19 pneumonia. CEN Case Rep. (2021) 10:42–5. 10.1007/s13730-020-00512-7

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 29.

  ArgenzianoMGBruceSLSlaterCLTiaoJRBaldwinMRBarrRGet al. Characterization and clinical course of 1000 patients with coronavirus disease 2019 in New York: retrospective case series. BMJ. (2020) 369:m1996. 10.1136/bmj.m1996

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 30.

  BarrasaHRelloJTejadaSMartínABalziskuetaGVinuesaCet al. SARS-CoV-2 in spanish intensive care units: early experience with 15-day survival in Vitoria. Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med. (2020) 39:553–61. 10.1016/j.accpm.2020.04.001

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 31.

  BeigmohammadiMTJahanbinBSafaeiMAmoozadehLKhoshaviMMehrtashVet al. Pathological findings of postmortem biopsies from lung, heart, and liver of 7 deceased COVID-19 patients. Int J Surg Pathol. (2021) 29:135–45. 10.1177/1066896920935195

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 32.

  BhatrajuPKGhassemiehBJNicholsMKimRJeromeKRNallaAKet al. Covid-19 in critically ill patients in the seattle region - case series. N Engl J Med. (2020) 382:2012–22. 10.1056/NEJMoa2004500

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 33.

  CauchoisRKoubiMDelarbreDManetCCarvelliJBlascoVBet al. Early IL-1 receptor blockade in severe inflammatory respiratory failure complicating COVID-19. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. (2020) 117:18951–3. 10.1073/pnas.2009017117

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 34.

  ChenNZhouMDongXQuJGongFHanYet al. Epidemiological and clinical characteristics of 99 cases of 2019 novel coronavirus pneumonia in Wuhan, China: a descriptive study. Lancet. (2020) 395:507–13. 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30211-7

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 35.

  ChristieDB3rdNemecHMScottAMBuchananJTFranklinCMAhmedAet al. Early outcomes with utilization of tissue plasminogen activator in COVID-19-associated respiratory distress: a series of five cases. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. (2020) 89:448–52. 10.1097/TA.0000000000002787

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 36.

  DaiMLiuDLiuMZhouFLiGChenZet al. Patients with cancer appear more vulnerable to SARS-CoV-2: a multicenter study during the COVID-19 outbreak. Cancer Discov. (2020) 10:783–91. 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-20-0422

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 37.

  DastanFSaffaeiAHaseliSMarjaniMMoniriAAbtahianZet al. Promising effects of tocilizumab in COVID-19: a non-controlled, prospective clinical trial. Int Immunopharmacol. (2020) 88:106869. 10.1016/j.intimp.2020.106869

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 38.

  De LucaGCavalliGCampochiaroCDella-TorreEAngelilloPTomelleriAet al. GM-CSF blockade with mavrilimumab in severe COVID-19 pneumonia and systemic hyperinflammation: a single-centre, prospective cohort study. Lancet Rheumatol. (2020) 2:e465–73. 10.1016/S2665-9913(20)30170-3

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 39.

  DoganLKayaDSarikayaTZenginRDincerAAkinciIOet al. Plasmapheresis treatment in COVID-19-related autoimmune meningoencephalitis: case series. Brain Behav Immun. (2020) 87:155–8. 10.1016/j.bbi.2020.05.022

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 40.

  ElderCBawaSAndersonDAtkinsonSEtzelJMoritzT. Expectant management of pneumothorax in intubated COVID-19 positive patients: a case series. J Cardiothorac Surg. (2020) 15:263. 10.1186/s13019-020-01297-7

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 41.

  Falces-RomeroIRuiz-BastiánMDíaz-PollánBMasedaEGarcía-RodríguezJSARS-CoV-2 Working Group. Isolation of Aspergillus spp. in respiratory samples of patients with COVID-19 in a Spanish Tertiary Care Hospital. Mycoses. (2020) 63:1144–8. 10.1111/myc.13155

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 42.

  FlikweertAWGrootenboersMJJHYickDCYduMée AWFvan der MeerNJMRettigTCDet al. Late histopathologic characteristics of critically ill COVID-19 patients: different phenotypes without evidence of invasive aspergillosis, a case series. J Crit Care. (2020) 59:149–55. 10.1016/j.jcrc.2020.07.002

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 43.

  GrasselliGGrecoMZanellaAAlbanoGAntonelliMBellaniGet al. Risk factors associated with mortality among patients with COVID-19 in intensive care units in lombardy, Italy. JAMA Intern Med. (2020) 180:1345–55. 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.3539

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 44.

  GreinJOhmagariNShinDDiazGAspergesECastagnaAet al. Compassionate use of remdesivir for patients with severe Covid-19. N Engl J Med. (2020) 382:2327–36. 10.1056/NEJMoa2007016

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 45.

  HalvatsiotisPKotanidouATzannisKJahajEMagiraETheodorakopoulouMet al. Demographic and clinical features of critically ill patients with COVID-19 in Greece: the burden of diabetes and obesity. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. (2020) 166:108331. 10.1016/j.diabres.2020.108331

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 46.

  Hernandez-RomieuACAdelmanMWHocksteinMARobichauxCJEdwardsJAFazioJCet al. Timing of intubation and mortality among critically ill coronavirus disease 2019 patients: a single-center cohort study. Crit Care Med. (2020) 48:e1045–53. 10.1097/CCM.0000000000004600

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 47.

  KatoHShimizuHShibueYHosodaTIwabuchiKNagamineKet al. Clinical course of 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in individuals present during the outbreak on the Diamond Princess cruise ship. J Infect Chemother. (2020) 26:865–9. 10.1016/j.jiac.2020.05.005

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 48.

  KetchamSWAdieSKMalliettAAbdul-AzizAABitarAGraftonGet al. Coronavirus disease-2019 in heart transplant recipients in southeastern michigan: a case series. J Card Fail. (2020) 26:457–61. 10.1016/j.cardfail.2020.05.008

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 49.

  KewanTCovutFAl-JaghbeerMJRoseLGopalakrishnaKVAkbikB. Tocilizumab for treatment of patients with severe COVID-19: a retrospective cohort study. EClin Med. (2020) 24:100418. 10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.100418

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 50.

  KhullarRShahSSinghGBaeJGattuRJainSet al. Effects of prone ventilation on oxygenation, inflammation, and lung infiltrates in COVID-19 related acute respiratory distress syndrome: a retrospective cohort study. J Clin Med Res. (2020) 9:4129. 10.3390/jcm9124129

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 51.

  KonopkaKENguyenTJentzenJMRayesOSchmidtCJWilsonAMet al. Diffuse alveolar damage (DAD) resulting from coronavirus disease 2019 infection is morphologically indistinguishable from other causes of DAD. Histopathology. (2020) 77:570–8. 10.1111/his.14180

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 52.

  KrishnanSPatelKDesaiRSuleAPaikPMillerAet al. Clinical comorbidities, characteristics, and outcomes of mechanically ventilated patients in the State of Michigan with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia. J Clin Anesth. (2020) 67:110005. 10.1016/j.jclinane.2020.110005

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 53.

  KristinssonBKristinsdottirLBBlondalATThormarKMKristjanssonMKarasonSet al. Nationwide incidence and outcomes of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 requiring intensive care in Iceland. Crit Care Med. (2020) 48:e1102–5. 10.1097/CCM.0000000000004582

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 54.

  LêMPJaquetPPatrierJWickyP-HLe HingratQVeyrierMet al. Pharmacokinetics of lopinavir/ritonavir oral solution to treat COVID-19 in mechanically ventilated ICU patients. J Antimicrob Chemother. (2020) 75:2657–60. 10.1093/jac/dkaa261

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 55.

  LeBrunDGKonnarisMAGhahramaniGCPremkumarADeFrancescoCJGruskayJAet al. Hip fracture outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic: early results from New York. J Orthop Trauma. (2020) 34:403–10. 10.1097/BOT.0000000000001849

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 56.

  LechienJRChiesa-EstombaCMDe SiatiDRHoroiMLe BonSDRodriguezAet al. Olfactory and gustatory dysfunctions as a clinical presentation of mild-to-moderate forms of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19): a multicenter European study. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. (2020) 277:2251–61. 10.1007/s00405-020-05965-1

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 57.

  LeeAJYChungCLHYoungBELingLMHoBCHPuahSHet al. Clinical course and physiotherapy intervention in 9 patients with COVID-19. Physiotherapy. (2020) 109:1–3. 10.1016/j.physio.2020.06.002

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 58.

  LiuJZhangSWuZShangYDongXLiGet al. Clinical outcomes of COVID-19 in Wuhan, China: a large cohort study. Ann Intensive Care. (2020) 10:99. 10.1186/s13613-020-00706-3

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 59.

  LoweAChangDDCreekG. Multiple fatalities in a family cluster of COVID-19 with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Ochsner J. (2020) 20:134–8. 10.31486/toj.20.0056

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 60.

  MaritatiFCeruttiEZuccatostaLFiorentiniAFinaleCFicoseccoMet al. SARS-CoV-2 infection in kidney transplant recipients: experience of the italian marche region. Transpl Infect Dis. (2020) 22:e13377. 10.1111/tid.13377

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 61.

  MorassiMBagattoDCobelliMD'AgostiniSGigliGLBnàCet al. Stroke in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection: case series. J Neurol. (2020) 267:2185–92. 10.1007/s00415-020-09885-2

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 62.

  MorillasJAMarco CanosaFSrinivasPAsadiTCalabreseCRajendramPet al. Tocilizumab therapy in 5 solid and composite tissue transplant recipients with early ARDS due to SARS-CoV-2. Am J Transplant. (2020) 20:3191–7. 10.1111/ajt.16080

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 63.

  Navarro-MillánISattuiSELakhanpalAZisaDSiegelCHCrowMK. Use of anakinra to prevent mechanical ventilation in severe COVID-19: a case series. Arthritis Rheumatol. (2020) 72:1990–7. 10.1002/art.41422

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 64.

  NovelliLRaimondiFGhirardiAPellegriniDCapodannoDSotgiuGet al. At the peak of COVID-19 age and disease severity but not comorbidities are predictors of mortality: COVID-19 burden in Bergamo, Italy. Panminerva Med. (2021) 63:51–61. 10.23736/S0031-0808.20.04063-X

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 65.

  PanCChenLLuCZhangWXiaJ-ASklarMCet al. Lung recruitability in COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome: a single-center observational study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. (2020) 201:1294–7. 10.1164/rccm.202003-0527LE

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 66.

  PengMLiuXLiJRenDLiuYMengXet al. Successful management of seven cases of critical COVID-19 with early noninvasive-invasive sequential ventilation algorithm and bundle pharmacotherapy. Front Med. (2020) 14:674–80. 10.1007/s11684-020-0796-3

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 67.

  PlotnikowGAMatesaANadurJMAlonsoMNuñezIIVergaraGet al. Characteristics and outcomes of patients infected with nCoV19 requiring invasive mechanical ventilation in Argentina. Rev Bras Ter Intensiva. (2020) 32:348–53. 10.5935/0103-507X.20200062

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 68.

  RadnisCQiuSJhaveriMDa SilvaISzewkaAKoffmanL. Radiographic and clinical neurologic manifestations of COVID-19 related hypoxemia. J Neurol Sci. (2020) 418:117119. 10.1016/j.jns.2020.117119

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 69.

  RikerRRMayTLFraserGLGagnonDJBandaraMZemrakWRet al. Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia with thrombosis in COVID-19 adult respiratory distress syndrome. Res Pract Thromb Haemost. (2020) 4:936–41. 10.1002/rth2.12390

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 70.

  Rizo-TéllezSAMéndez-GarcíaLAFlores-RebolloCAlba-FloresFAlcántara-SuárezRManjarrez-ReynaANet al. The neutrophil-to-monocyte ratio and lymphocyte-to-neutrophil ratio at admission predict in-hospital mortality in mexican patients with severe SARS-CoV-2 infection (Covid-19). Microorganisms. (2020) 8:1560. 10.3390/microorganisms8101560

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 71.

  SakrYGioviniMLeoneMPizzilliGKortgenABauerMet al. The clinical spectrum of pulmonary thromboembolism in patients with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia: a European case series. J Crit Care. (2021) 61:39–44. 10.1016/j.jcrc.2020.09.021

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 72.

  SchaeferI-MPaderaRFSolomonIHKanjilalSHammerMMHornickJLet al. In situ detection of SARS-CoV-2 in lungs and airways of patients with COVID-19. Mod Pathol. (2020) 33:2104–14. 10.1038/s41379-020-0595-z

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 73.

  ShenCWangZZhaoFYangYLiJYuanJet al. Treatment of 5 critically ill patients with COVID-19 with convalescent plasma. JAMA. (2020) 323:1582–9. 10.1001/jama.2020.4783

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 74.

  SinghSChakravartyTChenPAkhmerovAFalkJFriedmanOet al. Allogeneic cardiosphere-derived cells (CAP-1002) in critically ill COVID-19 patients: compassionate-use case series. Basic Res Cardiol. (2020) 115:36. 10.1007/s00395-020-0795-1

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 75.

  SoCRoSMurakamiMImaiRJintaT. High-dose, short-term corticosteroids for ARDS caused by COVID-19: a case series. Respirol Case Rep. (2020) 8:e00596. 10.1002/rcr2.596

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 76.

  SøvikSBådstøløkkenPMSørensenVMyhrePLPrebensenCOmlandTet al. A single-centre, prospective cohort study of COVID-19 patients admitted to ICU for mechanical ventilatory support. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. (2021) 65:351–9. 10.1111/aas.13726

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 77.

  Stony Brook COVID-19 Research Consortium. Geospatial distribution and predictors of mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: a cohort study. Open Forum Infect Dis. (2020) 7:ofaa436. 10.1093/ofid/ofaa436

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 78.

  WaliARizzoVBilleARoutledgeTChambersAJ. Pneumomediastinum following intubation in COVID-19 patients: a case series. Anaesthesia. (2020) 75:1076–81. 10.1111/anae.15113

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 79.

  WangYLuXLiYChenHChenTSuNet al. Clinical course and outcomes of 344 intensive care patients with COVID-19. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. (2020) 201:1430–4. 10.1164/rccm.202003-0736LE

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 80.

  WangX-HDuanJHanXLiuXZhouJWangXet al. High incidence and mortality of pneumothorax in critically Ill patients with COVID-19. Heart Lung. (2021) 50:37–43. 10.1016/j.hrtlng.2020.10.002

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 81.

  WeiskopfDSchmitzKSRaadsenMPGrifoniAOkbaNMAEndemanHet al. Phenotype and kinetics of SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells in COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Sci Immunol. (2020) 5:eabd2071. 10.1126/sciimmunol.abd2071

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 82.

  WilkAJRustagiAZhaoNQRoqueJMartínez-ColónGJMcKechnieJLet al. A single-cell atlas of the peripheral immune response in patients with severe COVID-19. Nat Med. (2020) 26:1070–6. 10.1038/s41591-020-0944-y

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 83.

  ZhangLLiJZhouMChenZ. Summary of 20 tracheal intubation by anesthesiologists for patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia: retrospective case series. J Anesth. (2020) 34:599–606. 10.1007/s00540-020-02778-8

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 84.

  AkhtarWOlusanyaOBaladiaMMYoungHShahS. SARS-CoV-2 and ECMO: early results and experience. Indian J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. (2020) 37:53–60. 10.1007/s12055-020-01084-y

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 85.

  AlnababtehMHashmiMDVedantamKChopraRKohliAHayatFet al. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for COVID-19 induced hypoxia: single-center study. Perfusion. (2021) 36:564–72. 10.1177/0267659120963885

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 86.

  BeylsCHuettePAbou-ArabOBernaPMahjoubY. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for COVID-19-associated severe acute respiratory distress syndrome and risk of thrombosis. Br J Anaesth. (2020) 125:e260–2. 10.1016/j.bja.2020.04.079

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 87.

  CharltonMDasheySStubbsALaiFYBirdPWBadhwarVet al. Comparing SARS-CoV-2 and influenza A(H1N1)pdm09-infected patients requiring ECMO - a single-centre, retrospective observational cohort experience. J Infect. (2021) 82:84–123. 10.1016/j.jinf.2020.11.003

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 88.

  FalcozP-EMonnierAPuyraveauMPerrierSLudesP-OOllandAet al. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for critically ill patients with COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome: worth the effort?Am J Respir Crit Care Med. (2020) 202:460–3. 10.1164/rccm.202004-1370LE

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 89.

  GoursaudSDescampsRDaubinCdu CheyronDValetteX. Corticosteroid use in selected patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome related to COVID-19. J Infect. (2020) 81:e89–90. 10.1016/j.jinf.2020.05.023

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 90.

  GuihaireJOwyangCGMadhokJLaverdureFGaillardMGiraultAet al. Specific considerations for venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation during coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. ASAIO J. (2020) 66:1069–72. 10.1097/MAT.0000000000001251

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 91.

  GuoZSunLLiBTianRZhangXZhangZet al. Anticoagulation management in severe coronavirus disease 2019 patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. (2021) 35:389–97. 10.1053/j.jvca.2020.08.067

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 92.

  Heman-AckahSMSuYSSpadolaMPetrovDChenHISchusterJet al. Neurologically devastating intraparenchymal hemorrhage in COVID-19 patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: a case series. Neurosurgery. (2020) 87:E147–51. 10.1093/neuros/nyaa198

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 93.

  HuettePBeylsCGuilbartMCoquetABernaPHayeGet al. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for respiratory failure in COVID-19 patients: outcome and time-course of clinical and biological parameters. Can J Anaesth. (2020) 67:1486–8. 10.1007/s12630-020-01727-z

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 94.

  JäckelMRilingerJLangCNZotzmannVKaierKStachonPet al. Outcome of acute respiratory distress syndrome requiring extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in Covid-19 or influenza: a single-center registry study. Artif Organs. (2021) 45:593–601. 10.1111/aor.13865

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 95.

  JacobsJPStammersAHSt LouisJHayangaJWAFirstenbergMSMongeroLBet al. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in the treatment of severe pulmonary and cardiac compromise in coronavirus disease 2019: experience with 32 patients. ASAIO J. (2020) 66:722–30. 10.1097/MAT.0000000000001185

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 96.

  KonZNSmithDEChangSHGoldenbergRMAngelLFCarilloJAet al. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support in severe COVID-19. Ann Thorac Surg. (2021) 111:537–43. 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2020.07.002

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 97.

  Le BretonCBessetSFreita-RamosSAmourettiMBillietPADaoMet al. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for refractory COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome. J Crit Care. (2020) 60:10–12. 10.1016/j.jcrc.2020.07.013

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 98.

  LiXGuoZLiBZhangXTianRWuWet al. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for coronavirus disease 2019 in Shanghai, China. ASAIO J. (2020) 66:475–81. 10.1097/MAT.0000000000001172

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 99.

  LiuJDongY-QYinJHeGWuXLiJet al. Critically ill patients with COVID-19 with ECMO and artificial liver plasma exchange: a retrospective study. Medicine. (2020) 99:e21012. 10.1097/MD.0000000000021012

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 100.

  LoforteADal CheccoEGliozziGBenedettoMCavalliGGMarianiCet al. Veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support in COVID-19 respiratory distress syndrome: initial experience. ASAIO J. (2020) 66:734–8. 10.1097/MAT.0000000000001198

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 101.

  MatsunagaNHayakawaKTeradaMOhtsuHAsaiYTsuzukiSet al. Clinical epidemiology of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in Japan: report of the COVID-19 REGISTRY JAPAN. Clin Infect Dis. (2020). 10.1093/cid/ciaa1470

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 102.

  MiikeSSakamotoNWashinoTKosakaAKuwaharaYIshidaTet al. Critically ill patients with COVID-19 in Tokyo, Japan: a single-center case series. J Infect Chemother. (2021) 27:291–5. 10.1016/j.jiac.2020.10.019

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 103.

  MustafaAKAlexanderPJJoshiDJTabachnickDRCrossCAPappasPSet al. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for patients with COVID-19 in severe respiratory failure. JAMA Surg. (2020) 155:990–2. 10.1001/jamasurg.2020.3950

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 104.

  OshoAAMoonsamyPHibbertKASheltonKTTrahanasJMAttiaRQet al. Veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for respiratory failure in COVID-19 patients: early experience from a major academic medical center in North America. Ann Surg. (2020) 272:e75–8. 10.1097/SLA.0000000000004084

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 105.

  RonitABergRMGBayJTHaugaardAKAhlströmMGBurgdorfKSet al. Compartmental immunophenotyping in COVID-19 ARDS: a case series. J Allergy Clin Immunol. (2021) 147:81–91. 10.1016/j.jaci.2020.09.009

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 106.

  SchmidtMHajageDLebretonGMonselAVoiriotGLevyDet al. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for severe acute respiratory distress syndrome associated with COVID-19: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet Respir Med. (2020) 8:1121–31. 10.1016/S2213-2600(20)30328-3

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 107.

  ShihEDiMaioJMSquiersJJBanwaitJKMeyerDMGeorgeTJet al. Venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for patients with refractory coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): multicenter experience of referral hospitals in a large health care system. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. (2020) (inpress). 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2020.11.073

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 108.

  SultanIHabertheuerAUsmanAAKilicAGnallEFrisciaMEet al. The role of extracorporeal life support for patients with COVID-19: preliminary results from a statewide experience. J Card Surg. (2020) 35:1410–3. 10.1111/jocs.14583

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 109.

  UsmanAAHanJAckerAOliaSEBermudezCCucchiaraBet al. A case series of devastating intracranial hemorrhage during venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for COVID-19. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. (2020) 34:3006–12. 10.1053/j.jvca.2020.07.063

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 110.

  XuanWChenCJiangXZhangXZhuHZhangSet al. Clinical characteristics and outcomes of five critical COVID-19 patients treated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in Leishenshan Hospital in Wuhan. J Clin Anesth. (2020) 67:110033. 10.1016/j.jclinane.2020.110033

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 111.

  XuJXieJDuBTongZQiuHBagshawSM. Clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with severe COVID-19 induced acute kidney injury. J Intensive Care Med. (2021) 36:319–26. 10.1177/0885066620970858

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 112.

  YangXCaiSLuoYZhuFHuMZhaoYet al. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for coronavirus disease 2019-induced acute respiratory distress syndrome: a multicenter descriptive study. Crit Care Med. (2020) 48:1289–95. 10.1097/CCM.0000000000004447

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 113.

  ZayatRKalverkampSGrottkeODurakKDreherMAutschbachRet al. Role of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in critically Ill COVID-19 patients and predictors of mortality. Artif Organs. (2021) 45:E158–70. 10.1111/aor.13873

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 114.

  ZengYCaiZXianyuYYangBXSongTYanQ. Prognosis when using extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) for critically ill COVID-19 patients in China: a retrospective case series. Crit Care. (2020) 24:148. 10.1186/s13054-020-2840-8

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 115.

  ZengJ-HWuW-BQuJ-XWangYDongC-FLuoY-Fet al. Cardiac manifestations of COVID-19 in Shenzhen, China. Infection. (2020) 48:861–70. 10.1007/s15010-020-01473-w

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 116.

  ZhangJMerrickBCorreaGLCamporotaLRetterADoyleAet al. Veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in coronavirus disease 2019: a case series. ERJ Open Res. (2020) 6:00463. 10.1183/23120541.00463-2020

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 117.

  ZhangQShenJChenLLiSZhangWJiangCet al. Timing of invasive mechanic ventilation in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. (2020) 89:1092–8. 10.1097/TA.0000000000002939

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 118.

  ZhengYSunL-JXuMPanJZhangY-TFangX-Let al. Clinical characteristics of 34 COVID-19 patients admitted to intensive care unit in Hangzhou, China. J Zhejiang Univ Sci B. (2020) 21:378–87. 10.1631/jzus.B2000174

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 119.

  FengYAmoateng-AdjepongYKaufmanDGheorgheCManthousCA. Age, duration of mechanical ventilation, and outcomes of patients who are critically ill. Chest. (2009) 136:759–64. 10.1378/chest.09-0515

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 120.

  FaisyCMezianiFPlanquetteBClavelMGacouinABornstainCet al. Effect of acetazolamide vs. placebo on duration of invasive mechanical ventilation among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. (2016) 315:480–8. 10.1001/jama.2016.0019

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 121.

  BarbierFCoquetILegrielSPavieJDarmonMMayauxJet al. Etiologies and outcome of acute respiratory failure in HIV-infected patients. Intensive Care Med. (2009) 35:1678–86. 10.1007/s00134-009-1559-4

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 122.

  EstebanAAnzuetoAFrutosFAlíaIBrochardLStewartTEet al. Characteristics and outcomes in adult patients receiving mechanical ventilation: a 28-day international study. JAMA. (2002) 287:345–55. 10.1001/jama.287.3.345

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 123.

  ShorrAFBodiMRodriguezASole-ViolanJGarnacho-MonteroJRelloJet al. Impact of antibiotic guideline compliance on duration of mechanical ventilation in critically ill patients with community-acquired pneumonia. Chest. (2006) 130:93–100. 10.1016/S0012-3692(15)50958-6

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 124.

  WangJ-TShengW-HFangC-TChenY-CWangJ-LYuC-Jet al. Clinical manifestations, laboratory findings, and treatment outcomes of SARS patients. Emerg Infect Dis. (2004) 10:818–24. 10.3201/eid1005.030640

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 125.

  TsaiM-JYangK-YChanM-CKaoK-CWangH-CPerngW-Cet al. Impact of corticosteroid treatment on clinical outcomes of influenza-associated ARDS: a nationwide multicenter study. Ann Intensive Care. (2020) 10:26. 10.1186/s13613-020-0642-4

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 126.

  KovacevicPMatijasevicJDragicSZlojutroBGavrilovicSJandricMet al. Characteristics and outcomes of critically ill patients with influenza A (H1N1) in the Western Balkans during the 2019 post-pandemic season. Indian J Med Microbiol. (2020) 38:415–20. 10.4103/ijmm.IJMM_20_169

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 127.

  LudwigMJacobJBasedowFAndersohnFWalkerJ. Clinical outcomes and characteristics of patients hospitalized for Influenza or COVID-19 in Germany. Int J Infect Dis. (2021) 103:316–22. 10.1016/j.ijid.2020.11.204

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 128.

  PeekGJMugfordMTiruvoipatiRWilsonAAllenEThalananyMMet al. Efficacy and economic assessment of conventional ventilatory support versus extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for severe adult respiratory failure (CESAR): a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet. (2009) 374:1351–63. 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61069-2

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 129.

  CombesAHajageDCapellierGDemouleALavouéSGuervillyCet al. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med. (2018) 378:1965–75. 10.1056/NEJMoa1800385

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 130.

  SukhalSSethiJGaneshMVillablancaPAMalhotraAKRamakrishnaH. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in severe influenza infection with respiratory failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Card Anaesth. (2017) 20:14–21. 10.4103/0971-9784.197820

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 131.

  GuanW-JNiZ-YHuYLiangW-HOuC-QHeJ-Xet al. Clinical characteristics of coronavirus disease 2019 in China. N Engl J Med. (2020) 382:1708–20. 10.1056/NEJMoa2002032

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 132.

  RanneyMLGriffethVJhaAK. Critical supply shortages - the need for ventilators and personal protective equipment during the Covid-19 pandemic. N Engl J Med. (2020) 382:e41. 10.1056/NEJMp2006141

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 133.

  CarrilloAGonzalez-DiazGFerrerMMartinez-QuintanaMELopez-MartinezALlamasNet al. Non-invasive ventilation in community-acquired pneumonia and severe acute respiratory failure. Intensive Care Med. (2012) 38:458–66. 10.1007/s00134-012-2475-6

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 134.

  KangBJKohYLimC-MHuhJWBaekSHanMet al. Failure of high-flow nasal cannula therapy may delay intubation and increase mortality. Intensive Care Med. (2015) 41:623–32. 10.1007/s00134-015-3693-5

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 135.

  BrouquiPAmraneSMillionMCortaredonaSParolaPLagierJ-Cet al. Asymptomatic hypoxia in COVID-19 is associated with poor outcome. Int J Infect Dis. (2021) 102:233–8. 10.1016/j.ijid.2020.10.067

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 136.

  RamachandranPSwamyLKaulVAgrawalA. A national strategy for ventilator and ICU resource allocation during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Chest. (2020) 158:887–9. 10.1016/j.chest.2020.04.050

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 137.

  CunninghamJWVaduganathanMClaggettBLJeringKSBhattASRosenthalNet al. Clinical outcomes in young US adults hospitalized with COVID-19. JAMA Intern Med. (2021) 181:379–81. 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.5313

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 138.

  Karaca-MandicPGeorgiouASenS. Assessment of COVID-19 hospitalizations by race/ethnicity in 12 States. JAMA Intern Med. (2021) 181:131–4. 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.3857

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 139.

  ZebergHPääboS. The major genetic risk factor for severe COVID-19 is inherited from Neanderthals. Nature. (2020) 587:610–2. 10.1038/s41586-020-2818-3

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar