In:
PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science (PLoS), Vol. 17, No. 5 ( 2022-5-26), p. e0268734-
Kurzfassung:
In a previous study, we had investigated the intensive care course of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the first wave in Germany by calculating models for prognosticating in-hospital death with univariable and multivariable regression analysis. This study analyzed if these models were also applicable to patients with COVID-19 in the second wave. Methods This retrospective cohort study included 98 critical care patients with COVID-19, who had been treated at the University Medical Center Regensburg, Germany, between October 2020 and February 2021. Data collected for each patient included vital signs, dosage of catecholamines, analgosedation, anticoagulation, and antithrombotic medication, diagnostic blood tests, treatment with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), intensive care scores, ventilator therapy, and pulmonary gas exchange. Using these data, expected mortality was calculated by means of the originally developed mathematical models, thereby testing the models for their applicability to patients in the second wave. Results Mortality in the second-wave cohort did not significantly differ from that in the first-wave cohort (41.8% vs. 32.2%, p = 0.151). As in our previous study, individual parameters such as pH of blood or mean arterial pressure (MAP) differed significantly between survivors and non-survivors. In contrast to our previous study, however, survivors and non-survivors in this study showed significant or even highly significant differences in pulmonary gas exchange and ventilator therapy (e.g. mean and minimum values for oxygen saturation and partial pressure of oxygen, mean values for the fraction of inspired oxygen, positive expiratory pressure, tidal volume, and oxygenation ratio). ECMO therapy was more frequently administered than in the first-wave cohort. Calculations of expected mortality by means of the originally developed univariable and multivariable models showed that the use of simple cut-off values for pH, MAP, troponin, or combinations of these parameters resulted in correctly estimated outcome in approximately 75% of patients without ECMO therapy.
Materialart:
Online-Ressource
ISSN:
1932-6203
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0268734
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0268734.g001
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0268734.g002
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0268734.t001
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0268734.t002
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0268734.s001
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0268734.s002
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0268734.s003
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0268734.s004
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0268734.s005
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0268734.s006
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0268734.s007
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0268734.s008
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0268734.s009
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0268734.s010
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0268734.s011
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0268734.s012
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0268734.s013
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0268734.r001
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0268734.r002
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0268734.r003
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0268734.r004
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0268734.r005
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0268734.r006
Sprache:
Englisch
Verlag:
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Publikationsdatum:
2022
ZDB Id:
2267670-3
