4.6 Review

Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia in Patients with COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

期刊

ANTIBIOTICS-BASEL
卷 10, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/antibiotics10050545

关键词

COVID-19; ventilator-associated pneumonia; meta-analysis; invasive mechanical ventilation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to estimate the occurrence of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) among COVID-19 patients in the ICU and the mortality rate of those who developed VAP. The results showed that the estimated occurrence of VAP in COVID-19 patients was 45.4%, the mortality rate was 42.7%, and the mean ICU length of stay was approximately 28.58 days.
The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to estimate the pooled occurrence of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) among patients admitted to an intensive care unit with COVID-19 and mortality of those who developed VAP. We performed a systematic search on PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science from inception to 2(nd) March 2021 for nonrandomized studies specifically addressing VAP in adult patients with COVID-19 and reporting data on at least one primary outcome of interest. Random effect single-arm meta-analysis was performed for the occurrence of VAP and mortality (at the longest follow up) and ICU length of stay. Twenty studies were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis, for a total of 2611 patients with at least one episode of VAP. The pooled estimated occurrence of VAP was of 45.4% (95% C.I. 37.8-53.2%; 2611/5593 patients; I-2 = 96%). The pooled estimated occurrence of mortality was 42.7% (95% C.I. 34-51.7%; 371/946 patients; I-2 = 82%). The estimated summary estimated metric mean ICU LOS was 28.58 days (95% C.I. 21.4-35.8; I-2 = 98%). Sensitivity analysis showed that patients with COVID-19 may have a higher risk of developing VAP than patients without COVID-19 (OR 3.24; 95% C.I. 2.2-4.7; P = 0.015; I-2 = 67.7%; five studies with a comparison group).

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据