4.7 Review

Acute respiratory failure in COVID-19: is it typical ARDS?

期刊

CRITICAL CARE
卷 24, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s13054-020-02911-9

关键词

Coronavirus; COVID-19; Acute respiratory distress syndrome; Berlin criteria

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81671936]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In December 2019, an outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was identified in Wuhan, China. The World Health Organization (WHO) declared this outbreak a significant threat to international health. COVID-19 is highly infectious and can lead to fatal comorbidities especially acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Thus, fully understanding the characteristics of COVID-19-related ARDS is conducive to early identification and precise treatment. We aimed to describe the characteristics of COVID-19-related ARDS and to elucidate the differences from ARDS caused by other factors. COVID-19 mainly affected the respiratory system with minor damage to other organs. Injury to the alveolar epithelial cells was the main cause of COVID-19-related ARDS, and endothelial cells were less damaged with therefore less exudation. The clinical manifestations were relatively mild in some COVID-19 patients, which was inconsistent with the severity of laboratory and imaging findings. The onset time of COVID-19-related ARDS was 8-12days, which was inconsistent with ARDS Berlin criteria, which defined a 1-week onset limit. Some of these patients might have a relatively normal lung compliance. The severity was redefined into three stages according to its specificity: mild, mild-moderate, and moderate-severe. HFNO can be safe in COVID-19-related ARDS patients, even in some moderate-severe patients. The more likely cause of death is severe respiratory failure. Thus, the timing of invasive mechanical ventilation is very important. The effects of corticosteroids in COVID-19-related ARDS patients were uncertain. We hope to help improve the prognosis of severe cases and reduce the mortality.

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

4.7
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