Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Más filtros

Bases de datos
Tipo del documento
País de afiliación
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Cureus ; 16(7): e65462, 2024 Jul.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39184683

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 is a viral infection affecting the respiratory system, primarily. It has spread globally ever since it first appeared in China in 2019. The use of high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) for the treatment of COVID-19 has not been well established. OBJECTIVES: The primary objectives of this study are to observe the success of HFNO in preventing escalation to mechanical ventilation (MV) and to measure the prevalence of HFNO in King Abdulaziz Medical City (KAMC). The secondary objective is to describe patients who received HFNO clinically. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of all polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-confirmed COVID-19 patients who require oxygen therapy in KAMC, Jeddah between March 1st, 2020, and December 31st, 2020. Any patients requiring MV on admission were excluded. RESULTS: 259 patients fit the inclusion criteria, and 25.5% of those included received HFNO. The number of non-survivors is 47 (18.1%). Mortality for HFNO, MV, and intensive care unit (ICU) are 30 (45.5%), 31 (60.8%), and 24 (32%), respectively. Their demographic was as follows; 160 were males, with a mean age of 60.93±15.01. Regarding the types of oxygen, low-flow nasal oxygen (LFNO) was administered to 243 out of the 259 patients, 66 received HFNO, 42 received MV, and 49 received other modes of ventilation. Additionally, 43.9% received HFNO escalated to MV. Patients who did not receive HFNO or MV were 178 (68.7%) in total. CONCLUSION: The use of HFNO in COVID-19 patients could show better outcomes than MV in addition to preventing the use of MV. Larger studies are required to determine the efficacy of HFNO in COVID-19 patients.

2.
Int J Crit Illn Inj Sci ; 12(2): 70-76, 2022.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35845124

RESUMEN

Background: Delirium in critically ill patients is independently associated with poor clinical outcomes. There is a scarcity of published data on the prevalence of delirium among critically ill patients in Saudi Arabia. Therefore, we sought to determine, in a multicenter fashion, the prevalence of delirium in critically ill patients in Saudi Arabia and explore associated risk factors. Methods: A cross-sectional point prevalence study was conducted on January 28, 2020, at 14 intensive care units (ICUs) across 3 universities and 11 other tertiary care hospitals in Saudi Arabia. Delirium was screened once using the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist. We excluded patients who were unable to participate in a valid delirium assessment, patients admitted with traumatic brain injury, and patients with documented dementia in their medical charts. Results: Of the 407 screened ICU patients, 233 patients were enrolled and 45.9% were diagnosed with delirium. The prevalence was higher in mechanically ventilated patients compared to patients not mechanically ventilated (57.5% vs. 33.6%; P < 0.001). In a multivariate model, risk factors independently associated with delirium included age (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.021; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-1.04; P = 0.008), mechanical ventilation (AOR, 2.39; 95% CI, 1.34-4.28; P = 0.003), and higher severity of illness (AOR, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.001-1.021; P = 0.026). Conclusion: In our study, delirium remains a prevalent complication, with distinct risk factors. Further studies are necessary to investigate long-term outcomes of delirium in critically ill patients in Saudi Arabia.

SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA