A Novel Scale to Assess Humidification during Noninvasive Ventilation: A Prospective Observational Study.

Objective: To develop a novel scale to assess humidification during noninvasive ventilation (NIV). Methods: This study was performed in an ICU of a teaching hospital. Three ICU practitioners with more than 10 years of clinical experience developed an oral humidification scale with a range of 1-4 points. Each studied the current literature on humidification and examined 50 images of mouths of NIV patients with different levels of humidification. Then, through discussion, a consensus scale was developed. Next, 10 practitioners and 33 NIV patients were recruited to validate the scale. Finally, the patients rated the dryness of their mouths using the 1-4 visual scale just after the practitioners' assessment. Talking and discussion were forbidden during the assessment, and the scorers were blinded to each other. Results: We performed 36 assessments in 33 NIV patients. Three patients were assessed twice each more than 2 days apart. The interitem correlation coefficients between the 10 practitioners ranged from 0.748 to 0.917. Fleiss's kappa statistic was 0.516, indicating moderate agreement among practitioners. Of the 33 patients, 5 (15%) were unable to make an assessment using the 1-4 visual scale. Among the remainder, 55.7% provided scores that matched those given by the practitioners; 13.7% of scores were 1 point higher than that rated by the practitioners, and 20.7% were 1 point lower. Only 10% were beyond a 1-point difference. The kappa coefficient was 0.483 between patients and practitioners. Conclusions: The oral humidification scale showed moderate agreement between practitioners. It was also highly accurate in reflecting the level of humidification assessed by patients.

Diagnostic efficacy of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG/IgM test for COVID-19: A meta-analysis.

The serological testing of anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G (IgG) and/or IgM is widely used in the diagnosis of COVID-19. However, its diagnostic efficacy remains unclear. In this study, we searched for diagnostic studies from the Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, CNKI, and Wanfang databases to calculate the pooled diagnostic accuracy measures using bivariate random-effects model meta-analysis. As a result, 22 from a total of 1613 articles, including 2282 patients with SARS-CoV-2 and 1485 healthy persons or patients without SARS-CoV-2, were selected for a meta-analysis. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, and area under curve of the summary receiver operator curve (SROC) were: (a) 0.85 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.79-0.90), 0.99 (95% CI: 0.98-1.00), and 0.99 (95% CI: 0.97-0.99) for anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG and (b) 0.74 (95% CI: 0.65-0.81), 0.99 (95% CI: 0.97-1.00), and 0.95 (95% CI: 0.93-0.97) for IgM. A subgroup analysis among detection methods indicated the sensitivity of IgG and IgM using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay were slightly lower than those using gold immunochromatography assay (GICA) and chemiluminescence immunoassay (P > .05). These results showed that the detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgM had high diagnostic efficiency to assist the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. And, GICA might be used as the preferred method for its accuracy and simplicity.

Laboratory findings of COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

The Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) pandemic first broke out in December 2019 in Wuhan, China, and has now spread worldwide. Laboratory findings have been only partially described in some observational studies. To date, more comprehensive systematic reviews of laboratory findings on COVID-19 are missing. We performed a systematic review with a meta-analysis to assess laboratory findings in patients with COVID-19. Observational studies from three databases were selected. We calculated pooled proportions and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) using the random-effects model meta-analysis. A total of 1106 articles were identified from PubMed, Web of Science, CNKI (China), and other sources. After screening, 28 and 7 studies were selected for a systematic review and a meta-analysis, respectively. Of the 4,663 patients included, the most prevalent laboratory finding was increased C-reactive protein (CRP; 73.6%, 95% CI 65.0-81.3%), followed by decreased albumin (62.9%, 95% CI 28.3-91.2%), increased erythrocyte sedimentation rate (61.2%, 95% CI 41.3-81.0%), decreased eosinophils (58.4%, 95% CI 46.5-69.8%), increased interleukin-6 (53.1%, 95% CI 36.0-70.0%), lymphopenia (47.9%, 95% CI 41.6-54.9%), and increased lactate dehydrogenase (LDH; 46.2%, 95% CI 37.9-54.7%). A meta-analysis of seven studies with 1905 patients showed that increased CRP (OR 3.0, 95% CI: 2.1-4.4), lymphopenia (OR 4.5, 95% CI: 3.3-6.0), and increased LDH (OR 6.7, 95% CI: 2.4-18.9) were significantly associated with severity. These results demonstrated that more attention is warranted when interpreting laboratory findings in patients with COVID-19. Patients with elevated CRP levels, lymphopenia, or elevated LDH require proper management and, if necessary, transfer to the intensive care unit.

Nosocomial pneumonia in non-invasive ventilation patients: incidence, characteristics, and outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Nosocomial pneumonia occasionally occurs in non-invasive ventilation (NIV) patients. AIM: To report the incidence, characteristics, and outcomes of nosocomial pneumonia in NIV patients. METHODS: A prospective observational study was performed in a respiratory intensive care unit (ICU). After admission, patients who received NIV for more than 48 h were enrolled. Pneumonia was considered nosocomial when it occurred after at least 48 h of NIV. FINDINGS: Between January 2012 and August 2014, we enrolled 520 NIV patients. Nosocomial pneumonia occurred in 16 patients (3.1%). The nosocomial pneumonia rate was 4.5 cases per 1000 NIV-days. The most common pathogen was Acinetobacter baumannii (81%). At the initiation of NIV, there were no differences in age, gender, diagnosis, disease severity, or arterial blood gas findings between patients with and without nosocomial pneumonia. Compared to patients without nosocomial pneumonia, nosocomial pneumonia patients had a longer duration of NIV (8.4 vs 5.0 days, P < 0.01), a longer ICU stay (10.8 vs 7.9 days, P = 0.01), a longer hospital stay (25.9 vs 15.3 days, P = 0.04), a higher intubation rate (63% vs 21%, P < 0.01), and higher hospital mortality (75% vs 25%, P < 0.01). Nosocomial pneumonia was an independent risk factor for intubation (OR: 6.74; 95% CI: 2.24-20.28) and death (7.65; 1.34-43.72). CONCLUSION: The incidence of nosocomial pneumonia in NIV patients in this population was 3.1%. Nosocomial pneumonia increased the time that NIV was required, length of ICU stay, length of hospital stay, intubation rate, and hospital mortality.